Santa Monica Partners : Letter to the Board

tpltblogger14 Comments

Larry Goldstein of Santa Monica Partners submitted the letter below to the board recently. Larry asked me to share his letter with TPL blog readers.

While I don’t agree with all of Larry’s points (more buybacks, fewer dividends!), Larry’s perspective as a seasoned (and LARGE) investor is important.

I would urge the Board and the C-suite to consider why their key constituent base remains so aggrieved and vocal.

letter-to-tpl-board-from-lawrence-goldstein-3-21-22Download

14 thoughts on “Santa Monica Partners : Letter to the Board”

  1. This is just based on a lifetime in the oil business and a 43-year career.
    BOD give a tinkers dam what this shareholder wants or his advise. We voted a member off and what has happened? Nothing. Bastard is still on the board and getting paid. BOD’s advice to Larry Goldstein: Pi$$ off. We have the keys.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Couldn’t agree more with the contents of Mr. Goldstein’s letter. Hopefully, we can get the change we sought when we changed to a corporate structure.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. I agree with much of what is in the letter. It all deserves answers. We have a public company still acting like a trust but with all the overhead of the former. This can not stand, we need leadership and governance and for this company to be bench marked with peers.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. An absolutely wonderful letter, and it spells all the complaints I have and then some. Wish someone would read it and act on at least half of the stuff

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I don’t disagree with Curtis Stewart that the existing Board/Management doesn’t (and won’t) give a damn about the proposed letter, but I agree with Pepere42 that the text might “leak” to the SEC. The purpose would be only peripherally to achieve an actual change in Board membership but, rather, to raise the point in writing (with potential communication to the SEC) about the composition of the Board and the evident unconcern by the existing leadership of a lack of response to the rejection by the entrenched management of the results of the vote by the shareholders.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This is an outstanding letter. If all if these points were implemented our stock would be significantly higher than the current price. In fact if we had a market like today the stock price would be double today’s price.
    We should all support this.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Wow this letter is amazing and pinpoints most of the issues that we have been discussing about in this blog! Hope this time around these crooks will make a change for once. The excessive pay is simply ridiculous… these management should be ashamed of themselves for even purposing those stupid numbers

      Liked by 2 people

  7. I have a friend at the SEC. He said, in his opinion, they would not mess with an issue like this. He felt they would say it could be handled in the court system. Also, it is not what they are focusing on.

    As for the letter, they don’t give a damm. We are stuck until the next annual meeting to vote them out (and they know it). I am not trying to be negative – just realistic

    Liked by 1 person

  8. As much as I hate to admit it, I think that Alan’s post is accurate. How can the Board consistently vote over Stahl’s and Oliver’s objections. It has to all be about their greed.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. At this point, letter writing to the BOD may be pointless. With MS, Oliver and Goldstein on the same page that should be ~30% of the total vote. So can we figure who are the largest shareholders that voted for Dana? It was damn near 50%; and I know it wasn’t me. Maybe they are who we need to focus our communications towards if they are a public group. So that we can vote out the directors as they come up (whether staggered or not).

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Glad to see someone with enough $$ to have a voice call out board compensation. Rent seekers will say it’s required to attract qualified individuals meanwhile those of us living on planet earth will say below average compensation is required to filter out those who are only in it for the money.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.