Member Info for observer842

Indeed @Dallas. But the point I'm trying to relay is that from @Kiran's perspective he had a certain "rate" of pay at some point which included share based payments, and in the summer of 2017 the BoD reduced his rate by 38-40%, which in practice meant that the share based payments element was slashed. By the way, I've only just figured this out tonight. Cheers! ;-)

@Dallas i.e. It's quite credible to me that 38-40% cut @Kiran was referring to was his in his total remuneration package. I can't figure out what else he might have been referring to! Can you?

@Dallas. It's how it is worked out on the books, and for certain tax purposes (@desgie! LoL). The options are worth what they are worth when they are issued. Give the situation we were in at the time I would have taken the options rather than the cash! So yes, it was a reduction in total remuneration for sure ;-)

OK - I presume we are talking about @Kiran's claim in the July webinar last year that he took 38-40% pay cut. His total remuneration for 2016 was £293,280 and this dropped to £150,654 in 2017. Therefore the drop was actually 48.6%, so perhaps he was miss-remembering and he actually means a 48 to 49% pay cut?

But it's perhaps more nuanced than that - he might have been talking about a rate of pay cut of 38%-40% (salary + share based payments: he doesn't get any consultancy fees), which makes more sense to me as the 48.6% pay cut can only be worked out at the end of the year. i.e. in practice he ended up taking more of a pay cut in 2017 than he projected in the summer. In fact didn't I deduce that in a later webinar? Now it makes sense! ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8l4e4f8GZE#t=36m

Sure it would! If we did what @Bannor wants and sat on our hands waiting for value out of the Sonora JV's the consulting fees would drop significantly. That's why the BoD have split it up IMHO to show us that we can cut down on costs significantly if need be.

Can you tell I'm stalling for time? LoL

That's fine though isn't it? Salary tending to zero is good from our point of view! Means they only get paid for work done ;-) Do you agree that the figures shown in the annual report are total received for the year, not "rates of remuneration". i.e. if someone joined half way through the year, their annual salary would be twice that shown in that table?

The way I see it the BoD are trying to be clearer. They have always been paid "Salary and Consulting fees" shortened to "Salary and Fees" and this year they are letting us know the contribution of the two to the total, splitting it into two rows "Salary and fees" (which should have just been labelled "Salary") and "Consulting fees".

Do you agree that in the 2017 accounts where it says "Salary and fees" it should actually just say "Salary"? i.e. It's a typo.

Indeed - the 553 ;-) Oh no. Not the salary reduction thing! LoL ;-) OK - I'll see if I can make something up as equally as plausible. You'll believe anything. Joke!

Here is some more supporting evidence:

2017@49
===[
Of the 232,570,592 options issued, 223,632,074 were replacement options for the 300,000,000 options issued in July
2016, which were cancelled at the time the new options were issued. The charge in respect of these would have been
£163,000, but as £716,000 had already been charged in respect of the 2016 options no charge has been made. The
remaining 8,938,518 new options carry a charge of £10,000 which has been spread over the 18 month vesting period.
]===

£10,000 * ~4 months / 18 months = £2,222 which is the £2,245 share based payment for 2017.

There is more evidence... ;-)

@Dallas: "Degsie...I agree to disagree....Where's @Obs;-)" - you might regret asking that! But only if you don't want to know the truth of the matter. Probably ;-)

Page 43 of the 2016 accounts: 300,000,000 * 0.002388 (declared fair value) = £716,400 which to me indicates the 300m options *are* the share based payments valued at exactly the same £716,400 in the accounts. You'll see on page 47 of the 2017 accounts that these 300m options were replaced with options which, including the few new options issued, have a value (on the date they were replaced I think) of:

0.00415 * 28,885,868 + 0.00415 * 39,326,924 + 0.00415 * 164,357,800 = £965,167

There's other evidence which confirms to me that the 300m shares they awarded is the £717k share based payments.

I didn't realise you believed to the contrary - might explain a few misunderstandings we've had... ;-)

Ob.

Indeed @tomcat. The 9.17% on page 2 must be a regression to a previous version by mistake. Surely...?

I'm not sure if this has been posted here. One thing that caught my eye was the KDNC % ownership:

http://www.bacanoralithium.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/bcn-presentation-august-2018.pdf

Surely a mistake that KDNC owns 9.17% of BCN presumably on 24/07/18 - when in the July presentation:

http://bacanoralithium.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bacanoera-investor-presentation-july-2018.pdf

KDNC was listed as owning 8.00% presumably on 12.07.18? In fact it must be a mistake, the alternative being an unlikely coincidence as in the May presentation:

http://www.bacanoralithium.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/corporate-presentation.pdf

KDNC was listed as owning 9.17%. I suppose it's possible KDNC was selling high, buying low... ;-)

Ob.

You know the thought had crossed my mind too @antelope... ;-)

@Bannor - you won't be surprised to hear that I think to vote against those resolutions seriously weakens our BoD's hand, potentially forcing a discounted sale when it appears we have no other (quick) option available to raising funds. The BoD know our thoughts on placings and option to join in: it's just not cost effective, and often inappropriate at this stage of the company. But forget about that! Where did that extra share come from!? All hands on desk! ;-)

Spoken like a true septic. ;-)

If you'd replaced that £1 with a £0 I'd wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that you are "definitely right" @Bannor! I'll give a 95% confidence to my assessment ;-)

@London74 - "Love how everyone is focusing on assets here. Why?" Because we might be about to (part) capitalise one now that both Sonora and Yangibana are imminently close to funding, and we could do with funds to progress the new projects on the table. Isn't that obvious? ;-)

I'd say Yangibana is worth somewhere between £5m and £57m to us @ProphetWarning. Read back through my posts for the details ;-)