@Patrick31, you and Kami have been harping on this for years and whilst there is some empirical evidence to support what you say, it is not categorically true nor is it a panacea for company performance as you very well know.
Not that long ago, Matheison, Corbett and Richards owned over 10% of the company, largely purchased with their own money (Matheison in particular) and this trio plus others presided over the destruction of 80% of shareholder wealth as well as their own wealth. Research shows that it is far more important for company performance that board members have experience in the affairs that the company is involved in. We now have that.
I would rather have a world renowned expert in endocrinology (Bruce Robinson) on the board than a pub baron, poker king and retailer as we had in the past.
In retrospect it was ludicrous to believe that a fledging Oz pharma company could just waltz into the US with an Australian CEO with little US pharma experience and CFO stationed in Australia and little to no US pharma experience on the board and expect success. We now have the right people with the right experience in the right places to be successful but by all means hold them to account when things go wrong. Fair go.
(20min delay)