Sam- I figure the best way to show unhappiness is to vote no to the 2000 Management Incentive Plan they want to implement.
In case you don't know this, if you had invested in ANTC seven years ago (During most of Jim Egan's reign as President or CEO- for a moment, a shareholder would have been rewarded with zero profits on December 29, 1999. Fortunately I was not a shareholder of this nature. But if I was, I would be pretty upset.
Now the real insult comes in the details of the recent SEC 14A filing. Check out the details of the Management Incentive Plan. Egan made $1,000,000 in 1999 in spite of the bungling at the end(and a seven year shareholder made zero). On top of that, now that he's semi-retiring he wants, "$41,667 a month beginning at age 55." This is $500,000 a year for working only a month or two each year. And considering the performance of ANTC during his reign, how in the world can this be justified and what kind of advice can he offer??
Well it's only part of my gripe in the 14A. The rest of it's in there for those that want to review it. Of course it's tedious and it's easy to hide details like the above in it:
sec.gov
I just don't understand why shareholders reward officers who are not performing. I certainly don't mind rewards for performance, but this doesn't fall into that category. I really hope the incentive plan is scrapped and one closely tied into performance replaces it. -MikeM(From Florida) |
