I think you are confusing what happens in small to medium to large corporations, (from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of employees) and in most cases where numeric goals are set and reported to the investment community in the form as EPS, etc. Edig does not fit into this category. We have no idea what their goals are since they have never provided any guidance to the investment community.

Do you really think a company with 10-25 employees should establish executive compensation packages? Most businesses of that size are lucky to receive a bonus at year end if goals were set and achieved.

Edig has had salaries established and has paid bonuses and options for years based on net losses of 75+ million dollars. They are as well a very small company with few employees and cannot be compared with how compensation is developed for board members and executives.

There are many billion dollar corporations where board members have no options and are paid a meager amount for their efforts.

Time based options are established and a portion of the total grant is provided over x number of years. This is not the case with edig for the latest option and I don't think it has anything to do with overall executive compensation, at least there has been no evidence of this in the past.

We had 5-7 levels of options depending divisional structure and more for granting bonuses. All were performance based including earnings and net capital employed. With 20-50 thousand employees only a handful of the very top executives, Corporate, Group Presidents and Divisional Presidents was total compensation considered.

I guess we differ in what criteria are used for major corporations as opposed to very small 20 employee companies. I think all public companies should be accountable to their shareholders and rewards should be based on achieving stated goals, no matter what criteria is used in developing the goals.