It's funny how in one breath people claim MR is "ultimately responsible" for shitty comms, so "off with his head", yet don't seem to recognise that he is likewise "ultimately responsible" for the POSCO deal, reshuffling CEOs, capital preservation and YOP strategies at MC - which have likely prevented our shares from becoming massively under (even far more) pressure and potentially worthless if this lull persisted a bit longer. Who is "ultimately responsible" for putting us in this enviable cash position that we are in, able to ride out whatever more BS the sector throws at us for years more if it came to that..?
Like I have said before, ultimately I want good comms AND great leadership/decisions/progress etc (don't we all?), but I'll be damned if I choose detailed weekly updates as a priority if the company goes bust.
"I have people sitting on the wings" and I "raise my fist as a chairman" is laughable and incredibly naive imo.
Another gathering of the troops before the AGM. Seen it before. Will likely see it again. Next comes detailed instructions on how to vote, and how to arrange proxies etc etc...
Sure, better comms would give us all the warm and fuzzies, but would it really, seriously, significantly, materially, have altered the course of the sp in the past 24 months, considering the relative performance of peers? The data says NO. The data says that they are tracking similarly, regardless of individual fundamental factors. If a several-hundred-million-dollar cash injection PLUS significant associated de-risking barely blipped the sp, what can you expect a weekly newsletter or more "transparency" to do? SFA is the reality imo.
Those reacting emotively and using "common sense" to judge the company are being fooled imo. Sure, we might well be 10 or 20 % higher right now, with a more satisfied and informed retail group being more comfortable investing here, but that is SFA in the scheme of things and considering what has transpired over the past 3 years.
I'd like to hear more from people who have run and/or advised large businesses themselves, on potential strategy underlying the hesitation and lack of communications from the company, and furthermore, on the pitchfork reaction to management that we are seeing here. Is it a natural reaction associated with assigning blame, and simplistically targeting "whoever is in charge" as they must be "the issue"..?
@Darkstone perhaps you could contribute some thoughts/assessment here? Thanks in advance.
I thought I was reading the humour thread by mistake this morning... wow.
And to those itchy to respond with "you're just defending the company", "making excuses" bah blah blah - save us the nonsense.
Perhaps look at the data and facts and report on those before jumping on the personal attack bandwagon.
I liked the conciseness of
@Gary35 the other day, when he stated that management have had SFA to do with the drop and will have SFA to do with the subsequent recovery.
Sure, great comms along the way likely would have tweaked things slightly, but imo would have made SFA difference to the overall trend, given the power and might of the market makers.
Lets push for great comms, sure - it helps us to better understand the company, track progress, etc - but don't expect that to make a significant difference to the sp, imo, in this environment.
What we're seeing here, imo, is a case of most of us believing in the potential and great future of the company, naively thinking that if only the company could be more clear and vocal about its progress and potential, that more people would remain/become invested, and hence the sp would not have been so decimated over the past 24 months. The data disagrees. Unfortunately, the MM is too strong, and our little boat couldn't float out of the water as the tide dropped, and similarly it won't stay low when the tide rises.
Any market psychology experts amongst us..? Would appreciate more insight into natural reactions/assumptions vs considered assessment of stock and company performance. Thanks.
"Off with his head" Lol
I'd want some pretty solid arguments as to why we'd be better off with a new chairman before entertaining that idea - WELL beyond the simplistic assessment of sp performance and poor comms. How has the business performance suffered as a direct result of his actions/inactions/decisions etc, for example. How have his specific responsibilities been neglected, and how has this affected the performance and potential and security and prosperity of the business, for example. "Better comms and getting SDV started years ago would've saved us"... would it? Certain business decisions that some are complaining about may have actually sunk us (or be far worse for shareholders, long term), in hindsight.
A LOT to consider, far beyond the scratching of the surface that I've seen discussed so far....
I remain open to be convinced but am far from it yet.
IMO
DYOR
