iwong, I get a sense that instos supported the board on this...

iwong, I get a sense that instos supported the board on this one. For example, Montgomery funds likely backed the board because their blog implied as much (and, frankly, demonstrated a classic logical non-sequitur). In addition, many investors are passive, so their non-voting gets assigned to the chair (I recall).

As for having an independent consultant: the board probably wanted a fresh set of eyes who can do a detailed SWAT of the firm, whereas board members rarely do the operational analysis themselves. But we also have cases where boards and CEOs rely too much on consultants -- I recall that a former Woolies CEO recently criticized Woolies mgt for having too many consultants and not enough direct farmer in the field activity. So, the consultant might be a good thing, or might be evidence that the board doesn't know the business well enough.

My personal view is that IFM has talent and momentum, but some of the things graham raised as concerns may be valid and therefore a risk in the longer term.

Also note the chair's vague talk/writing about dividends. Some risk that the next divvy or two will be trimmed a bit, likely to the 1.7 cents of the latest one (with no special top up divvy). This might be justified; IFM's retained earnings ratio is too low for a tech company, but we can only hope the funds invested in sales and R&D will be well spent.