Nearbeer wrote "shboomer, ...it is not obscene.....it is nothing more than chump change...you could double their pay and it would still be chump change.....there is a lot of jealously by a couple of poster on this board." :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: I have no idea how you judge your own moral values, but any time a BOD allows itself (as it did at least once) to take out of the company more than ithe company receives in a given quarter to me, at least, shows a lack of integrity and the more so when they extract money from the company over a period of several years during which the value of the company deteriorates. I am all for "pay for performance" and "management by objective" approaches but PTSC is run (officially) by a BOD trio that seems to put themselves ahead of all else and would never publish or even crreat reasonable objectives. How about they drop their stipends to just $1 but award themselves $500,000 each if the stock holds above 50c for 3 months and another $500,000 if it does the same at $1 . But I am not for excessive stipends for the very people who are failing year over year to protect shareholder interests or show growth and a business plan. I know the amounts are relatively small but to me it is more a matter of principle, integrity and character. I could never feel "jealous" of people lacking such characteristics. "Disdainful" is more appropriate. Maybe it's just a confusion between "having principles" and "having principal". I do like your choice of "chump change" though! "change" has the connotation of "loose coinage" so that indicates money. So you "chump change" or "money for chumps". Spot on, I say. (I do know it is believed to be an African American expression from about the 1959s, but I like my version better).