Andres, thank you for responding to me. It would be rude if I...

Andres, thank you for responding to me. It would be rude if I could not respond to you, especially for your popular post. Your assessment is quite reasonable and acceptable in general. Little question should be asked as to the integrety of the management and also the mature skills they have.

However, I just like to add one dimension of perspective towards the SDL management. I learned this in my course study and later got it consolidated in my work. It's a common sense, but I like to repeat it.

Shareholders' interest and management's interest are not always aligned. We sharholders look at the SP but a management looks at more than the SP. When both interests are coincided, wonderful, but if not what would happen - which is more important then?

To the SDL specific, GJ appeared to treat rescuing and running SDL as a charity business after the SDL disaster, though clearly with honerable intention. Given his age and his intention, it was obvious he would like to do a quick job for many, including shareholders. The fact that he agreed a takeover price from 57c to 45c was possibly the best evidence that he wanted to complete this 'charity' work asap and got a good name afterwards and retire completely. Selling it as quickly as possible, as long as a buyer was willing to take it. There was little incentive to investigate the buyer.

The bad story turned up was that the presumable buyer could not buy. The job was then not as easy as GJ wanted. Now GJ has to find better ways to get a buyer. Little evidence supports that he genuiely wanted to develop SDL to be in a full swing. GJ does not get younger as time goes by. What GJ truely wants remains unchanged - a good sell, presumablly 100%.