This is how you fire a CEO without actually firing them. Do something to soothe the optics and take the heat off the situation, while still keeping the key person around for all that he brings to and represents for the company.

No idea how the arrangement will actually pan out on the ground when the permanent replacement is appointed, but I think it is net positive that they have managed to keep RW around and not have him abruptly ride off into the sunset.

As I wrote earlier this morning, I think the stock trades down or trends sideways for sometime. No announcement of the new CEO can drastically lift the share price in the short-term. It's very hard to replace a gun CEO and the idea that he can be divorced from management given his shareholding is farcical to me. Such an arrangement can only cause issues in the short term. I think the dust will settle and he'll be back or it'll be very obvious that his new role is quasi CEO anyway.

From a technical perspective which I generally loathe, there's a clear point of resistance at $99-$100. This is important for those wanting to enter into a position. Might be a case of buy here and watch it hover between $95-$105 for the foreseeable future. The bid-ask spread is pretty narrow.

OK, so I have no idea how the market will react. Some have proposed that a $WTC without RW at the helm is worth $90. (I disagree.)

So now we see the CEO Succession Plan. Appoint a safe pair of hands interim, and probably run the leading internal candidates head-to-head against the best externals via a 6-9 month process. That would not be an uncommon plan. Or perhaps, if there are strong enough internal candidates it can be a short process, and they run the internal selection (4-8 weeks), annuncing early in the New Year.

At one level it makes sense that Cartledge is Acting CEO, particularly given that he had already announced his intention to leave. He can focus on doing a good job, without feeling the need to prove anything to the Board. Andrew is well-known to the Board and to RW, and with the working relationship between him and Richard, it means that it will be easy for Richard to be an effective adviser. It's a short term continuity plan. Even though RW's on leave. I imagine he'll be on Andrew's and the Chairman's speed-dial (Whats App).

The key here is the signal that RW still stay on as a full-time advisor for 10 years. Wow. What CEO would not take the advice of an adviser who is also a 37% shareholder, the founder and visionary leader, even if he is no longer on the Board! At every Board meeting, the question will be asked: "And what was Richard's perspective on this decision?" Importantly, they retain Richard's presence in continuing to engage the really big customers in the ongoing story of what the next modules of Cargowise will do for them. That's critical, given the latest delayed release of new products.

Of course, RW's appointment will clearly be subject to the outcomes of the ongoing investigation. So it's by no means a done deal. That process probably has a few week's to run.

This looks like a plan that gives time for the Board to make a sound decision on who will lead $WTC for the next 10+ years. As I've said repeatedly and firmly believe, $WTC is a business that over the last 3-5 years has grown beyond its dependence on an albeit visionary and brilliant founder. It is a company worthy of a world-class CEO. Who will be the "Cook to follow Jobs?"

I echo the sentiment shared by @PortfolioPlus earlier today. Sadness and regret. Richard is a unique Aussie entrepreneur with few peers (maybe Huppert? Maybe Mirkazemi, but he wasn't the founder. ). We've all gained unwanted insights into his complicated personal life - something that I certainly would not wish on anyone. You have to lie in the bed you've made, but I imagine it has taken and is taking a toll on him and his loved ones.

While the partial certainty is welcome, it raises all kinds of new questions including:

• Who will the new CEO be?
• Will this accelerate Richard's long standing slow-burn sell-down policy?
• What are the implications for Richard's new position when the investigation concludes?
• And what will the view of the key institutions be? (Dammery will have sounded out some, I imagine)

I imagine we will need to see several perdiods of strong operational performance to lay the unmovable bears to rest. There is new uncertainty that only sustained performance can answer. So, I do expect an impact on the multiple.

Given the potential for a sharp sell-off from tomorrow onwards, I won't be adding to my position. Because I believe there is every chance that it will take 3 or 4 half-year results for the performance question to be answered fully. (So, that's not entirely true. If there was a batshitcrazy over-reaction, then I'd still stand behind my conviction in this business. I'd find it very hard not to buy should the SP fall below, say, $85, probably laying in my next 40% in three tranches over a period of weeks once the initial volatility stabilises.)

What a crazy week it has been. It's not over.

There are some some interesting takeaways from this fairly polished but clearly rushed announcement.

They are now commencing a global CEO search - so the board had no internal paths in place. Not ideal as they are already searching for a CFO.

They even have the put the departing CFO in place as CEO while this takes place - it could take 6-12 months for a search starting now and factoring potential gardening leave.

Strange new title "Role Title: Founder and Founding CEO"

Finding a CEO may be made more difficult with RW still stalking the hallways and reporting directly to the board, not the new CEO.

I wonder if he'll stay off the board longer term? He has the voting power to put a couple of reps on it, not sure about his relationship with Isaacs these days but expect it is strong, so may still effectively hold sway via proxies.

Agree with @mikebrisy that "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".

Can't help thinking that with board deliberations they may have said if he stays, I / we go - pure speculation and we can't know but I don't expect he went quietly - given his large holding, spirit animal status and rampaging ego that's been on display in the court of public opinion recently.

All that to one side, I actually think this is probably a long term good outcome as it resolves the key person risk (he's already past retirement age) and keeps him for for 10 years (2 year notice period) + 5 year option!

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out in practice.

Disc: Held