Irv Grossbeck

My perception since that time in the last 16 years or so is that there's kind of a leader of that group of people, that loose confederation of people.

It happens to be CPP now because they're the largest shareholder.

But there's a presence there from people who all came in at the same time and all were acquainted with each other and bought the same security at the same price.

So it used to be people sitting around the table with no control.

Just the control that management had by dint of its execution and all of the value it had created.

Since then, I think there's a little bit more evidence of the respective agendas of the sponsors that is present in board conversations.

So I'll try to do that, but I would say at the outset that in a way it's an unfair comparison because management needed more help before 2007 than they did after.

The main way in which the sponsors have been helpful is the contacts that they have as a group and the collective experience they bring as a result of having invested in so many companies.

The contacts are unalloyed benefits.

No question that they know somebody somewhere almost whenever you need or wherever you need them.

The part about the advisory, I do see differing agendas at play from time to time.

There is an inherent conflict of interest between serving one's own shareholders and serving the shareholders of the company on whose board you sit.

And I do see those conflicting agendas at play fairly often.

And I see sometimes that decisions are made in favor of one's own agenda.

An example of that is I heard a comment actually during a board meeting some years ago from one of those sponsors.

or institutional investors to the effect of, gosh, we really don't want you to branch over into that area.

We have enough investment in that area.

We think of you as an XYZ company, and we want you to stay there and keep doing what you're doing.

You're doing a great job.

I found that difficult.