To: Rob S. who wrote (9055 ) 2/4/2002 8:02:23 PM From: Oeconomicus Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 11568 I don't think willcousa was arguing that it was (or wasn't) a reasonable or prudent thing for the board to do in WCOM's case, just that there may be circumstances where a board could reasonably determine that it was in the company's best interest to avoid having a CEO they otherwise support fall into financial distress and have to dump company stock. He also noted the importance of any such assistance being fully disclosed and explained to shareholders so that they could judge for themselves whether the actions were in the company interest. If they disagree with the board, they can vote them and the CEO out, and if they think the actions were beyond simple bad judgement, rising to the level of a fiduciary breach perhaps, then they can seek legal remedies. Rob, for a trader who seems well aware of how emotion is driving the market in recent days and months, you seem particularly emotional about all this yourself. I suggest to you a step back and try to filter out the rumor-driven, emotional commentary and the outright falsehoods. Reasonable people can disagree about what WCOM should and should not do in the current situation, just as they can about whether the weeding out of competition as they fall into bankruptcy will, in the long run, be good or bad for the remaining players in the industry. I happen to think that such a huge bailout is bad business, but I am willing to consider the board's reasoning and hope to hear more on the subject from them. I also think that, whether a good move or not, it is not a disaster for WCOM and that the market has severely overreacted to it, helped along in their panic by a series of widely circulated and completely false rumors. JMO, Bob