We have two predominant trains of thought going on this site. Those who want a change of direction in the bank, and those who like it just the way it is. This site was set up for those who would support change. Our goal will take a lot of effort. I think the try is worth it. I think we have a shot. We will need all the help we can get, though. The cards are definitely stacked against us.
Those who don’t want change need not lift a finger. They don’t have to make a case for the status quo on this site, but they are welcome to do so. They don’t even have to vote. The current board will make all the decisions for them and will cast all the necessary votes.
When the shareholders decide the outcome of the vote instead of the board,then I’m satisfied whichever way it turns out. That is the point. The bank does not belong to the board of directors, even if they collectively own over 6% of the shares. It belongs to us, the other 94% of the shareholders, too. The direction this bank takes is our decision.
The documented facts are just that, documented, and really cannot be rationally disputed. For instance: The bank is under-capitalized according to OCC standards. The bank has been under an enforcement action of the OCC since 2010. Kim Bettasso received a payout from the bank that was close to $275,000 beginning less than three months after she was terminated.
I recognize that even documented facts may be interpreted differently because of bias. What you believe about what you read here is up to you.
1) Dig up the information from your own sources.
2) Verify what you can.
3) Talk to people you trust.
4) Make up your own mind.
Or you can let the current board do your thinking and voting for you.
Think of the bank a month after the annual meeting is over.
If the vote goes your way, will you have a bank that can survive?
And if it survives, will it be the bank that is heading in a direction you want?
If you’re good with that, so am I.