Respect, page-240

I'm indifferent to Mr Skippen. I consider chair roles to be a touch mysterious. The typical investor cannot have an opinion a chair's contribution generally goes on in the background.

For all we know Mr Skippen might be the glue that keeps it altogether, a calming influence when facing enemy fire. Perhaps he also had a major part to play winning the ongoing confidence of the finance syndicate.

Then again al that might be overly generous. The point is I don't know and I suspect you and no one else outside the tent really knows.

There is a reasonable conclusion. It is said the chair and Neds workload increased greatly with the company stresses over the past 12 months. I think all roads go back to the external advisers and ASIC. If there was evidence of slacking and not adding value that would surely have been evident and come out one way of the other. No, the chief players remain and that must be because the syndicate hav faith in them.

Human nature to look for scapegoats, it doesn't really solve anything though.

I don't accept $1bn has been lost.

The only change is numbers on a balance sheet. The underlying assets are still there and could well produce the $1bn value in due course. Accounting quirks mean they have to value it today with uncertain future estimates. Once it has washed under the bridge it could benefit SH down the track. Value metrics will start to look extremely good when goodwill impairment is forgot - ROE ROA ROC will all look favourable when sustainable earnings are evident.