Hi Digger
I received the same letter today. I can't say I was impressed.
While I would like the current funds to have been utilised, I am happier for them to remain unused rather than to be used on a project that does not stack up. To say that many opportunities have been squandered while the Board procrastinated, but without giving any examples is quite ridiculous.
I am not generally in favour of making more use of derivatives, as I see that as more likely to benefit outsiders (the money parasites) rather than shareholders.
The statement that the Board is arrogant to strongly endorse the reappointment of the current directors is quite peculiar. If the Board did anything other than to strongly endorse sitting members then I would be most upset that they had not acted to replace them earlier.
I am not sure that the letter shows a great understanding of the PPP transaction and of the $50 put options - but the again I do not understand all of the facts in these areas myself.
All in all the letter had very little substance, but set the candidate up to be a hostile addition to the Board - which I do not believe to be in shareholders interests. There seemed enough to contradict the claim to be a strategic and logical thinker, and I would have expected much more care to be taken to avoid this in a letter of this type.
If the company was not performing, then I would be somewhat more interested in looking towards a change in personnel. But I would look for a candidate who showed more concrete proposals and who was employing a more appropriate strategy to harmoniously join the team.