Hi mjan,
It's a clear risk. Dig makes a useful point about risk mitigation.
One might call it the 1% risk, although oddly enough, the 1% risk often seems to be much higher than 1%! But in Wave's case, the risk is higher still, and the source of the extra risk is the family agenda which seems to exist within this public company. No need for the list.
This is one reason why I think it is important for shareholders to point out the issue every time it appears. Shareholders' interests and the family's are not entirely aligned, although we both want Wave to succeed. But shareholders don't have much control over their share of the equity. I'd like to see change up top. But it isn't clear how that would happen effectively. Especially as many shareholders seem to hold loyalty to the family as the highest form of virtue, as if they were endowed with a special power unavailable to the rest of us mortals.
For those same folks, Feeney is the soft target. But it seems to me he is quietly applying the brake on the family wagon. Without him, I suspect the thing would crash very quickly. Hence, my vigorous defence whenever the loyalists focus on him.
| 