●
|
Pro-Dex’s shares have underperformed for at least 5-years. ISS stated that Pro-Dex “has substantially underperformed the Russell Microcap Index and its peers. Since June 2007, five years before the dissident announced it would nominate directors at the upcoming annual meeting, shares of PDEX declined by 58.1% compared to an 8.9% decline in the Russell Microcap Index and a 21.8% decline in the median of the peer group chosen by the Company.”(1) We note that this underperformance includes the relative under-performance of Pro-Dex since Mr. Healey and Mr. Berthelot joined the board.
|
●
|
In the context of a declining share price, the Company’s SEC filings regarding total compensation speak for themselves (information taken from the Company’s public filings with the SEC):
|
Pro-Dex Inc.
(Per DEF 14A)
|
|||||||||||||||
FY 2009 Compensation
|
FY 2010 Compensation
|
FY 2011 Compensation
|
FY 2012 Compensation
|
||||||||||||
Insiders
|
Cash
|
Stock/
Options
|
Total
|
Cash
|
Stock/
Options
|
Total
|
Cash
|
Stock/
Options
|
Total
|
Cash
|
Stock/
Options
|
Total
|
|||
Mark Murphy (former CEO and Director)
|
$328,019
|
$117,300
|
$445,319
|
$525,105
|
$78,300
|
$603,405
|
$627,403
|
$45,378
|
$672,781
|
$597,605
|
$55,707
|
$653,312
|
|||
Mike Berthelot (CEO and Director) (1)
|
$9,750
|
$4,184
|
$13,934
|
$23,750
|
$2,976
|
$26,726
|
$35,500
|
$8,516
|
$44,016
|
$81,152
|
$201,386
|
$282,538
|
|||
Hal Hurwitz (CFO)
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
$197,517
|
$18,151
|
$215,668
|
$196,194
|
$21,265
|
$217,459
|
|||
Jeff Ritchey (former CFO)
|
$203,074
|
$1,542
|
$204,616
|
$202,181
|
$2,143
|
$204,324
|
$266,228
|
$0
|
$266,228
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|||
Patrick Johnson (former Officer)
|
$251,382
|
$0
|
$251,382
|
$222,928
|
$0
|
$222,928
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|||
William Healey (Director)
|
$18,500
|
$3,230
|
$21,730
|
$19,250
|
$3,732
|
$22,982
|
$33,000
|
$8,516
|
$41,516
|
$37,489
|
$10,955
|
$48,444
|
|||
David Holder (Director)
|
$9,000
|
$4,184
|
$13,184
|
$23,750
|
$2,976
|
$26,726
|
$35,000
|
$8,516
|
$43,516
|
$35,500
|
$10,955
|
$46,455
|
|||
George Isaac (Director)
|
$18,500
|
$6,991
|
$25,491
|
$23,000
|
$2,863
|
$25,863
|
$34,000
|
$12,455
|
$46,455
|
$35,500
|
$10,955
|
$46,455
|
|||
Michael Mesenbrink (former Director)
|
$8,750
|
$4,263
|
$13,013
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|||
Valerio Giannini (former Director)
|
$8,750
|
$547
|
$9,297
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|||
Total Compensation
|
$855,725
|
$142,241
|
$997,966
|
$1,039,964
|
$92,990
|
$1,132,954
|
$1,228,648
|
$101,532
|
$1,330,180
|
$983,440
|
$311,223
|
$1,294,663
|
|||
Total Compensation
|
|
||||||||||||||
% of Total Sales |
4.725%
|
4.881%
|
4.907%
|
7.502%
|
●
|
We believe our interests are aligned with shareholders because all of our Nominees other than Mr. Farrell own significant amounts of stock for themselves or the funds they manage. And even Mr. Farrell has purchased shares with his own funds, and pledged his time and reputation to board service.
|
●
|
We are pledging that if elected to a majority on the board, our policy will be to pay each board member $200 per meeting, or a maximum of $10,000 per year in total board fees (this is a stark contrast to the $180,573 in board fees the current board received in fiscal year 2012). While we will reserve the possibility of issuing stock options to employees in the future, we will not grant directors stock or options now or in the future.
|
●
|
While the Company has tried to make an issue of the complaint naming Mr. Swenson, we believe the key point is that the complaint was dismissed, a fact that the Company has overtly and, we believe, improperly failed to indicate.
|
●
|
As we have noted in our proxy materials we believe it is important to reduce costs at the Company. ISS noted even “small reductions in costs such as board fees or executive pay can have a large impact on net income on a percentage and absolute basis.” So, we will look to reduce costs, but at this point we remain flexible as to how best reduce costs because we do not have all of the facts. However, pending further review, we have no plans to effect reductions in force, or plans specific to reducing costs.
|
●
|
We stated in our prior proxy materials that we are looking to achieve cost savings from reduced board fees of approximately $170,000 per year. We estimate that this allows—all else being equal—for the conversion of an additional 4-5% of Gross Margin to Operating Margin. In other words, our planned reduction in board fees will amount to 4-5% of our estimate of Gross Margin.
|
●
|
In order for Pro-Dex to get more sales, we believe the Company will have to rely on the affinities and emotional bonds it forms with its customers to increase sales. Additionally, we expect that the engineers working for Pro-Dex are going to potentially have very good ideas about how the business can be improved and how the company might work best with its customers. However, at this point we do not have specific plans on how to increase sales because we do not have all of the facts. So, we will remain flexible in addressing this issue.
|
●
|
ISS recommended a vote “for” dissident nominees Swenson and Cabillot, not Farrell. ISS went on to state that “the dissidents have demonstrated a compelling need for a change to the board’s composition.” We agree with ISS’ conclusion about the compelling need for change to the board’s composition, and urge shareholders to vote “for” all of our Nominees.
|
●
|
ISS very clearly stated: “DO NOT VOTE on the management card.”
|
●
|
When we speak of the requirements of public board service and effective boardroom leadership, we are talking about the responsibility of the board of directors to protect shareholder value. The discussion in our proxy statement under the heading “Failure of the Current Board to Protect Shareholder Value” supports our contention that the current board has failed to protect shareholder value.
|
●
|
We intend to help management better steward Company resources and grow revenue, by adding a new perspective and decision-making process to the current board, as discussed in our proxy statement. As noted in our proxy statement, when elected we plan to lead a very thorough and complete and intense review of the Company, and our nominees will strive to reverse the Company’s poor financial performance by being well informed, independent, and decisive, with a strong focus on building long-term shareholder value.
|