I do hear what you are saying, and agree with it to a certain extent.
However, I would say that there is is a huge difference between 'nice, trustworthy' management and 'effective, competent' management.
The CV's of the PTSC board members that actually matter (anaethesiologists and the like aside) is quite impressive, and attest to their professional and interpersonal skills. This does not automatically make them good at running a public company. The time that has passed since the settlement has done nothing to convince me that they are indeed effective and competent at this task.
Ask yourself, and be honest - do you truly believe that this company has been effectively managed in the last 2 months? Then remind yourself that these were the most pivotal two months in the company's history, and ask yourself again.
If the handling of these event is anything to judge by (and lets face it, it's all we have to judge our current team by), then you have to question whether there are sufficient management skills at the disposal of the shareholders. I'm not saying that I could do it any better, but then I'm not up to my armpits in stock options and the like. Are we getting what we are paying for? I have truly no idea.
I'm sure that the board at Barings were nice, trustworthy people, but they still ended up with a bust bank. It would be good if that didn't happen here, and I for one would like some indication that it isn't.
