I am back. So is SGH, page-58

Krispy, whilst many different possibilities might well abound, the fact remains that the following statement says it all:
----
"Many many amazing possibilities of creative financial engineering there."

If the future viability of SGH (in a listing context) depends upon innovative financial engineering /techniques being applied then several things will likely happen:
1. the 20,367+ share register (AR16) will shrink (average holdings = 17,282);
2. the appetite for investor risk will shrink meaning that more (rather than less) shareholders /investors will swerve away from investing in the Company;
3. risk discounts will typically be applied to the shares (ie: to account for the financial engineering /risks involved which also essentially mean /refer to increased tax risk);
4. the disconnect between quality and standard will increase (ie: SGH's traditional legal label + vulture funds + junk status of debt + collapsed share price + increased day trading activity + near on dependent on the financiers for CF support + if a DFE occurs of any standard, then >1.0B - 2.0B in total shares on issue (= junk share status) + some of the biggest corporate losses in Australian history + class action against it (not initiated by it) + ???? = questions of image, integrity, reputation, standards, etc).

What SGH requires is clear stability, a clear infusion of fresh funds, a change of management and the Board. Grech, you might be able to make out a grudging case for, but Skippen, just exactly what sort of case can you make there? In so many ways, this Company is facing not only a governance and accountability crisis, it is also facing an integrity, image and emerging branding crisis. That is, what is happening in the financial world risks spilling over into the real world. As such, as part of any first step towards future recovery, it needs to clean itself up least of all reputational harm, damage or risk starts appearing near term on the horizon. And in this regard, the secondary lenders should start first in the boardroom (at the Chair's level) and then cut a swathe through the senior management ranks. These, after all, are the ones that have already cost the Company >$1.3B, all but destroyed the Company in its present form, cost the primary bankers >$500M (never again will they be trusted by the main banking stream), but then again voted themselves in the past bonuses, pay rises, etc.

Their staff might well be loyal, but if so, they're loyal to the Company, not to management or the board. In other words, in order for the secondary debt holders to get the best out of the Company and its employees, a broom should be swept through the ranks. If so, this would likely improve morale and boost future focus and improvement.