by limiting the category to "penny dreadfuls", you have already (in my mind) defined companies that have questionable management....so it's almost impossible to fine an honourable director. Almost by definition it implies poor management, .....hence the low response to your thread.
Also it must be remembered that companies that are run by honourable directors are still at the 'beckon call' of the market. Consequently these companies may appear not to perform well but ebb and flow with the market or sector. A really good Director could be someone whom works extreme hard to get a low potential company just profitable.
Conversely, there are companies which 'naturally' perform well but are run by sharks who unbeknown to the shareholders have stripped large percentages off for themselves. (why should I do all this work and not get the lions share). And for many investors that's fine (they made me a profit). But had this company had little potential with the same directors you'd have a different opinion.
So our general perception of a Director is influenced a lot by the potential of the company, the sector cycle ....actually there are many other factors.
For me an Honourable Director (or CEO) is one who show spirit and integrity to perform at their best for all stakeholders fairly and equally...including themselves. They may not take the company to stratospheric heights nor provide 'ten bagger' returns, but they perform in a manor that I feel shows commitment to their responsibilities.
Unfortunately it is easy to see in hindsight the really 'bad' directors, it's not so easy to see the good ones. It's a pity we live in a culture that protects the 'naming and shaming' of these criminals. Unfortunately naming the good ones, doesn't infer the remainder are bad. To only invest in the good ones would leave a lot of potential future good one stranded.
I'm not sure how you would go about achieving your original intent (name the bad ones)...... as worthy as it is.
As for Honourable Directors...I do respect David Moore of MCR.
