It would be hard to sideline the founder of a company when he doesn't want to be sidelined, especially when he owns 36.63% of the shares on issue and the next largest shareholder is ETF provider Vanguard with 5.02%.

Also I note the market hardly responded to this latest news - only selling down WTC by -$5.70 (-4.39%) today after the Wisetech Board responded to the media report this morning (Media-commentary.PDF); Today's closing share price for WTC of $124.20 is actually +3.35% above where they closed one week ago ($120.17 on Monday 3rd Feb). That's not much of a reaction compared to being sold down to an intra-day low of $100.02 and a closing SP of $104.65 in October on their worst day (the day the main news broke) and then down to under $100 close three days later. Market is like, ...yeah, seen that before, it was a buying opp last time, not going to sell out just to watch them rebound this time.

A little bit like Donald J Trump - nothing shocks anybody any more. He could literally do anything. The supreme court has given him the green light anyway. Of course, these remain unproven allegations (back to Mr White now, not Mr Trump, he's guilty as hell), but I did have the feeling that there would be more smoke, and possibly one or two fires behind it somewhere. Didn't pass the sleep-easy test for me, as I explained after I bought the dip in October and then got cold feet and sold out after only a week or two at a smaller profit than I would have made if I'd held them longer - but still happy to be out.

Not a happy place to work by the sound of it - not at C-suite and Board levels anyway - when the Founder and largest shareholder doesn't agree with the Board about what his role should be and where they should be listed, it's a recipe for trouble, especially when he owns $16.5 Billion (with a B) of the company's stock (AFR numbers used). I guess Richard feels the media is more CEO-friendly and billionaire-friendly over in the US and not like us petty tall-poppy-syndrome-obsessed small-timers over here.

Methinks the man doth cry too much. Clearly the market doesn't care any more. Just keep stalling and ignore the media and it'll all go away. It's working for Chris Ellison.

 I sold 50% on the news, went for a walk, then came back and sold the balance. For reference, I also sold 50% in RL when the last round of news broke and topped back up at October lows, so I’ve booked a decent gain.

Why?

As @Bear77 said—where there’s smoke....

• The allegations regarding RW’s behaviour are concerning and make me uneasy.
• RW appears to exert significant control over the company—does the board have effective oversight?
• What is the succession plan?
• WTC has grown too large to rely so heavily on one individual
• The suggestion to “move to the NDQ” feels like a throwaway reactive comment—does it have any substance?
• 
  

WTC is a great company that I’ve owned on and off for many years. RW presents well and tells a compelling story that compliments his tech expertise. Long-term investors have done very well under his vision. However, I’m stepping aside until there’s more clarity regarding his position and the company’s long-term plan. Corporate governance and culture are key criteria in my holdings.

Added to that I’m going skiing for 3 weeks and I’d prefer not to leave this unresolved issue hanging while I’m away. If I were staying around to monitor developments closely, I probably would have held onto 50% as per last time.

Personally, I feel relieved that I sold and will wait to see how things unfold.

@mikebrisy That's a fair take on the situation, I reckon.

At the same time, with fresh allegations in the pipeline, he could be under investigation for a while.

Also, why not communicate his plans clearly to share holders?

@Bear77 You are right: "It would be hard to sideline the founder of a company when he doesn't want to be sidelined..."

The AFR make it look to me, as if he's reading from the Trump play book, Ie: saying one thing and doing another.

Of course the article needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

More to come Im sure.

@slew the "move to the NDQ" line, seemed tenuous at best.

With unknown sources etc etc.

But if he's not moved into his role. The role he apparently invented, then people will be asking: why not?

And in the absence of decent communication, reasons will be found or manufactured.

I've tried to put myself in RW's position on this one. There are lots of stakeholders: his ego, people in his life, the Board, the Media/Puiblic, Shareholders.

I don't expect him to say or communicate anything more until the investigation is settled. And if I was him, I wouldn't want to sign the new contract until the investigation is settled, because if he does sign and the Board is equivocal on the outcome of the investigation, then it stirs up a whole new debate about "is the contract still right and valid" and "did the Board set its terms with knowledge of the full facts?" No thank you, I'd rather avoid all that.

So, the less said the better. Let the investigation run down all possible rabbit holes, and then see what the Board makes of it.

This has added a goverance-type risk to holding this business and, as a result, I now only hold 50% of my target allocation. My thesis is still intact, but there is a real unknown in how this plays out and so I have tempered my appetite for the long term upside of holding the business, because of that risk. But I don't think the risk is large enough to walk away altogether.

RW is in the driving seat here. He directly owns almost 40% of the company, and probably effectively controls or can influence over 50%.

And definitely, anything in the media on this needs to be taken with several grains of salt, given what we have seen last year.

Disc: Held in RL