director nomination?

The following was part of a message, sent a while ago, to shareholders who expressed an interest in a concerned shareholders meeting.

This is in reference to the changes in the bank’s financial condition as reported in the year-end 10-k. The resignation of  the CFO doesn’t help, either. Caveat: I am no banker and this is just my perception. I’ve been wrong before.

As the recent information of the bank’s deteriorating financial condition became known, the need for a meeting of concerned shareholders seemed to diminish. The 10-k and the 8-k’s that followed may have been game changers. Was that information the “other shoe” or is there still one out there? This information alone, is causing me to rethink the nomination. Placing Steve in a position to help lead a turnaround was the intent. Sacrificing him to prove a point is useless and a disservice to the community and was never a thought. At this juncture, I would feel awful if we succeeded in electing him to the board of this institution.

Other shareholders have expressed agreement with this sentiment. Key words are, “at this juncture”.

I wanted to make everyone aware that there are options being considered. I was nominating Steve to lead these guys, not to hang with them.

The proxy access proposal is still important, nonetheless.

4 comments on “director nomination?

  1. Pretty sad it took you that long to figure out your one man plan was a waste of time and sacrificial. Great job helping to make this tragedy even more of a 3 ring circus than it was. Of course I am sure you won’t see it that way with your perspective, but it sure looks that way to me.

    • Hindsight is 20/20. I can comment from personal experience. If I had any idea what was going on at Citizens before I made the decision to join them I certainly would have stayed at First Federal Savings Bank!

Comments are closed.