Ayala Pharmaceuticals Inc (ADXS)

[fbg0316]

Meishairwin, fair points. I appreciate your insights, as you are more experienced and expert in compensation matters than me. My perspective is from a shareholder point of view on what is fair and truly pay for performance. Beyond ADXS, I have read other points of views and articles citing that corporate pay at public companies is often detached from the returns shareholders see, so the issue is larger than ADXS. My opinion is that options are more shareholder friendly than RSUs because opions have value only when stock performance is generated (and options should be long-dated to prevent short-term gaming of the stock). For example, a recent new member of ADXS' executive team, as I recall, received 100k RSUs vested over three years. So as part of getting hired at ADXS, from day 1 his gets a grant valued at $900,000 (assuming a $9 stock price). Don't you think it would be more aligned with shareholders if instead he received a long-dated options grant at a $9 strike price? Again, I'm no compensation expert, just voicing my views on what I see as equitable from a shareholder alignment perspective. The reality to date is that Dan O'Connor (while he has done an excellent job advancing the business on a number of fronts) has seen his financial stake grow substantially, while his investors have seen theirs shrink (relative to the $12 price he recapitalized the company bringing in investors across $200 million in offerings). I know that is simplistic and we are still early in the game and I expect to see significant shareholder value creation moving forward, but those are the facts of where we currently are, and if all the RSUs Dan has taken had instead been options, there would currently be less of a divide/more alignment between the growth/erosion of management's financial stake and shareholders.