Questions for Every Shareholder.
- Wouldn't a board more concerned with good governance and continuous improvement than avoiding criticism have agreed to merely fully explore the issues we set forth above, given the billions in potential value creation?
- Why would the board resist adding a minority of new directors who actually have the experience to ask the right questions about Retail's operations and strategy?
- Why would a board that has spent $4 billion on Retail acquisitions that have failed to meet Agrium's minimum return hurdle and which failed for years to engage in significant shareholder return of capital until pressured to do so refuse to simply clarify its ongoing capital return plans?
- Why would a board that has overseen a 14% annual growth rate in corporate overhead, has a Retail footprint which by Agrium's own admission and measurement standards has a glaring degree of duplication, and has generated negative operating leverage refuse to consider seriously examining its costs?
- If Agrium's conglomerate structure truly creates more value than a separation, why is the board so resistant to an independent and fair review, particularly given the flaws in its initial review including manipulating trading comparables and hiring advisors who once argued against Agrium's structure to now defend it, and given that our nominees will constitute only a minority of the board once elected?
- Why would a board that has consistently set compensation targets for Retail management that prioritize growth through acquisitions over profitability refuse to an enhanced review of these compensation targets and objectives?
- Why would a board that has overseen a litany of corporate governance failings including talking down its own value to avoid a debate, botching a significant share repurchase, accelerating its annual meeting date and more resist adding independent and shareholder-oriented new directors?