(MENAFN– Newsfile Corp)
Toronto, Ontario–(Newsfile Corp. – October 23, 2024) – Royal Road Minerals Limited (TSXV: RYR) (” Royal Road ” or the ” Company “) is pleased to announce that it has received all requisite drilling permits for its Alouana copper-gold polymetallic project in the Kingdom of Morocco.
The right to acquire the Alouana project is held by Royal Road Arabia Limited (” RRA “). RRA is a Saudi Arabian joint-venture company owned on a 50-50% basis by Royal Road and MIDU Company Limited ( “MIDU”) . MIDU is a Saudi Arabian investment holding company, headquartered in Jeddah, with interests across various sectors including mining, industrial, real estate development and utilities. In October 2023, RRA entered into an option agreement to acquire 100% of Izughar Resources S.A.R.L ( “Izughar” ), the Moroccan company holding title to the Alouana licenses (see Press Release, October 17, 2023).
The Alouana Project Area comprises 4 exploration licenses located in Morocco’s Eastern Region and totaling 84 square kilometers (see Figure 1). Small-scale mining commenced at Alouana at the beginning of the last century. Approximately 45 underground and open-pit copper-gold polymetallic workings have been identified from within the area of interest. Open-pit mines are developed on shallow, southwest-dipping shear and cleavage parallel zones of unknown total thickness and underground mines are developed on predominantly steep, northeast-dipping vein-breccia bodies up to 3 meters wide. There has been no previous drilling conducted on the project.
To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
The host rocks to copper-gold and polymetallic mineralization at Alouana are primarily lower Paleozoic age schists which have been intruded by Permian age granite and related porphyry dykes. Granite underlies and has contact metasomatized the schistose sequence (see Figure 2). Copper, gold and polymetallic mineralization (silver, bismuth, tungsten and zinc) has been emplaced within a broad antiformal structure in the hangingwall of the granite, in shear zones oriented parallel to shallow-dipping cleavage (in the OPZ; see Figure 2) and in steeply dipping northwest and northeast striking quartz-barite vein and breccia bodies (VBZ and EBZ). Over 250 grab and channel rock-chip samples have been collected from Alouana with analytical results returning up to 21% copper (minimum 0.001% and average 1.31%), gold returning up to 5.9 grams per tonne (minimum 0.01 and average 0.2 grams per tonne) and other elements such as silver returning up to 493.8ppm (minimum 0.5ppm and average 22.3ppm) and tungsten up to 0.4% (minimum 30ppm and average 365ppm).
RRA has completed soil geochemical sampling, geological mapping, grab and rock-chip channel sampling and ground magnetics across the Alouana Main Area (see Press Releases, February 27, 2024; July 29, 2024) and has located initial scout drill holes to test both shallow and steep-dipping targets in four principal areas (see Figure 2) summarized as follows:
OPZ – Open Pit Zone. Area of historic small open pits and underground tunnels on the Alouana hilltop. Copper and polymetallic mineralization hosted in stacked shear zones oriented parallel to shallow-dipping schistosity and in steep-dipping vertical vein-breccia bodies.
HTZ – Hill Top Zone. Area of shallow residual soil cover on hilltop to the immediate southeast (but across reverse fault) from the OPZ. No evidence of historic workings but soil geochemistry implies a continuation of OPZ style controls. Area is higher in gold geochemistry than the OPZ.
VBZ – Vein-Breccia Zone. 25 meter wide approximately 1.5 kilometer long, moderate northeast dipping quartz-barite vein and breccia body anomalous in copper and gold.
EBZ – Eastern Breccia Zone. Two 1 to 3 meter wide, at-least 2 kilometer long, copper, silver, lead and bismuth mineralized, moderate northeast dipping quartz-barite vein-breccia bodies with evidence for wall-rock penetration of copper mineralization.
To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
The Company is planning approximately 2000 meters of scout exploration drilling which will commence this year, as soon as access roads and drill pads have been constructed.
“Establishing the thickness of shallow-dipping mineralization at the OPZ is an important initial objective of this drilling program, followed closely by mapping its lateral extent towards the southwest at the HTZ. Both areas are located along the Alouana hilltop with the potential for good mining economics. Historic tunnels at the EBZ are for the most part concealed at surface and developed along the vein-breccia bodies only, with minimal crosscuts. This makes it difficult to ascertain potential economic thickness until we have drilled them, although there is clear evidence for copper mineralization extending beyond the extracted veins and immediately into the wall-rock. This drill program is very much a case of exploring with the drill-rig, objectives are clear and holes have been carefully planned in order to fully test the potential of the mineralized system at Alouana. We are excited to get the program underway,” said Tim Coughlin, Royal Road’s President and CEO.
About Royal Road Minerals:
Royal Road Minerals is a mineral exploration and development company with its head office and technical-operations center located in Jersey, Channel Islands. The Company is listed on the TSX Venture Exchange under the ticker RYR and on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange under the ticker RLU. The Company’s mission is to apply expert skills and innovative technologies to the process of discovering and developing copper and gold deposits of a scale large enough to benefit future generations and modern enough to ensure minimum impact on the environment and no net loss of biodiversity. The Company currently explores in the Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Morocco. More information can be found on the Company’s website .
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Cautionary statement:
This news release contains certain statements that constitute forward-looking information and forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws (collectively, “forward-looking statements”) describing the Company’s future plans and the expectations of its management that a stated result or condition will occur. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company, or developments in the Company’s business or in the mineral resources industry, to differ materially from the anticipated results, performance, achievements or developments expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include all disclosure regarding possible events, conditions or results of operations that is based on assumptions about, among other things, the Alliance, the intention to form a joint venture, enter into a related agreement and establish Newco and, more generally, future economic conditions and courses of action, and assumptions related to government approvals, and anticipated costs and expenditures. The words “plans”, “prospective”, “expect”, “intend”, “intends to” and similar expressions identify forward looking statements, which may also include, without limitation, any statement relating to future events, conditions or circumstances. Forward-looking statements of the Company contained in this news release, which may prove to be incorrect, include, but are not limited to the Company’s exploration plans.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control:
Sample preparation and analyses are conducted according to standard industry procedures at certified laboratories. Rock-chip samples were bagged in the field for a sample size of approximately 2kg and then sent to AFRILAB-SGS in Marrakech where gold was analyzed by fire assay with an atomic absorption finish and multielement analyses were conducted by ICP-OES. Soil samples were collected 30-60cm below the surface to avoid surficial contamination. Approximately 0.5kg was collected for each sample. For each sample, soil thickness, horizon, surface type, sample collection depth, & field sieve-mesh was recorded. QAQC materials included approximately 5% CRMs, 1% blanks and 1% field duplicates. Infill soil samples were sent to ALS in Sevilla for drying, disaggregation and dry-sieving to -180um. Samples were analyzed using the super-trace low level gold and multi-element package (AuME-St43) with a 25g charge weight. Gold and multielement concentrations are determined from the same solution via a combination of ICP-MS and ICP-AES
The Company cautions you not to place undue reliance upon any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. There is no guarantee that the anticipated benefits of the Company’s business plans or operations will be achieved. The risks and uncertainties that may affect forward-looking statements include, among others: economic market conditions, anticipated costs and expenditures, government approvals, and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s filings with Canadian provincial securities regulators or other applicable regulatory authorities. Forward-looking statements included herein are based on the current plans, estimates, projections, beliefs and opinions of the Company management and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements should assumptions related to these plans, estimates, projections, beliefs and opinions change.
MENAFN23102024004218003983ID1108810908
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Today, the Canadian capital markets are experiencing a surge of activity, driven by major announcements in the mining and energy sectors. Lithium Americas Corp. (TSX: LAC) made waves by updating the market on its Thacker Pass project, one of the largest lithium reserves in the U.S. This development positions the company as a crucial player in meeting the growing demand for lithium, particularly for electric vehicles and renewable energy infrastructure. Meanwhile, Capstone Copper Corp. (TSX: CS) exceeded expectations with its quarterly production results from the Pinto Valley mine, benefiting from increased global copper demand. Copper’s essential role in the global push for renewable energy and electric grids puts Capstone in a strong position.
Equally notable, Equinox Gold Corp. (TSX: EQX) reassured investors that its Greenstone Gold Mine remains on track for its first gold production in 2025, a milestone expected to make it one of Canada’s largest gold mines. On the lithium front, E3 Lithium Ltd. (TSXV: ETL) announced a breakthrough in its extraction technology, enhancing high-purity lithium production from Alberta, solidifying its place in North America’s lithium supply chain. Additionally, Torex Gold Resources Inc. (TSX: TXG) posted strong Q3 results from its El Limón-Guajes mining complex in Mexico, raising its gold production guidance for 2024, while SilverCrest Metals Inc. (TSX: SIL) revealed high-grade silver exploration results at Las Chispas, signaling significant potential for resource expansion. These announcements underscore the growing importance of critical minerals and metals in the evolving energy and resource markets.
Lithium Americas Corp. (TSX: LAC) – October 22, 2024
Lithium Americas provided a critical update on the progress of its Thacker Pass project, which is one of the largest known lithium reserves in the United States. With the growing demand for lithium in battery production, this project is positioned as a major contributor to the U.S. domestic supply of this critical mineral.
Capstone Copper Corp. (TSX: CS) – October 22, 2024
Capstone Copper announced significant quarterly production results from its Pinto Valley mine, where increased copper output exceeded expectations. This positions the company to benefit from the rising global copper demand, essential for electrical grids and renewable energy.
Equinox Gold Corp. (TSX: EQX) – October 22, 2024
Equinox Gold announced that its Greenstone Gold Mine remains on track for first production in 2025, a major milestone for the company’s gold portfolio. Once operational, the mine is expected to be one of the largest gold mines in Canada.
E3 Lithium Ltd. (TSXV: ETL) – October 21, 2024
E3 Lithium announced a breakthrough in its extraction technology, enhancing its capacity to produce high-purity lithium from its Alberta brine resource. This positions E3 Lithium as a key player in the growing North American lithium supply chain for battery production.
Torex Gold Resources Inc. (TSX: TXG) – October 21, 2024
Torex Gold released its Q3 2024 financial results, showing strong production from its El Limón-Guajes mining complex in Mexico. The company also announced an increase in gold production guidance for the year, reflecting strong operational performance.
SilverCrest Metals Inc. (TSX: SIL) – October 22, 2024
SilverCrest reported high-grade exploration results at its Las Chispas property, including silver grades that significantly exceeded expectations. This discovery is seen as a major development in expanding the resource base of the project, which has been a key growth asset for the company.
Today, the U.S. markets opened with a positive tone, driven by investor optimism following strong earnings reports across multiple sectors. The technology and consumer discretionary sectors are performing particularly well, contributing to the market’s upward momentum. Investors are also watching jobless claims and existing home sales data closely, which could shape future market movements and provide further insight into the economy’s health.
The energy sector has seen some volatility due to fluctuating oil prices, while bond yields remain elevated, signaling continued concerns about inflation and the Federal Reserve’s policy trajectory.
Choice Hotels International, Inc. (NYSE: CHH) – October 22, 2024
Choice Hotels launched a donation matching campaign with the American Red Cross to support hurricane relief efforts, where the company will match donations made by members of its Choice Privileges loyalty program.
DuPont (NYSE: DD) – October 22, 2024
At the 2024 Taiwan Printed Circuit Association (TPCA) Show, DuPont presented its next-generation circuit materials, designed to improve the sustainability and performance of advanced printed circuit boards.
General Motors (NYSE: GM) – October 22, 2024
General Motors reported better-than-expected Q3 2024 earnings, driven by strong demand for its high-margin vehicles, despite ongoing labor disputes.
GSE Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: GVP) – October 22, 2024
GSE Systems urged stockholders to vote in favor of an amended merger agreement, which is part of the company’s plan to strengthen its clean-energy engineering solutions portfolio.
PacBio (Nasdaq: PACB) – October 22, 2024
PacBio announced that its Onso™ Short Read Sequencing Instrument has joined the 10x Genomics Compatible Partner Program, providing more options for researchers.
Viant Technology Inc. (Nasdaq: DSP) – October 22, 2024
Viant Technology launched its second annual Direct Access event titled “CTV: Accelerating Performance Throughout the Customer Journey,” aimed at showcasing how Connected TV (CTV) can enhance customer engagement.
This morning, the Australian markets opened on a cautious note, with investors digesting mixed global cues and awaiting domestic economic data. The energy sector is experiencing some weakness as oil prices remain volatile, impacting major players in the market. On the other hand, the mining sector continues to show resilience, buoyed by strong demand for iron ore and other base metals, particularly from China. Technology and financial stocks are trading relatively flat, as concerns over inflation and interest rates linger in the market sentiment.
Key economic indicators, including employment data and retail sales figures, are expected later this week, which may provide more direction to the market. Overall, the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) is navigating a balanced performance with a slight tilt toward risk-off sentiment as global uncertainties, such as inflationary pressures and geopolitical risks, weigh on investor confidence.
American Rare Earths Limited (ASX: ARR | OTCQX: ARRNF) – October 22, 2024
American Rare Earths has received today its first reimbursement of over A$450,000 (US$304,000) from the Wyoming Energy Authority grant. The funds support the development of the Cowboy State Mine at Halleck Creek, including exploration drilling, environmental studies, and prefeasibility assessments. This milestone highlights significant progress and underscores the company’s commitment to advancing the project towards its 2025 goals.
Elevate Uranium Limited (ASX: EL8) – October 22, 2024
Elevate Uranium announced it has raised $25 million through a two-tranche placement to accelerate development at the Koppies uranium project in Namibia. This funding will allow for further exploration and project expansion.
Meteoric Resources NL (ASX: MEI) – October 22, 2024
Meteoric Resources has announced today enhancements to the Caldeira Rare Earth Ionic Clay Project’s financial metrics, following an updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Figueira deposit. These updates, incorporated into a 20-year mine plan, have improved project economics by increasing Neodymium-Praseodymium (NdPr) production and lowering operating costs, alongside adjustments to rare earth element spot prices. Significant outcomes include a 14% increase in pre-tax Net Present Value, a 6% rise in Internal Rate of Return to 40.4%, and a reduction in payback time to 2.2 years.
MoneyMe Limited (ASX: MME) – October 22, 2024
MoneyMe executed its first asset-backed securitisation deal, amounting to $517.5 million, supported by its Autopay platform. This transaction is a key milestone for the company, providing liquidity and demonstrating competitive pricing in the securitisation market.
Nanoveu Limited (ASX: NVU) – October 22, 2024
Nanoveu reported that its ECS-DOT chipset, developed by Embedded AI Systems (EMASS), achieved a 20% reduction in energy consumption compared to its peers. This advancement sets a new standard for ultra-low-power performance in edge AI applications.
Otto Energy Limited (ASX: OEL) – October 22, 2024
Otto Energy reported a significant hydrocarbon discovery at its SM71 lease in the Gulf of Mexico, with 40 meters of net hydrocarbon pay. This discovery is expected to positively impact the company’s production prospects.
Tambourah Metals Limited (ASX: TMB) – October 22, 2024
Tambourah Metals secured a $180,000 exploration grant from the Western Australia government to advance its Pilbara gold projects. This funding will support drilling at its Alexandria prospect.
Yandal Resources Limited (ASX: YRL) – October 21, 2024
Yandal Resources confirmed a high-grade gold discovery at its New England Granite prospect in Western Australia, setting the stage for further exploration and development of the resource.
This morning, UK markets opened lower, reflecting concerns over persistently high inflation and ongoing geopolitical tensions. Investors remain cautious as the Bank of England continues to signal potential interest rate hikes to combat inflationary pressures. The FTSE 100 is seeing mixed performance, with defensive sectors such as healthcare and utilities showing resilience, while cyclical sectors like consumer discretionary and industrials face headwinds.
Despite these challenges, the energy sector has gained some traction due to higher oil prices, while the financial sector is under pressure amid concerns about higher borrowing costs affecting business growth. With economic data, including retail sales and inflation figures expected this week, traders are closely watching for any signals that might shift market sentiment.
Investor.Coffee is published Monday through Thursday and is distributed to a global audience. Stay tuned for further insights and updates as the week progresses.
Publisher’s Note: Tracy Hughes uses a variety of sources for her daily market update series called Investor.Coffee. This series is intended to be a brief summary of daily market highlights that the Investor.News team finds interesting. This summary is meant to inspire research, investigation, and due diligence, and we encourage you to always seek licensed professional advice with any investment decision. While Tracy is a professional writer, she is not a licensed investment advisor. And yes, Tracy uses ChatGPT and other technology devices to help distill information and prioritize business data — while sipping her daily coffee! For more information email us [email protected].
| ` Mineral Resources Statement – Monster Lake Gold Project as at July 16, 2024 |
|||
| Underground Mineral Resource (at 4,1 g/t Au cut-off) | |||
| Classification | Tonnes | Grade | Ounces |
| (t) | (g/t Au) | (oz Troy Au) | |
| Indicated | 239 000 | 11,0 | 84 200 |
| Inferred | 1 053 000 | 14,4 | 488 500 |
Notes:
(1) These mineral resources are not mineral reserves as they do not have demonstrated economic viability. The MRE follows current CIM Definition Standards (2014) and CIM MRMR Best Practice Guidelines (2019). The results are presented undiluted and are considered to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (“RPEEE”).
(2) The independent and qualified persons for the mineral resource estimate, as defined by NI 43-101, are Martin Perron, P.Eng., Audrey Lapointe, P.Geo., and Simon Boudreau, P.Eng. (InnovExplo), and the effective date of the estimate is July 16, 2024.
(3) The resource estimate incorporates assay results from 420 diamond drill holes recorded on the entire property and is based on a compilation of historical holes and 161 recent diamond drill holes completed by IAMGOLD, including 51 diamond drill holes (for 17,724 metres) since end of 2017.
(4) The estimation encompasses thirteen (13) lenses and a dilution envelope using LeapFrog Geo and interpolated using Isatis Neo.
(5) 1.0-m composites were calculated within the mineralized zones using the grade of the adjacent material when assayed or a value of zero when not assayed. High-grade capping on composites (supported by statistical analysis) was set between 10.0 and 175.0 g/t Au for high-grade envelopes and 5.0 g/t Au for the dilution envelope.
(6) The estimate was completed using a sub-block model in Isatis Neo, with a parent block size of 5m x 5m x 5m (X,Y,Z) and a sub-block size of 1.25m x 1.25m x 1.25m (X,Y,Z).
(7) Grade interpolation was obtained by the Ordinary Kriging (OK) method using hard boundaries.
(8) Density values of 2.88 to 2.95 g/cm3 were assigned to all mineralized zones.
(9) Mineral resources were classified as Indicated and Inferred. Indicated resources are defined for blocks were estimated if the 3 holes closest to the block have an average distance 30 m, and there is reasonable geological and grade continuity. The inferred category is defined for blocks estimated if the 3 holes closest to the block have an average distance 50 m and if the block was not classified as Indicated and there is reasonable geological and grade continuity.
(10) The MRE is locally constrained and meet the RPEEE requirement by applying constraining volumes to all blocks (selective underground long-hole extraction scenario) using Deswik Mineable Shape Optimizer (DSO).
(11) The RPEEE requirement is satisfied by having a cut-off grade based on reasonable parameters for an underground extraction scenario. The estimate is presented for potential underground scenarios (realized in Deswik) over a minimum width of 2 m for blocks 20 m high by 20 m long at a cut-off grade of 4.1 g/t Au for the long-hole method. Cut-off grades reflect the currently defined geometry and dip of the mineralized envelopes. The underground cut-off grade was calculated using the following parameters: mining cost = CA$150.00/t; processing & transport cost = CA$97.87/t; G&A cost = CA$25.00/t; selling costs = CA$5.00/t; gold price = US$1,800/oz; USD/CAD exchange rate = 1.25 and mill recovery = 94%.
(12) Cut-off grades should be re-evaluated in light of future prevailing market conditions (metal prices, exchange rates, mining costs etc.).
(13) The number of metric tons (tonnes) was rounded to the nearest thousand, following the recommendations in NI 43-101. The metal contents are presented in troy ounces (tonnes x grade / 31.10348) rounded to the nearest hundred. Any discrepancies in the totals are due to rounding effects.
(14) The QPs are not aware of any known environmental, permitting, legal, title-related, taxation, socio-political, or marketing issues or any other relevant issue not reported in the Technical Report that could materially affect the Mineral Resources Estimate.
Next Steps
The resource estimation process has identified a number of areas with potential for resource expansions at depth and along strike in areas where drill hole spacing remains too wide. These areas will be evaluated. The exploration field activities results are continuously compiled to refine the geological and structural model to help identify and prioritize various regional targets developed from targeting exercises to guide future drilling programs.
About the Monster Lake Project
The Monster Lake project is located 50 kilometres southwest of Chibougamau, Quebec, and is underlain by Archean volcanic rocks of the Obatogamau Formation, which are traversed by an important deformation corridor with associated gold-bearing mineralized structures. Exploration to date has traced this prospective structural shear zone system for at least 4 kilometres along strike, along which several gold prospects have been discovered and a Mineral Resource delineated at the 325-Megane Zone.
The Company holds a 100% interest in the Monster Lake project.
Figure 4: Longitudinal sections of the Monster Lake Megane Zone resource block models with gold grade distribution and UG constraining volumes (DSO).
To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
QUALIFIED PERSON AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
The drilling results contained in this news release have been prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”).
The mineral resource estimate, including verification of the data disclosed, has been completed by InnovExplo Inc., following NI 43-101 and CIM Estimation Best Practice Guidelines. The resource estimate was prepared by Martin Perron, P.Eng. Director Geology, Audrey Lapointe, P.Geo., Senior Geologist and Simon Boudreau, P.Eng., Senior Mining Engineer, all being independent “qualified person”, as defined by NI 43-101 (a “QP”). Each of them has reviewed and approved the contents of this news release.
The QPs responsible for the planning, supervision and execution of the diamond drilling programs and construction of the geological models and review of the technical information in this news release are Shana Dickenson, P. Geo., Senior District Geologist, Adrien Zamparutti P. Geo., Senior Project Geologist, and Maxime Douëllou P. Geo., Project Geologist. Each of Ms. Dickenson, Mr. Zamparutti and Mr. Douëllou is a QP for the purposes of NI 43-101 with respect to the technical information being reported on in this news release. The technical information has been included herein with the consent and prior review of the above noted QPs.
The information in the news release was also reviewed and approved by Marie-France Bugnon, P.Geo. Vice-President, Exploration for IAMGOLD, which is also a QP.
The design of the drilling programs and interpretation of results is under the control of IAMGOLD’s geological staff, including QPs employing strict protocols consistent with NI 43-101 and industry best practices. The sampling of, and assay data from, the drill core is monitored through the implementation of a quality assurance – quality control (QA-QC) program. Drill core (NQ size) is logged and samples are selected by the IAMGOLD geologists and sawn in half with a diamond saw at the project site. Half of the core is retained at the site for reference purposes. Sample intervals may vary from 0.5 to 1.5 metres in length depending on the geological observations. Half-core samples are packaged and transported in sealed bags to ALS Minerals Laboratory (“ALS”) located in Val-d’Or, Québec. A formal chain-of-custody procedure was adopted for security of samples until their delivery at the laboratory. Samples are coarse crushed to a -10 mesh and then a 1,000 gram split is pulverized to 95% passing -150 mesh. ALS processes analytical pulps directly at their facilities located in Val-d’Or which is ISO / IEC 17025 certified by the Standards Council of Canada. Samples are analyzed using a standard fire assay with a 50 gram charge with an Atomic Absorption (AA) finish. For samples that return assay values over 5.0 grams per tonne, another pulp is taken and fire assayed with a gravimetric finish. Core samples showing visible gold or samples which have returned values greater than 10.0 grams per tonne are re-analyzed by pulp metallic analysis. IAMGOLD inserts blanks and certified reference standards in the sample sequence for quality control. In accordance with recommendations from our on-going QA-QC program, additional check analyses are underway at a secondary (umpire) laboratory.
About IAMGOLD
IAMGOLD is an intermediate gold producer and developer based in Canada with operating mines in North America and West Africa. The Company has commenced production at the large-scale, long life Côté Gold Mine in partnership with Sumitomo Metal Mining Co. Ltd., which is expected to be among the largest gold mines in Canada. In addition, the Company has an established portfolio of early stage and advanced exploration projects within high potential mining districts. IAMGOLD employs approximately 3,600 people and is committed to maintaining its culture of accountable mining through high standards of Environmental, Social and Governance practices, including its commitment to strive for the goal of Zero Harm®, in every aspect of its business. IAMGOLD is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: IAG) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: IMG).
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
All information included or incorporated by reference in this news release, including any information as to the Company’s vision, strategy, future financial or operating performance and other statements that express management’s expectations or estimates of future performance or impact, including statements in respect of the prospects and/or development of the Company’s projects, other than statements of historical fact, constitutes forward-looking information or forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws (collectively referred to herein as “forward-looking statements”) and such forward-looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections as of the date of this news release. Forward-looking statements are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “would”, “could”, “continue”, “expect”, “budget”, “aim”, “can”, “focus”, “forecast”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “believe”, “intend”, “plan”, “schedule”, “guidance”, “outlook”, “potential”, “seek”, “targets”, “cover”, “strategy”, “during”, “ongoing”, “subject to”, “future”, “objectives”, “opportunities”, “committed”, “prospective”, “preliminary”, “likely”, “progress”, “strive”, “sustain”, “effort”, “extend”, “on track”, “remain”, “pursue”, “predict”, or “project” or the negative of these words or other variations on these words or comparable terminology.
For example, forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to: the estimation of mineral reserves and mineral resources and the realization of such estimates; operational and financial performance including the Company’s guidance for and actual results of production, ESG (including environmental) performance, costs and capital and other expenditures such as exploration and including depreciation expense and effective tax rate; the updated life-of-mine plan, ramp-up assumptions and other project metrics including operating costs in respect to the Côté Gold Mine; expected production of the Côté Gold Mine, expected benefits from the operational improvements and de-risking strategies implemented or to be implemented by the Company; mine development activities; the Company’s capital allocation and liquidity; the announced intention to repurchase the Transferred Interests in the Côté Gold Mine, the composition of the Company’s portfolio of assets including its operating mines, development and exploration projects; the completion of the sale of the Bambouk Assets; permitting timelines and the expected receipt of permits; inflation, including global inflation and inflationary pressures; global supply chain constraints; environmental verification, biodiversity and social development projects; plans, targets, proposals and strategies with respect to sustainability, including third party data on which the Company relies, and their implementation; commitments with respect to sustainability and the impact thereof, including the Company’s “Zero Harm” vision; commitments with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonization initiatives (eg. interim target of achieving 30% absolute reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030); the development of the Company’s Water Management Standard; commitments with respect to biodiversity; commitments related to social performance, including commitments in furtherance of Indigenous relations; the ability to secure alternative sources of consumables of comparable quality and on reasonable terms; workforce and contractor availability, labour costs and other labour impacts; the impacts of weather; the future price of gold and other commodities; foreign exchange rates and currency fluctuations; financial instruments; hedging strategies; impairment assessments and assets carrying values estimates; safety and security concerns in the jurisdictions in which the Company operates and the impact thereof on the Company’s operational and financial performance and financial condition; and government regulation of mining operations (including the Competition Act and the regulations associated with the fight against climate change).
The Company cautions the reader that forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by management, are inherently subject to significant business, financial, operational and other risks, uncertainties, contingencies and other factors, including those described below, which could cause actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements and, as such, undue reliance must not be placed on them. Forward-looking statements are also based on numerous material factors and assumptions, including as described in this news release, including with respect to: the Company’s present and future business strategies; operations performance within expected ranges; anticipated future production and cash flows; local and global economic conditions and the environment in which the Company will operate in the future; the price of precious metals, other minerals and key commodities; projected mineral grades; international exchanges rates; anticipated capital and operating costs; the availability and timing of required governmental and other approvals for the construction of the Company’s projects.
Risks, uncertainties, contingencies and other factors that could cause actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements include, without limitation: the ability of the Company to complete the repurchase of the Transferred Interest in the Côté Gold Mine; the ability of the Company to complete the sales of the remaining Bambouk Assets; the Company’s business strategies and its ability to execute thereon; the ability of the Company to complete pending transactions; the development and execution of implementing strategies to meet the Company’s sustainability vision and targets; security risks, including civil unrest, war or terrorism and disruptions to the Company’s supply chain and transit routes as a result of such security risks, particularly in Burkina Faso and the Sahel region surrounding the Company’s Essakane mine; the availability of labour and qualified contractors; the availability of key inputs for the Company’s operations and disruptions in global supply chains; the volatility of the Company’s securities; litigation; contests over title to properties, particularly title to undeveloped properties; mine closure and rehabilitation risks; management of certain of the Company’s assets by other companies or joint venture partners; the lack of availability of insurance covering all of the risks associated with a mining company’s operations; unexpected geological conditions; competition and consolidation in the mining sector; the profitability of the Company being highly dependent on the condition and results of the mining industry as a whole, and the gold mining industry in particular; changes in the global prices for gold, and commodities used in the operation of the Company’s business (included, but not limited to diesel, fuel oil and electricity); legal, litigation, legislative, political or economic risks and new developments in the jurisdictions in which the Company carries on business; changes in taxes, including mining tax regimes; the failure to obtain in a timely manner from authorities key permits, authorizations or approvals necessary for transactions, exploration, development or operation, operating or technical difficulties in connection with mining or development activities, including geotechnical difficulties and major equipment failure; the inability of the Company to participate in any gold price increase above the cap in any collar transaction entered into in conjunction with certain gold sale prepayment arrangements; the availability of capital; the level of liquidity and capital resources; access to capital markets and financing; the Company’s level of indebtedness; the Company’s ability to satisfy covenants under its credit facilities; changes in interest rates; adverse changes in the Company’s credit rating; the Company’s choices in capital allocation; effectiveness of the Company’s ongoing cost containment efforts; the Company’s ability to execute on de-risking activities and measures to improve operations; availability of specific assets to meet contractual obligations; risks related to third-party contractors, including reduced control over aspects of the Company’s operations and/or the failure and/or the effectiveness of contractors to perform; risks arising from holding derivative instruments; changes in U.S. dollar and other currency exchange rates or gold lease rates; capital and currency controls in foreign jurisdictions; assessment of carrying values for the Company’s assets, including the ongoing potential for material impairment and/or write-downs of such assets; the speculative nature of exploration and development, including the risks of diminishing quantities or grades of reserves; the fact that reserves and resources, expected metallurgical recoveries, capital and operating costs are estimates which may require revision; the presence of unfavourable content in ore deposits, including clay and coarse gold; inaccuracies in life of mine plans; failure to meet operational targets; , including but not limited to the ability of the Company to achieve ninety percent (90%) throughput at the Côté Gold Mine by year-end and the ability of the Company to achieve nameplate capacity at the Côté Gold Mine in 2025; equipment malfunctions; information systems security threats and cybersecurity; laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment (including greenhouse gas emission reduction and other decarbonization requirements and the uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of omnibus Bill C-59 and the related amendments to the Competition Act (Canada)); employee relations and labour disputes; the maintenance of tailings storage facilities and the potential for a major spill or failure of the tailings facilities due to uncontrollable events, lack of reliable infrastructure, including access to roads, bridges, power sources and water supplies; physical and regulatory risks related to climate change; unpredictable weather patterns and challenging weather conditions at mine sites; disruptions from weather related events resulting in limited or no productivity such as forest fires, flooding, heavy snowfall, poor air quality, and extreme heat or cold; attraction and retention of key employees and other qualified personnel; availability and increasing costs associated with mining inputs and labour, negotiations with respect to new, reasonable collective labour agreements and/or collective bargaining agreements may not be agreed to; the ability of contractors to timely complete projects on acceptable terms; the relationship with the communities surrounding the Company’s operations and projects; indigenous rights or claims; illegal mining; the potential direct or indirect operational impacts resulting from external factors, including infectious diseases, pandemics, or other public health emergencies; and the inherent risks involved in the exploration, development and mining business generally. Please see the Company’s AIF or Form 40-F available on or for a comprehensive discussion of the risks faced by the Company and which may cause actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by forward-looking statements.
Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise except as required by applicable law.
MENAFN23102024004218003983ID1108810614
Trusted News Since 1995
A service for global professionals
·
Wednesday, October 23, 2024
·
754,199,119
Articles
·
3+ Million Readers
Under the scope of the MoU, TSX/TSXV and B3 will explore a Brazil-based solution that builds on Canadian expertise around mining, energy and renewable energy industries, among other things. The project’s intention is to join efforts to build an ecosystem that may facilitate the dual listing of mineral research companies based in Brazil. By combining capabilities, companies may benefit from accessing the national and international investor base in Brazil and the public markets in Canada.
“We look forward to working with B3 as we leverage the expertise of our two organizations to explore synergies for energy transition and other evolving market industries in the small and mid-cap space,” said Loui Anastasopoulos, CEO, Toronto Stock Exchange and Global Head of Capital Formation, TMX Group.
“This collaboration will help B3 promote the dialogue among participants, regulators, government officials and investors in order to attract liquidity to Brazilian mining companies. Moreover, it reinforces B3’s commitment to the sector, bringing investment alternatives to institutional and individual investors willing to participate and engage in sustainable projects,” said Gilson Finkelsztain, CEO at B3.
Source: TMX
And receive exclusive articles on securities markets
A Toronto Stock Exchange-listed explorer based in West Perth wants better exposure to Australian investors as it hunts for gold in WA.
Golden Horse Minerals will buck its TSX listing for one on the Australian Securities Exchange, launching an initial public offering comprising of approximately 64 million new CHESS Depositary Interests at 25¢ each to raise $16m.
Subscribers with digital access can view this article.
Already a subscriber?
(MENAFN– Newsfile Corp)
Toronto, Ontario–(Newsfile Corp. – October 22, 2024) – Telsec Property Corporation (“Telsec”), a corporation controlled by Dick Van Grieken, announced that it has filed an early warning report related to an Acquisition of 50,000 trust units (“Trust Units”) of Melcor Real estate investment Trust (“Melcor”) completed on October 21, 2024 through the facilities of the Toronto stock exchange at an average price of $4.8917 per Trust Unit representing aggregate consideration of $244,585. Following the transaction Telsec owns 650,000 Trust Units, which when taken together with the 2,292,064 Trust Units held by Van Grieken family members, represent approximately 10.1% of the Trust Units of Melcor (approximately 9.9% prior to the acquisition) (in each case assuming the exchange of the Class B Limited partnership units of a subsidiary limited partnership of Melcor, which Class B units are economically equivalent to and exchangeable for Trust Units on a one-for-one basis). The holdings of Telsec on its own represent approximately 2.2% of the Trust Units (2.1% prior to the acquisition).
In connection with the recent going private transaction announced by Melcor on September 12, 2024, Telsec has begun to engage with and supports FC Private Equity Realty Management Corp. (“Firm Capital”) in respect of its opposition to the proposed transaction. Firm Capital is the manager of certain entities that hold Trust Units. As a result of this relationship it is possible that Telsec and the entities managed by Firm Capital that hold Trust Units could be considered to be joint actors under applicable securities laws. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of full transparency, the entities managed by Firm Capital own or control an aggregate of 544,730 Trust Units and hold $500,000 principal amount of debentures which are convertible into a total of 56,180 Trust Units and which when taken together with the Trust Units owned by Telsec and the Van Grieken family members, represents approximately 12.2% of the Trust Units (assuming the exchange of the Class B Limited partnership units of the subsidiary limited partnership of Melcor referred to above).
The Trust Units were acquired by Telsec for investment purposes. As does Firm Capital, Telsec believes that the consideration being offered for the Trust Units under the proposed going private transaction is not adequate and as such the Trust Units represent an attractive investment. Telsec, acting alone or together with entities managed by Firm Capital (or their affiliates), may acquire additional securities including on the open market or through private acquisitions or sell the securities including on the open market or through private dispositions in the future depending on market conditions or other relevant factors. Telsec, acting alone or together with entities managed by Firm Capital (or their affiliates), may also choose to exercise dissent rights in connection with the proposed going private transaction. Telsec and Firm Capital will continue to review options given their shared opposition to the proposed going private transaction.
This news release is being issued in accordance with National Instrument 62-103 – The Early Warning System and Related Take-Over Bid and Insider Reporting Issues in connection with the filing of an early warning report dated October 22, 2024. A copy of the early warning report relating to the above will be available under Melcor’s profile on the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Review (“SEDAR+”) at Melcor’s head office address is located at 900, 10310 Jasper Av., Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 1Y8, Canada.
CONTACT INFORMATION
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
MENAFN22102024004218003983ID1108808411
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Trusted News Since 1995
A service for global professionals
·
Tuesday, October 22, 2024
·
753,930,251
Articles
·
3+ Million Readers
Trusted News Since 1995
A service for global professionals
·
Tuesday, October 22, 2024
·
753,851,988
Articles
·
3+ Million Readers
Are you ever surprised that more companies don’t fail their say-on-pay votes? Say on pay was adopted by the SEC under a Dodd-Frank mandate signed into law against the backdrop of the 2008 financial crisis. The mandate was enacted largely in reaction to the public’s railing against the runaway levels of compensation paid to some corporate executives despite poor performance by their companies, especially when those firms were viewed as contributors to the crisis itself. Say on pay was expected to help rein in excessive levels of compensation and, even though the vote was advisory only, ascribe some level of accountability to boards and compensation committees that set executive compensation levels. But, while say on pay may have driven more investor engagement—certainly a good thing—the anticipated say-on-pay challenge by shareholders to out-of-line pay packages did not really materialize. From the get-go, the average failure rate has only been about 2%. Instead, say-on-pay votes have served largely as confirmations of board decisions regarding executive compensation and not, in most cases, as the kind of rock-throwing exercises that many companies had feared and some governance activists had hoped. According to a 2011 Business Week article, Robert A.G. Monks, who founded ISS in 1985, concluded that say on pay was “‘at best a diversion and at worst a deception….You only have the appearance of reform, and it’s a cruel hoax.’” This paper, Failed Say on Pay: How Do Companies Course Correct after to a ‘No’ Vote?, from the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, with authors from Stanford and Equilar, looked at the 2% that fail the vote and what they did in response to pass muster with investors. But the underlying message is reflected in the authors’ questions: “Does this process reflect a healthy dynamic of the market correcting egregious practices, or does it simply reflect a standardization process whereby observed outlier practices are brought in line with industry norms? Do the changes companies make in response to a failed vote lead to substantive improvement in the managerial incentives of their pay programs?”
The authors report that, since the rule went into effect, “companies in the Russell 3000 Index received average support of 91 percent for their pay programs,” with that percentage “fluctuating narrowly between a low of 89.2 percent (in 2022) and a high of 91.7 percent (in 2017). Meanwhile, the annual failure rate (companies receiving less than 50 support) averaged a mere 2 percent.” (Note that the policies of major proxy advisory firms set thresholds for weak say-on-pay votes—and reviews of comp committee responses—at 70% for ISS and 80% for Glass Lewis.) For that 2%, however, the board usually takes some heat and determines to make changes to plan design and disclosure going forward—according to Equilar, an average of 2.5 changes. The changes are designed not only to “bring pay packages more in line with shareholder preferences,” but also to “reflect the preferences of proxy advisory firms,” which, research has shown, wield significant influence over the vote.
In the study, the authors looked at a sample of the 77 companies in the Russell 3000 that received less than 50% support for their say-on-pay proposals in 2022. The authors point out that the rejections of the proposals were resounding, with average support of only 35%. As described, companies in the sample were “highly diverse” with regard to revenue (average sales of $8B, ranging from zero to $131B), market cap (average of $23.5B, ranging from $213M to a high of $468B), and prominence, including both highly recognized name brands and relatively unknown names. The authors examined how these companies sought to course correct in 2023 after their failed votes: “Do they primarily reduce pay levels, or do they make ancillary changes to plan design (performance targets, measurement periods, and mix) without committing to a lower overall level? Are these changes substantive (i.e., lead to a closer alignment between pay and performance), and do shareholders subsequently approve of them?”
What was the reason these companies received failed votes? The paper concludes that high pay levels were probably “a main determinant of the voting results,” with stock-price performance likely making a modest contribution to the negative votes. The authors identified grants of “large one-time special award[s] to the CEO” as the “leading factor triggering a failed say-on-pay vote.” In the sample, the CEO pay levels were deemed high (average CEO comp was $23.1 million; median $16.8 million) compared to the Russell 3000 median of $6.2 million and even compared to the amounts the same CEOs received the previous year (average CEO comp was $14.2 million; median $6.7 million). (Note that the authors acknowledge that this is a relatively “rough comparison” and that a more fair comparison “would measure each CEO’s pay against that of a comparably sized peer in the same industry.) With regard to stock price performance, the authors report that the companies in the sample had a total shareholder return of only 4%, while, in the same year, the Russell 3000 increased by 26%.
Another pivotal factor appears to be the influence of the proxy advisory firms. According to the paper, in 2022, ISS recommended against all but one of the proposals that failed, with average support of only 36%. The authors note that, where ISS had given a favorable recommendation in the prior year but changed to a negative recommendation, “say-on-pay support fell an average of 54 percentage points year over year, compared with only a 15 percent reduction in support when ISS maintained a negative recommendation both years.”
SideBar
This 2016 post from the Columbia Law School CLS Blue Sky blog by two executives from the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations in Canada, looked at the question of the effectiveness and impact of non-binding say-on-pay votes. The authors cited studies showing that shareholder votes on say on pay tend to be based, not so much on pay levels, but more frequently on stock price performance. According to the post, if a company’s “shares do better than those of its peers, almost any compensation package will be approved. This perverse result tends to increase the pressure on management to focus on short-term stock performance, sometimes through decisions that may negatively affect future performance.”
Why look to stock price performance? The authors attributed this result in part to the complexity and sheer length of compensation disclosure—although the post is from 2016, proxy disclosure has only become more complex, especially with the addition now of pay-versus-performance disclosure. And given that many investors hold shares in numerous companies, it may be easier for them to base their votes on stock performance rather than try to analyze complex compensation packages as detailed in lengthy proxy statement disclosures. (Assuming, of course, that they even open their proxy envelopes!) According to the post, “for the 50 largest (by market cap) companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange in 2015 that were also listed back in 2000, the median number of pages needed to describe their executives’ compensation rose from six in 2000 to 34 in 2015, with some compensation descriptions consuming as many as 66.” (For more discussion of the length of proxy statements, see this PubCo post.)
Instead of checking stock prices, it’s even easier for investors to rely on the recommendations of proxy advisory firms, such as ISS and Glass Lewis. As a result, the influence of proxy advisory firms has increased substantially. According to the post, 83% of directors very much or somewhat agreed that their influence has increased. One consequence of the increase in influence of proxy advisory firms has been a certain similarity in executive compensation packages—a conclusion in line with the current Rock Center paper eight years later. The post indicates that, to win the recommendation of these firms, boards, comp committees and consultants find it “wiser and safer to toe the line and put forth pay packages that will pass muster…. The result has been a remarkable standardization of compensation, a sort of ‘copy and paste’ approach across publicly listed companies. Thus, most CEO pay packages are linked to the same metrics, whether the companies operate in manufacturing, retailing, banking, mining, energy, pharmaceuticals, or services. ”
In response to the failed votes, companies typically increased their proxy disclosure, describing the extent of their engagement with institutional investors and proxy advisors, the feedback they received and reasons offered for the negative votes. According to the authors, among the reasons, 30% criticized the features of a special award, 18% cited as a negative factor “too little (or no) performance-based awards in the long-term incentive program,” and 13% cited high overall pay levels. Ten percent took issue with “a discretionary action the company took to award a bonus payment (short- or long-term) when it would not otherwise have been merited.” To address the criticisms, the authors found that companies made an average of 2.5 changes, with 66% changing the performance metrics or weightings in their incentive programs, 36% increasing disclosure, 19% changing the performance measurement period and 18% reducing overall pay, among other changes. The authors raise the question of whether these changes “represent an honest effort by compensation committees to improve poorly structured incentives, or are they cosmetic moves to appease shareholders and proxy advisory firms?”
What was the impact? The study found that, although vote outcomes improved substantially to the levels achieved prior to the failed vote (average support increasing from 35% to 76%), those outcomes were still well below average support (90%) in the Russell 3000. Curiously, the authors found some correlation between the level of support and the number of changes made: companies that made two or three changes received more support than those that made only one or none. Making more than four changes did not seem to help much more. However, regardless of the number of changes, if those changes were sufficiently “in line with ISS criteria” to convince the proxy advisory firms to make positive recommendations, the companies “almost uniformly experienced larger say-on-pay increases” than those that did not—a finding consistent with prior “research showing that proxy advisory firm recommendations contribute to standardization in CEO compensation.” The authors also raise the issue of whether proxy advisory firms can even adequately digest and analyze all the data regarding pay structure for thousands of companies to identify those companies with pay practices that don’t measure up. Whether standardized compensation structures are good or bad for shareholders remains to be seen. The authors ask whether “the companies that fail their say-on-pay votes the most egregious offenders, or ‘unfairly’ caught up in somewhat arbitrary compensation guidelines?”
SideBar
In a paper by two of the authors, Seven Questions About Proxy Advisors, also from the Rock Center, examining the proxy advisory firm industry, the authors ask whether proxy advisors can detect “excessive” CEO pay. The authors suggest that, because the public tends to view CEO comp as just too high, CEO pay is an issue that has attracted the attention of various stakeholders, driving them to “pay considerable attention to the voting recommendations of proxy advisory firms.” The authors cite studies showing the impact of a negative recommendation on comp-related proposal at levels ranging from 20% to 30%. When it comes to executive pay, both ISS and GL have “elaborate models to inform their voting recommendations,” which include negative recommendations in the event of various “excessive” or “egregious” elements. Notwithstanding substantial disclosure about the proxy advisors’ recommendations, the authors argue that “we do not know how these firms determine which practices are excessive or egregious.” There does not appear to be a consensus among independent researchers about what pay levels are excessive or about other related issues. Maybe proxy advisory firms have figured it out, but “if so, these models have not been externally vetted.” Nevertheless, several studies showed that proxy advisors’ recommendations make a difference, including one study showing that 72% of public companies “review the compensation policies of a proxy advisory firm and a significant percentage of these make changes to pay structure in response,” and another study showing that 53% of companies “offer less pay to the CEO than they otherwise would in order to avoid a negative recommendation from a proxy advisory firm.” Studies also found elements of standardization across companies—associated with lower shareholder value—attributable in part to proxy advisor influence. (See this PubCo post.)
At the end of the day, did the say-on-pay vote have much impact? The authors ask whether there is “any evidence that say on pay or proxy advisor recommendations on say on pay create better managerial incentives and increased shareholder value?” Apparently, the authors don’t seem to think so. Most notably, the authors conclude that, notwithstanding “a strong rebuke from shareholders and making significant changes to pay structure and disclosure, companies overall did not substantially reduce pay,” especially in comparison to the pay levels in the year before the failed vote. While average compensation declined to $11.8 million from $23.1 million, it was still “well above Russell 3000 averages ($6.2 million),” with the median pay of $10.4 million still about 50% higher than the $6.7 million in the year prior to the vote. In addition, the authors attribute the decline primarily to a reduction in long-term equity awards. Nor did shareholder return increase significantly—median returns of negative 18% were almost comparable to negative 19% for the Russell 3000.
SideBar
While there may not have been as much impact as expected on the levels of executive pay, according to this paper from 2016, one group that has experienced some impact from say on pay are directors. The academic study indicated that, following low favorable votes for say-on–pay proposals, directors incurred significant reputational damage and loss of income, which the authors contended should motivate directors to provide better oversight of executive comp from the get-go. Moreover, the authors believed that their study showed that say on pay “has given shareholders an important, albeit indirect, increase in influence over executive compensation.” (See this PubCo post.)
