Data .. No reason to delete that post .. It doesn't even remotely approach bashing IMO. It also isn't repetitive .. actually in my memory it is the first time you have weighed in on this subject. It is a thoughtful, balanced and accurate relating of events as you recall them and your related conclusions and opinions that cause you to think that a change of management, particularly with regard to HC, would benefit you as a shareholder. You have also been careful to separate fact from opinion. You do have an opportunity to vote for a change and you should unless something causes you to change your mind between now and then.
I don't know if you have first hand knowledge that Harry can't stand having anyone in the company that isn't a lap dog and has used options, RSUs, etc. as "treats" to get them to act like that, but if you don't that is only your opinion. Not an off the wall one for sure given the facts you have related, but an opinion nonetheless. I have no first hand knowledge whatsoever about Harry so as far as I know he could just as well be the glue that has held the company together through some tough times so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt right now.
I have always wondered about the MG thing. The "he didn't do the job and he got fired" conclusion never rung true with me and still doesn't. My gut told me it was culture clash and it wasn't just with Harry it was the entire management team. I think these guys are tight-knit as hell, see themselves as a team that have dealt with some exceptionally difficult business challenges and no outsider is going to be welcomed by them for some time. I have absolutely nothing factual to back that up with .. it is simply a gut feel. Anyway, my first reason I would not like to see a change at this time is that I don't want to upset the chemistry of the team at a very critical juncture. If they pull this off, they are going to be very highly rewarded and IMO they will be much more willing to bring in others to share the workload and the fruits thereof, ergo less disruption.
The second reason that I don't want a change at this time, at least not one that comes as a result of a very public, and possibly ugly, campaign by individual investors, is my concern for what it might do to our institutional ownership just when we are starting to get some traction with them. These are folks who "dress up their portfolios" at the end of each quarter by selling stocks that have fallen way out of favor and buying ones that are hot. Not a very admirable thing for them to do, but it does give one an insight into their psyche .. i.e. perception ranks right up there with reality. We have just come out of an extended period of very significant corporate scandals, some would suggest that we are still in one, and no institution wants to be holding shares in any company that is even perceived as one that has been raided by the management at the shareholders expense and/or has other significant management and corporate governance issues. While that is not a danger with your post, I submit to you that any institution reading a compilation of Corp's posts would be hard-pressed to conclude otherwise. At the end of the day, the risk (albeit small) is not worth the reward to me, particularly if Corp and his followers are going to lead the charge.
Regards,
Danny
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
