Member Info for cindercone

You forgot shareholder returns, a vital criteria for which executives should be judged.

The policy dictates that the board's bonuses are subject to shareholder approval. If this was not the case, directors might receive bonuses irrespective of performance and such terms would be a closed shop open to abuse and corruption.

You seem intent on stripping shareholders of their rights.

Because enough votes and they won't get their bonuses. Last year was barely in their favour, which proves that shareholder votes can have a cumulative effect.

"I also am fascinated that some pi’s think they are important enough to stop Directors getting part of their remuneration."

Why are you voting for or against then?

Why do I get the impression that they've been sitting on this news for some time and are only releasing it now because the AGM is due and shareholders can soon vote for director remuneration?

Yes, there is a lot still to be positive about, but what have we learnt over the past few days? The mini-grid is finally going ahead, albeit 18 month late, and production is being ramped up to 8,400mtv. Already knew that. Funding will come from profits, assuming the company's estimates on Vanadium consumption are correct and they have the profits to hand.

I'll still be voting against director bonuses. Comms have been appalling the past 12-18 months and the SP is on the floor. FM has also been disingenuous in interviews. For example, he told us he would do something about the SP despite knowing Duferco were about to dump 60 million shares on the market. We were also told there would be BE updates - yet six months later, nothing.

Shareholders hung their hat on those empty promises and were let down.

BMN need to start treating shareholders with more respect, which means far more regular updates, especially on production as we're constantly in the dark about production levels and exactly where it's going. We shouldn't have to wait three months for quarterlies and shareholders shouldn't have to keep joining up the dots, BMN need to do it for us.

BMN has the potential to be a goliath and if management's foresight and our foresight as shareholders is accurate this is one of the best potential investments on AIM, but until that happens the directors do not deserve bonus payments because they have used our money and delivered abysmal returns to date.

If BE is NOT providing vanadium for VRFB projects in South Africa then Nikomarov should be sacked on the spot and have rotten tomatoes thrown at his head.

34%

Don't lump me in with coffeecups, I still believe there is huge value here.

1. Vanadium prices should hold up with post-Covid infrastructure spending and increase in VRFB demand regardless of BE's involvement. It may even spike significantly upwards if China can get a grip on Covid.

2. Costs are reducing, adding to profitability.

3. As and when operational, electrolyte plant will sell V at a further premium in 2023.

4. RBC is simply a replacement for Peel Hunt, nothing to do with a fundraise - there's no reason to fundraise.

I'm simply suggesting that the board does not deserve salary/bonus due to a seriously underperforming SP and if Nikomarov cannot drive BE with a level of competence that far exceeds his performance to date then he should be replaced.

This RNS is just news for the sake of news and further evidence of how BMN is horribly out of touch with market sentiment.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention eatstocks. We already know the board planned to increase production to 8,000+ mtv over a 3-5 year timeframe, and that a fund raise is irrelevant until the company is stable and profitable at 5,400mtv.

Totally pointless RNS that tells us nothing we didn't already know. If this their idea of comms, they need a new marketing strategy. Pressure needs to be exerted on the board:

1. Vote against all salary/bonus increases.
2. Raise a resolution to remove Mikael Nikomarov from BE if he cannot justify his salary

Don't be silly. The objective remains to ramp up to 8,400 mtv over 3-5 years in a price environment that reflects renewable energy storage being a necessity. The question mark is whether the board has all the right cogs in the wheel capable of delivering it.

That's why you need to make sure your broker sends you a proxy form so you can vote against bonuses for board members this year. By 2023, if BE has made little to no progress with electrolyte contracts, shareholders need to raise a special resolution to remove Mikhael Nikomarov from the board.

@Pdub

You're right, we don't know enough about what's happening - and who's fault is that? The SP is at a four-year low and Mojapelo has a track record of broken promises, missed targets and faltering progress. Forget what we don't know - the future, bonuses are being paid today, not next year or the year after.

Will shareholders ever see true value or are we a mere afterthought? Like I said previously, BMN Is a listed company, not a lifestyle company. Mojapelo and Nikomarov are being rewarded handsomely while shareholders are left carrying the can for their insufficient progress. That's why I believe a message needs to be sent out and now is the time to do it.

I think it's fairly obvious that, for now, shareholders should be exercising their voting rights and putting a stop to director bonuses at the very least. It needs to be made clear that the SP performance, along with their pathetic comms, is completely unsatisfactory.

So, what did meth mouth Winnifrith post to drop the SP? Hard to believe people trade based on anything that fraudulent imbecile says.

@markinvestor - you don't think agreements were in place before previous strikes? lol

This is South Africa, not London. The workers will still go on strike if they feel like it.

"Personally I want workers in companies I invest in to be well paid and not exploited."

Maybe it's BMN that's being exploited as if the workers don't get what they want they will deliberately halt production.

The BMN annual report has to be completed by end of month so make sure you write to your broker to ensure they will enable you to vote for or against director remuneration via proxy. Personally, I will be voting no to all bonuses due to poor SP performance, the board's failure to communicate with shareholders on a consistent basis and FM fobbing off investors regarding BE updates.

This is not a lifestyle company. Write to Head of Compliance kate.bredin@bushveldminerals.com if you want more information on how to vote against director remuneration.

From my perspective, this board is fairly balanced these days, mostly because a lot of holders have sold out, are bored or can now be found jerking each other off on Telegram. You have to expect negativity when the SP sits where it does.

Ultimately, if the board cannot exploit the opportunity they should be replaced. They should certainly not be receiving bonus payments for their shoddy performance and lack of comms over the past 12 months. Unhappy shareholders need to get on to their brokers and obtain the relevant proxy forms that will enable them to vote against bonus payments etc.

@Pdub

Personally, I wouldn't say the V price over the past 24 months has been particularly volatile, and the general trend has been upward, i.e. in Bushveld's favour, so I don't see how this 'volatility' has been the impediment to BMN that you suggest. In fact, it's the opposite, V price up, share price down.

Neither did I say that BMN wasn't hampered by Covid, I said, to what extent? Enough to shelve or seriously delay the mini-grid or electrolyte plant by years - or is this just more over-optimistic targets/bad planning? Floods are a nuisance, temporarily impacting sales - of course that's excusable, but I don't see how that knocks BE off course, changes plant refurbishment plans for a prolonged period or affects lousy comms?

Shares are a reward for running a successful business, but I don't see how FM or the board can claim to be running a successful business. To date, BMN was only noticeably profitable when the V price spiked due to events completely out of the company's control. One might ask why they are given any bonuses at all, let alone paid such high remuneration when they have delivered practically nothing to the shareholders whose money they're using to run the business.

Anyway, we could go on all day. You seem to think the board should be rewarded for failure, I believe they should be rewarded for success. Yes, businesses are difficult to run, there are many obstacles, it can take time and investment, but when they're spending other people's money, nobody in their right mind - as you like to put it - should expect board members to be paid disproportionate sums of money until they have delivered shareholder returns.

Hope you're well, CC.