Thanks for the question. Well, as with most things, context matters...
If Nasrat's share count was 51% of the total, that would be a problem. But 25%?
Analysts often are troubled when a CEO does not own enough shares. In Nasrat's case, the percentage of shares he holds are the equivalent of what a founder would have. That means his future is hitched to the company. I know there are arguments that - "If he sells for even 15 cents a share, we shareholders get hurt but he makes big money." Well, the reality is he will make big money, but for those who are unfamiliar with the people who inhabit the CEO role, they know they will be paid. But, it is about more than the pay, it is about what it is they produce that allows them to earn the money. The competitiveness is unbelievable and the desire to not merely win by making money, but win big by producing something that others have failed to produce or in comparison with someone they once competed with. On this point, why do you think Nasrat mentioned Akorn?
I can say all of the above because I understand business, I worked in business, I have studied business. Even if this is a pharma business, it is a business. I do not talk about drug efficacy or the specificity of trials. Not my area of expertise and that means it is about the context of one's learning. So, for example, let's say a medical doctor talks about a pharma business and waxes prophetically because they are smart and have read stuff and, of course, it is about medicine. Well, unless they are a business doctor, they don't know shit other than what they have read. In my experience, that is no different than the academics who think that studying about management is the same as doing it. Sheer arrogance. That is exactly the kind of thing I want to help the board recognize - context matters.
