@Chagsy , I have a couple of points, and we have discussed this many times on this site: What is a relevant weight? People talk about different measures. % of total wealth is perhaps the most useful, but few use it. They use a "fund," which could be anything. The relevant exposure is very different. 4% look high to me, but that si because my equity investments are, by far, my largest asset. Sometimes that disclosure is disingenuous, and other times it is not.

Putting that to one side, looking at WTC, i disagree with Mike i think RW is still a major factor because the task for WTC and TAM are still large, very large, that is the main difference i can see between WTC and PME for instance. WTC still needs a quarterback, imo, maybe a really strong technical board (good luck there-- you mainly get DEI boards nowadays) could fill the position. The bench is very good, but the task they are after is vast. That is what makes WTC interesting, but execution, market assessment and product flexibility are still more of a factor where i think RW is still key. PME looks more of a copy right.

if RW suddenly left, it would threaten my longevity and certainly my conviction in the holding.

@Chagsy I’m of a similar view. The lingering governance concerns have me maxed out at 5% RL even though I have a very high conviction that $WTC is worth more today and will continue to grow strongly. (I’d prefer to be back at 10% at these prices).

I expect that over the next year, the Board renewal will be fleshed out (hardly rocket science), eventually RW will appoint a CEO-successor. This is harder, and he will rightly take his time to find the right person, unless there is an internal candidate, which would of course be great.

I believe the concern about the criticality of RW leading the build out into adjacent functionality is completely overblown. The vision is clear, One Platform to Rule Them All (Global Logistics-OS). There is already a crowded, fragmented universe of software solutions across the entire domain. $WTC just has to carefully build out, making the correct make or buy decisions, and selecting the best “tuck in” acquisitions to accelerate building the capability. They’ve already been at this for a while, so a lot of the leaders on the team know what good looks like, and they have proven their ability to absorb acquisitions. I just don’t believe sustained success is dependent on RW.

Of course, as long as he is there, he is a totemic figure and the organisation will follow his leadership and defer to him for the strategic decisions. And, who knows, with good health he might be able to run for another decade. And a positive from this shambles of the last 6 months is that it will have caused him to think deeply about what an orderly succession roadmap looks like. Despite his manifest weaknesses, RW is an avid learner. Of that I have little doubt. Legacy will become his obsession, if it isn’t already.

Disc: Held in RL only