Hello Joe and Bob,
Nice to hear from you, Joe, your posts are always well thought out and well-stated. Its also pleasant to read through dissenting opinions where personal attacks are absent.
I disagree with you and Bob about shareholders "micromanaging", or playing the heavy with current management, and (Bob) divesting ourselves of our shares should we disagree with the current and/or anticipated state of affairs.
As shareholders, we've a right to tell management what we think ought to be done, and of course, the company can politely ignore us, or give a listen. Agreeing with shareholders need not be the equivalent of acquiescing to mob (un)reasoning. The SI/RB threadmembers advocating the propositions on the table are shareholders, their (our) petition is no different than speaking out at a shareholder meeting.
Plenty of us have disagreed with management, but that's the nature of investing, hell, that's just human nature. We bitch, make suggestions, and if we still believe in the company, we hold onto our shares. Only if we completely lose faith in the company - management, the product, our vision of the future - then we divest.
This Marty question is a tricky matter. I've the highest regard for Marty, and great appreciation for what he's done for "my" investment. And there's the rub, "my" investment, "my" as in selfish. This is the perfect dilmma: two unsatisfactory solutions to a (perceived) problem, that of whether shareholders have a "shareholder" voice on the Board.
On the one hand, Marty's done a great job for "my" investment: he's a thorn in management's side, he's procured a significant addition in John Hwang, he's acted as conduit for we sub-A types who have ideas and complaints but lack the initiative or hutzpah (sp?) to communicate with management, he's got contacts, and he's no doubt done a few things for "my" investment that I know nothing about.
On the other hand, the current BOD is a pretty small, tight-knit group, and may not have the diversity it ought to. I'm not discrediting the current Board members; as you say, this isn't the company I first bought over eleven months ago. But still,I've a nagging doubt as to whether the vox populi penetrates the castle walls: witness the lack of forthrightness about the company's financials, or at least, the timeliness of disclosure. So maybe a plebian should be on the Board (pardon the metaphor Marty, you are anything but plebian). But, when the plebe ascends to the royal ranks, does he forget the boys from the old neighborhood? Will he stop by to chat, have a smoke and a beer, or, because of his royal trappings, will he be precluded from associating with we commoners, the shareholders?
I previously stated I'd like to see Marty on the Board. I've changed my mind. I think "my" investment is better served with Marty in his current position - it is a position, you know - as the peoples' messenger, and a lot more than that. Marty has management's ear, he has our collective ear, and he speaks both languages. I ask that Marty stay put, maintain the status quo, at least for now.
As for the 26 million share question, the terms could be more favorable to the company.
Best, Tim |
