Thursday is going to be a HUGE day!!!, page-104

"Let us move forward and take SGH to new highs to where it belongs".......

.......How exactly are "we" supposed to do anything when we have no ability to do it, dimwit?

It's pretty clear you don't know the first thing about business and you understand even less. Yet you just won't shut up.

It is always the CEO who has to take responsibility for what happens in a company in his charge. SGH's gearing was too high even before the ranch was bet on PSD, the integration of which was then hopelessly mismanaged. Skippen & Grech didn't know anything serious was wrong 6 months after the new business had been acquired FFS, otherwise they wouldn't have guided as they did, having to revise this guidance twice subsequently. The short brigade suspected, however - and were waiting. They were presented a wonderful opportunity and they fed repeatedly until they could feast no more.

In ordinary circumstances the above named should immediately have gone, but the situation was so serious and there were so many people to blame that there was no real other choice but to try to manage their way out of the hole and BH was the one chosen to lead this strategy. We still don't know he was fully up to the job but to me the signs look positive. There was (still is) a mountain to climb.

The first named two above should go as soon as the company is seen to have stabilised and is once again generating profits and cash, being replaced by a chairman and a CEO whose credentials cannot be questioned. Search parties should be out there now. AG cannot be the right man to take the company forward from here because he will be too badly scarred by his experiences and will have the wrong approach, inter alia, to risk and future strategy generally. The market will also never trust him again.

That's as I see it anyway. The world of business is an unforgiving place. It's quite amusing reading about how AG & Co haven't been given a pay rise after all. Excuse me if I ask but what were these people being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do in the first place. Are people suggesting they exercised their duties adequately when in a few short months they took the company from stock market darling to financial cripple, as a result of failing over a much longer period to appreciate that just because interest rates are low, banks are throwing money at you like confetti and you have a dream, you can go on a spending spree buying up law practices all over the place and then call it growth? It just goes to show how dim financial analysts are that most failed to see anything wrong in AG's strategy.

And if you think I'm writing this with the benefit of hindsight, ask Mel what the first thing I said to him was when SGH emerged on QPP's scene (which I was a post-Terry entrant to after the shares had been oversold). I got in too early here - I didn't realise how often the shorters would be able to reload the 16% of the shares out on loan - borrowed from institutions that only held 10% between them. Your Aussie internet brokers must have been lending your shares to the predators. Just think - investors' own shares used as weapons against them? How low can one get? Mad the brokers a few bob I should think..............

ASX regulators???? Nah..............