You're contradicting a previous assertion of yours. When I expressed a view that collectively retail complaints against Dan, alongside those of the tutes, contributed to Dan's being asked to resign, you said you thought retail had no impact on the decision and it was all the tutes influencing the Board to get Dan fired. Now you're implying retail investors are the only ones impatient, but wouldn't you agree if the tutes were behind Dan's firing, as you said, they too are impatient with the current valuation and drop in the stock price or else they wouldn't have been behind Dan's leaving? You can't have it both ways.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
