RE:The problem “The board members we don't vote off will just replace those we do with whoever they please”
When some board members don’t get the votes the whole board should get the message which will be the fact that shareholders are not happy with those board members contribution another obvious part of the message is also we don’t want the replacements to have the same mindset. Let’s not forget most likely not all members are in agreement regarding all the decisions they collectively have been making meaning there are probably some members which get outvoted therefore I am not sure why we should automatically presume the replacements will be a copycat of the outgoing members.
The problem is the fact that this not a new problem but it has been an issue for many years we can wait another year or more or we can act, I can go back almost a decade on this message board and find many posts regarding lack of clear communication so why should we think suddenly it is going to change now.
The disruption might not be as much of a disruption but the results of replacement of some long time serving members can and likely will make some overdue changes quite quickly.
SPCEO1 wrote: The problem for TH is really a very focused one. It's share price has come up way short versus all other comparables during a huge bull market costing us all massive amounts in opportunity cost if not also real cold cash. The board and management have managed most every other respect of the company's affairs reasonably well.
So what can shareholders do to fix that problem?
Not much, unfortunately. Voting out board members is a way to send the message that we are not at all happy with the situation, but that does not mean it ill get fixed as unless someone wants to lead a hostile effort to replace board members, the board members we don't vote off will just replace those we do with whoever they please. The chances of real change occurring are not great.
Real change only occurs when there is an attempt to put up new board members to replace current ones and shareholders vote on that. I have no interest in pursuing that route of trying to fix the problem and it would lead to a huge diversion of management resources away from NASH and cancer until it was resolved, If someone out there wants to go that route, I have an obligation to my clients to consider whatever alternative is being offered and vote appropriately. So, it is possible I would support such an attempt withthe votes I control. But it is not likely as the disruption is likely unnecessary and the board only has this one major problem that they likely can fix if they choose to.
The board has already approved something to try to address this issue as Paul referenced as much at the end of the call yesterday. I am pretty sure I know at least what part of that attempted effort is and, in my view, it has a decent chance of at least limited success. And it is not as dodgy an effort as the Water Tower Research thing. So, we should probably give them a chance to see this effort through for a while.
But, we will be getting the proxy soon and that almost certainly will cause many of us some serious heartburn. So, tabling the conversation until we get that and also see what comes of the new effort to get the stock the respect it deserves is likely the best idea at the moment. It may be that after seeing the proxy and seeing what the new initiative is that we all agree that a message needs to be sent by voting one or more off the board. We certainly have the votes to do that if we wanted to. Hopefully, we will not want to by the time it comes to submit our votes.
Also, I think we can reasonably assume that the appointment of the two new board members last Fall was in anticipation of one or two currently on the board retiring from it. So, we need to wait and see who is actually up for election before we might pick who to target.
If we are really ticked off when it comes time to vote, we could vote everyone off the board and through things into a bit of chaos. I am actually not at all sure what would happen in that situation regarding building a whole new board. But that seems unnecesary and way too disruptive too. That would be something we would do only if the current board mucks some more things up and it seems like there is no other way to achieve the changes we hope they will implement.
Again, this board has done a lot of good things. The only major failure is the stock price. That is a pretty serious failure but it is correctable, especially because the board has done enough good things in the past to create a very intriguing company with two very big shots on very big goals that it should be easier than normal to fix the problem. Still, they cannot do what they have done in the past and expect things to change. The idea that if you build the better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door is not working. You need to get out there and tell the world about it. And given what they have pulled off in creating a whole new TH whose future has little to do with tiny HIV drugs and much to do with huge markets like cancer and NASH, all while using little in shareholder resources to accomplish that feat, they have a lot to crow about. They simply need to tell that great story to the right audience.