You are all tempting me to enter a position. I don't want to try and catch a falling knife, but I also think there could be a bit more of a fall here. I've put a buy in on Strawman, will contemplate doing so in RL today.

@SebastianG Of course none of us can tell if there are more stories ready to be drip fed by the media. Only time will tell.

It certainly is getting tempting.

I've read a lot of commentary on it over the last 24-48 hours. It's a very divisive stock. I'd say for every investor tempted to enter a position, there is at least one, if not 1.5, who believe its value is unjustifiably high. The latter commentary tends to focus on its comparison to the big US tech stocks like Nvidia and Microsoft, with words to the effect of, "it isn't in that kind of class". I would tend to agree with that view and I do think it trades on an "Australian" premium. That is, as we've discussed on here before, there are limited options on the ASX when it comes to high quality and established company growth stocks.

I do think we'll see more of a pull back and a bit of sideways trading for a while, which is what makes the decision to buy in so difficult for me.

@SebastianG On one hand the media can keep at this for a while longer surely pushing out stories up to the AGM on the 22nd Nov. The meeting is online only.

On the other hand a month can be a long time. The US election and subsequent fall out, may mean that WTC issues fall out of the headlines and attention is diverted elsewhere.

I think a key milestone will be the outcome of the Board Investigation, with an eye on the AGM on 22 November. Several of the $WTC Non-Execs have much wider interests and reputations, and they know they will have to do a good job as DIrectors or suffer damage to their own reputations/prospects.

So, the key issue I am interested in, is what the investigation unearths about the relationship between RW and the staff member that reportedly began in 2016 and ended in 2023, and which involved the transfer of ownership of a property. From what I've read, RW disclosed the relationship to Board "before her hiring" in May 2017. Again, from what I've read, the property transfer occurred outside anything to do with Wisetech.

For me, this is important information. The fact, if true, that RW reported to the Board the relationship before hiring a relatively junior employee, indicates to me that he has understood the fine line that exists between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in corporate life. Over my decades working in leading companies at senior level, I cannot count the number of relationships between powerful leaders (of all genders) and more junior staff that began at work. Societal expectations and rules about disclosures have evolved over the 40 years of my working life, and it is easy for people to not always be ahead of their disclosure obligations. (After all, many times the relationship is initially clandestine, as one or more parties may be already in a relationship).

So, learning of RW's reported disclosure before the fact, was a critical piece of "evidence" that gave me confidence that this is someone who has been aware of and managed the fine line between the acceptable and unacceptable.

And so, I come to the conclusion, that much of the remainder of this is a personal matter, for which the test is "has anyone broken any laws"? So far, not a hint of any evidence. And the noise and colour has been amped up by a media keen to hold as many eyeballs on the issue for as long as possible. Absence material new relevations, the news cycle will move on - it always does. And eventually we will hear the outcome of the Board Investigation.

A positive of all of this, is that it will have put a rocket under the Board on succession planning, and they will need to say more on this to investors that they otherwise wouldn't have felt the need to. That's a good thing.

So, that's a little more detail on my risk calculation.

Red Flags for me would be if Fiona Pak Poy (Chair People and Rem Committee) or Lisa Brock (Chair of Audit and Risk Committee) stand down. Both joined early this year, bringing key independence and gender balance to the Board. There is no way either should be leaving any time soon.

My take on Richard White is one of sadness and regret. This guy is/was a one in a million. What else has he got to prove? He has done it all and he's not a perpetual 'rinse and repeat' guy. Perhaps a bit like a Steve Jobs character and no one can deny Jobs and White have made a difference.

His views on business were so radical as to be almost unbelievable, and yet they worked. Go read his company mantra and see just how radical it is when compred to the usual, predictable claptrap mantra.

Yep, he may have taken a wrong path, perhaps the challenge has gone, money is no object or an inspiration, but I say give him time to find his next challenge.

Unfortiunately $WTC may have to survive without his magic, but it is now so well entrenched, as to be almost unassailable and I do know he was a systems thinking guy so I'd be very surprised if $WTC cannot operate on remote control - the people operate the system and the system drives the business. I just hope his mates are there to counsel him through these personal matters which deeply affect all family members.

Someone in this forum mentioned US Presidents and their past lives - I'd venture to suggest not one of them would stoop to pick up a stone is they honestly answered that expression 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. Come to think about it, which Australian PM would be game to pick up the stone?