Forum Topics WTC WTC Press

Pinned straw:

Added a month ago

The Australian this morning commenting on reports that $WTC Board “confront tough choices with White” with reports of one option being considered in having White taking leave of absence.

Given all the salacious press of recent days/weeks, I’ve been waiting for this shoe to drop.

To be clear, I believe $WTC is currently overvalued, and I have exited my RL position after the FY results as reported here in earlier straws.

I wonder what this news is going to do to the SP?

It is on the top of my watch list to re-enter on a significant fall.

There’s little doubt that Richard’s personal issues will be a distraction for him, but $WTC is large enough that should he step back for a bit, it will be a good test of the bench below him as to whether performance continues without missing a beat. That is actually something I’d like to understand better.

Disc. Not held

mikebrisy
Added a month ago

Here's the full text:


Eric Johnston

WiseTech’s board confronts tough choices with its founder and chief, Richard White

WiseTech’s independent chairman, Richard Dammery, and his board are having a series of tough conversations with Richard White over the string of sensational allegations that have surfaced concerning the private life of the CEO, who is also the tech company’s founder and billionaire shareholder.

One option presented to White during those talks is for the boss to take a leave of absence from the company he has run for more than 30 years to focus on his mental health. Although it hasn’t yet come to that point, White has considered this proposal.

White is alleged to have sought a sexual relationship with Sydney beauty entrepreneur Linda Rogan in exchange for investing in her company.

A second woman has come forward, Sydney-based Jenna Riches, this week, telling The Australian a professional mentoring relationship with White later became intimate. These allegations are not subject to legal proceedings. White has declined to respond.

The initial allegations made in the Federal Court about White’s private life are yet to be tested. However, the notion of a scandal enveloping a powerful shareholder who is also deeply involved in running the company is one of the toughest situations a company board can face.

White is no ordinary CEO, which makes the situation even more complex.

He owns a little more than a third of the company, making him the biggest single investor in the $44bn WiseTech Global.

And as a founder and being deeply involved in WiseTech’s strategy and dealings, he has an outsized presence through every part of the company and has driven much of its success.

As independent chairman, Dammery’s obligation is to represent the interests of all shareholders, while protecting the reputation and integrity of WiseTech.

The events are pushing the boundaries of personal and professional. As is the case with most founder-led companies, White’s and WiseTech’s reputations are inextricably linked. When allegations are made about White’s behaviour in a private cap­acity, it is difficult to split the two.

White still has the backing of his board, which collectively believe that legal process needs to be respected, including a right for the WiseTech CEO to defend himself in court. The feeling around the board table is that directors don’t want to rush to judgment, which could ultimately hurt the longer-term prospects of the company.

However, the board is actively monitoring the situation by holding additional meetings outside the scheduled monthly meetings to stay on top of new developments, including this week’s revelations in The Australian. It is also taking its own external and ­independent legal advice.

White has attended some of these additional meetings, while in some cases he has been asked to sit out.

Dammery, a hardened-former corporate lawyer who has worked with Coles-Myer and Woolworths, is also having a series of direct and ongoing discussions with White.

A spokeswoman representing the WiseTech board told The Australian: “The board notes with disappointment the ongoing media coverage relating to WiseTech CEO Richard White’s alleged private relationships.

“Although the issues are of a highly personal nature, the board is conscious of the potential impact on WiseTech, and has been meeting regularly to consider the situation.

“It will continue to actively assess events and carefully consider the appropriate steps as required.”

“Richard White founded and has led WiseTech to become one of the great Australian corporate success stories, with strong and deep capability across the entire organisation.

“The board is confident in the company’s strategy and focused on the enormous market opportunity and potential ahead of it.

“We acknowledge that the level of media attention has been deeply affecting for Richard and his family, the WiseTech team more generally, and of course for others involved.

“The board is acutely aware of these human impacts.”

Options ahead

As the situation evolves, there’s four paths the WiseTech board can take. For now, it’s option one, which is having White continue as CEO while closely monitoring the situation.

The second option, which has been openly discussed with White, is for the CEO to take a leave of ­absence to focus on his personal health and that of his family. This is expected to be the most likely course.

The third option is to ask White to stand down pending an investigation, although this is difficult because it involves allegations that sit outside the company. The final option, which has not been tabled, is for White to resign.

For shareholders, the allegations have brought forward the uncomfortable question they knew was eventually coming, and that’s around key man risk.

They have to determine how much of WiseTech’s momentum was due to White alone, or whether the tech company can generate its own critical mass without the long-time founder.

As seen from ASX companies from Magellan Funds, Platinum Asset Management to TPG Telecom, the sudden exit of a dominant founder can send it into a tailspin. Even Microsoft took years to recover its momentum following the exit of Bill Gates.

WiseTech, too, is a phenomenally successful Australian technology company and has made the wealth of White. It specialises in software behind logistics, putting it right at the heart of the e-commerce boom. Its shares have more than doubled to $130 over the past year, and are also riding the wave of the tech and AI boom.

Until Wednesday, the allegations had not hurt momentum, ­although the shares fell more than 2 per cent after The Australian published the allegations by Riches on Wednesday.

Dammery is no stranger to big corporate legal complexities and battles. He has advised boards for more than 30 years, including the former Coles-Myer when it faced a takeover approach from private equity major KKR in 2006. He also advised the Woolworths board through the retailer’s disastrous exit from hardware. He also chairs Aussie Broadband – another founder-led company – and is an Australia Post director.

It has only been this week that WiseTech’s big shareholders have started to reached out to Dammery seeking clarity around the situation. And even then it has been a trickle. It is understood the WiseTech chairman is planning to meet with several big shareholders in coming weeks to discuss the board’s position ahead of WiseTech’s annual meeting on November 22.

The next inflection point remains around how the legal action proceeds. WiseTech has some very big, and very serious names on its register. Asset managers such as AustralianSuper, BlackRock, Aware Super, Norway’s Norges Bank, the Future Fund and Australian Retirement Trust all apply a strong ESG lens when they invest.

If there is wrongdoing on behalf of White, each will be raising the pressure on Dammery to act.

The board also has been monitoring White’s share sales. He sold $61m worth in recent weeks. These sales have been well telegraphed to the board and within the permitted trading window. The timing and size of the share sales match previous large sales over the past few years.

eric.johnston@theaustralian.com.au



18

Solvetheriddle
Added a month ago

@mikebrisy , these developments are fascinating. The reason I didn't do a lot of work on WTC years ago was the large founder selling, the large acquisitions, and, lastly, as I wrote on these esteemed pages a while ago, certain people associated with the firm that I didn't have much respect for (trying to be as subtle as I can; I don't want to be sued). Of course, this was wrong; the SP has been up 10X since then.

however, now this last point is becoming a public issue. do i believe the accusations, yes i do. to be clear i had no idea of this specific relationship but there were clues to others, imo. does that matter to WTC shareholders?, well that answer is more complex. there are many examples of CEO private behaviour being problematic, such as gambling, alcohol, womanisers etc etc. The outcome of that behaviour becoming an issue for shareholders is mixed, but an unwelcome risk. if a person is involved in behaviour that we hold is unsavoury given modern society standards (again maybe that does not hold), are they able to differentiate between their public and private selves? the outcomes are mixed but add risk.

i think WTC shareholders will ultimately give RW the benefit of the doubt, he has delivered too much and built goodwill. possibly the ESG train could be set in motion which would be detrimental. if i was a WTC shareholder, which i am not, i would be watching the CEO very closely, especially what he does vrs what he says. at this SP you do not want any slips at all. fascinating.

PS as an aside one of my favourite stories in this regard was Sir Peter Abeles, who ran a company called TNT, who (allegedly) made a Brazilian acquisition because he had a mistress in Brazil and could justify more time with her, lol. ultimately TNT was a variable investment

23

mikebrisy
Added a month ago

@Solvetheriddle I agree that it is an unwelcome risk for shareholders.

I imagine people have a range of views on the relevance of what people do in their private lives as it relates to their professional life.

I spent many years working for an inspirational CEO, who was trying to lead a safety culture change in their business. In a gathering of the top 100 global leaders, he made his expectations clear. "Your contribution to safety stems from your behaviour and your mindset. You cannot be unsafe in your private life and safe at work. You are either safe or unsafe."

This was in response to Q&A from the gathering about how the company would view prosecutions for driving offences on personal time and not involving company property. Leaders in the industry (oil and gas) took critical decisions that literally held people's lives in their hands.

In writing this. I am not judging or pontificating on the $WTC case, and I am not close to anyone in the company. But how this plays out is going to matter to some.

It is, at minimum, an orange flag.

Until recently, I had a very large position in $WTC, and it had flown past my p90% valuation. I exited reluctantly, but I'd be sweating a bit more than usual today if I hadn't.

25

thunderhead
Added 4 weeks ago

Another well timed sell @mikebrisy, whether you intended it or not!

10

mikebrisy
Added 4 weeks ago

@thunderhead my selling was purely mechanistic. (I hated selling as it is my favourite business, but I try to not let my heart rule my buying and selling decisions.)

Sold 50% once it passed my p90% valuation, and the another 50% once it got beyond my highest scenario.Once it hit $135 I was convinced it was overvalued and that I could always buy back, probably within one year.

I did not see the key person risk emerging, and that was not part of my selling calculation. (Well, of course it was part of the “when I’d sell” in a general sense only.)

But now it is part of the calculus. I still think this is a great company and in time this will be a bump in the road. But what is a reasonable re-entry point?

If this issue drags on, and/or if there is a messy transition, or a lengthy “ESG discount” applied, the multiple is lofty enough that the SP could rebase to a new level for some time.

Equally, this could clear up in a week or two. And anyone who purchased today has made a good decision.

At its heart, I personally know nothing of the character of RW. There are new questions arising. Perhaps there are more to come. perhaps not. But it has caused me to question my own conviction. My assessment of risk has changed.

20

thunderhead
Added 4 weeks ago

Very well articulated @mikebrisy. Nobody could have foreseen these shenanigans except under the broad umbrella of key person risk, which is the "ticket to the dance" of backing founder-led and operated companies in the first place. You will get burned by a few (as my bitter experience shows me), but done consistently enough over a long enough period, the research says these companies outperform, and handsomely in some cases - WTC already belongs in that rare breed.

Your framing of the sell also raises the all important dilemma - when you sell purely on valuation grounds, it becomes difficult to assess when to get back in. Then, you have to hope the market gives you the opportunity to do that. And then still, you have to back yourself to take advantage of it! Too many hoops to jump through compared to just trusting your initial decision and seeing that through many years and cycles.

14