And now, I'd like to respond:
1. Nope. But I know the difference between puffery and dishonesty. I know the difference between timely dissemination of information, and withholding it. And I know that the Safe Harbor Statement is not a license to engage in certain behaviors.
2. I'm surprised that IR thinks that the R/S would have ended up fine, when it appears to me that the R/S greatly reduced my shares and created a crisis of confidence in the company itself. But then again, that is all speculation anyway - IT DID NOT TURN OUT FINE, so there is no sense offering up rosy "What-if's" as seems to be the norm.
3. The issue isn't comparing CEO pay, it is the appropriateness of it, given the stock's dismal performance. We hear a lot about focusing on cutting burn, yet no voluntary reduction? CEO's nationwide are voluntarily reducing their pay, or giving shareholders a say on pay. All in a show of solidarity with their investors, and for the good of their companies in this difficult economy. Matt doesn't see it as an option, which tells me that there are many limits to what he is actually willing to sacrifice for the shareholders. We get all the pain - he gets none.
IR should absolutely grasp that the CEO's image and perception to the public is paramount to having confidence in the company. Instead of offering up excuses and rationalizations, someone needs to recognize the serious nature of the problem Matt has, and own it. Deal with it directly, and make some changes. Stop adding to the lengthy list of "None of this Was Our Fault" rationalizations.
Basically, start to act like a true leader, that can admit fault AND lay out a specific plan to rehabilitate and succeed.
AI
