"While I had grown increasingly wary of anything REK said over the years, I never believed all the accusations and innuendoes about her on the message boards, but it now seems they were all true."
Dave, for a long time, I was just like you. "Switching sides" meant accepting some difficult propositions about The Markham Gang. I bad-mouthed a lot of people who bad-mouthed management, and eating my words wasn't easy.
But sometimes one has to recognize that one has made too many explanations that don't really cut it, and seen too many departures from the norm to continue the exercise of faith.
You don't need answers to know when there are just too many questions. The questions themselves are sufficient evidence of a problem.
Some misguided souls have blathered that those who supported management are to blame for the delay in reasserting control of Dimethaid. They value their importance too highly.
Until the major shareholders reached consensus, nothing was going to happen. The complaints on investor chatlines (however justified) meant nothing until the major shareholders decided they'd had enough.
No coalition of minor shareholders had a chance - even a remote chance - of putting together the connections, the resources, the new BOD, and the behind-the-scenes expertise to make the challenge - the proxy fight - a success.
Until the big players were ready to act, nothing was going to happen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We vest an enormous amount of power in management. We give them our money. They get the media, and the ear of the public. They get good money, perks, options, employees, offices, and most important, our trust.
Investors are a forgiving lot, really. They ask for competence, diligence and fair dealing - but they don't necessarily expect that those qualities will guarantee success.
"Just do your best, and treat us honestly: we'll accept the consequences. Here's our money."
How difficult is that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is it about people who get into positions of power, that makes them do wrong, then try to evade accountability? How many times must we see Watergate revisited, in different ways? If only leaders would learn to say: "Look folks, I screwed up. I made a bad mistake, and I want to tell you the truth, because it's going to affect us all."
You said, "...I never believed all the accusations and innuendoes about her on the message boards, but it now seems they were all true..."
That's just how Watergate started: innuendos, rumours, accusations.
Worldcom, Enron and so many more demonstrate that once they go wrong, nobody has the jam to just stand up and say:
"STOP! I can't do this any more. It's wrong!"
The concept of "wrong" seems to just disappear. They work like beavers constructing elaborate facades to hide the truth. Pretty soon, the rumours and innuendos start. And while that happens, the whole damn thing becomes so falsified and endangered that when the truth is discovered, it all comes crashing down.
It's really hard to find good help, these days.
Regards,
Jim |
