Brett is gone, Peter Wall is soon to be if not already. All I am seeing is corporate manoeuvring in preparation for an exit with some of the aforementioned executives already gone. There are a lot of shares that need buyers and at current share price there would not be enough. MoU is no longer going to be effective so there was a need for a new way that seems different and fresh. Just like signing MoUs, signing up an executive chairman essentially has the same effect in terms of appeal and vanity but unfortunately has just as much substance or lack of it. There is a reason why a single person can be a chairman of multiple companies simultaneously. The appeal of the name of the newly assigned chairman obviously invoked as expected responses from shareholders and to me I think that was the intent all along and nothing more. An executive chairman is not a CEO or managing director. The same issues in terms of fundamentals still exist and nothing has changed except the invocation of new bout of euphoria.
