.png)
Unusual turnover of senior corporate management, affectionately known as the C-Suite Shuffle, is a potential sign of corporate trouble. It can point to a lack of stability, disagreement over strategy, and a culture that is not conducive to long-term success.
At Transparently, we don’t track C-suite moves ourselves. Our Risk Engine focuses entirely on the financial statements and the patterns they reveal. However, executive churn is an external red flag that can be compared with our results. When the two line up, it often tells a stronger story.
The Transparently Risk Engine quantifies accounting manipulation risk, while other sources, such as The Bear Cave newsletter, track events like sudden resignations. Together, these independent perspectives can highlight where corporate risk is most acute, and, conversely, also where the story may be more benign than it first appears.
Each week, The Bear Cave provides a valuable list of C-Suite resignations. Some arouse suspicion, whereas others do not. The Bear Cave identified eight resignations in its August 3 edition (#285).
We thought it might be instructive to highlight the Transparently risk scores of the companies featured in the newsletter. The risk scores represent our tool’s assessment of the probability that the company is massaging its accounts.
The bottom line here is that Transparently’s risk engine complements or corroborates opinions over a company surfaced by its C-Suite movements. It’s evidence that cross-referencing multiple, uncorrelated warning systems yields a stronger basis for investment decisions than either could provide alone.
C-Suite resignations featured in The Bear Cave
NWTN Inc (NWTN)
This UAE-based electric vehicle company has had five CFOs in the past two years. In May 2025, the company’s CEO resigned with just four days’ notice.
At an Extraordinary General Meeting this week, shareholders were to vote on a proposal to remove three independent directors and to rebrand as Robo.ai Inc. If accepted, the entire board of the UAE company will be Chinese. The company’s CFO resigned on 2 July with immediate effect.
All in all, NWTN demonstrates one of the most extreme examples of the C-Suite Shuffle we have witnessed in recent years. In December 2024, three board members resigned, citing “concerns regarding corporate governance practices, transparency in communications, and challenges related to financial leadership.” The board members that the company now proposes to fire replaced these earlier board members.
The company’s stock has fallen around 85% since a SPAC merger in November 2022.
The Transparently Risk Engine (TRE) gives NWTN an “F” rating for its 2024 accounts and puts it in the 99th percentile for account manipulation risk. This is the worst rating of any company we have ever discussed in this blog. In this case, the AI is fully aligned with the C-suite concerns.
Microvast Holdings (MVST)
The CFO of this battery company resigned on 29 July after just three months, making him the fifth to go in the space of three years. In recent years both Grizzly Research and J Capital Research have questioned the veracity of this company’s reported revenue, which is generated almost entirely in China.
The TRE gives Microvast an “E” rating for 2024, which puts the company in the 94th decile globally for manipulation risk. The risk report generated by the Transparently system cites income quality, governance and growth signals as the primary concerns. In this case, the AI is fully aligned with C-suite concerns.
Aspire Biopharma (ASBP)
The CEO resigned “effective immediately” on 30 July, just six weeks after his hire was announced. The departure coincided with the exit of two board directors, one of whom cited "irreconcilable differences with the company's policies and direction" in her resignation letter.
Aspire is developing a drug delivery platform, currently under clinical trial, and has launched a caffeine-based pre-workout supplement. The share price has collapsed 96% since its SPAC merger/ IPO in February.
The TRE is unable to give an assessment for 2024 since the company had not commenced any operations. In this case, we cannot compare the AI with management turnover concerns.
Boston Beer Company (SAM)
The CEO of this company, the maker of Samuel Adams beer, will step down on 15 August after one and a half years “for personal reasons.” The CEO was an internal promotion, having served at the company since 2014, and will remain on the board of directors.
The departure is not suspicious.
The TRE awarded the company a risk rating of “C-” for 2024, about average for this sized company. Primary concerns were the high level of non-core income, heavy abnormal and extraordinary charges, and relatively high income from other investing activities. These concerns are explained by the fact that beer is no longer the principal source of earnings for the company, which has invested heavily in its “beyond beer” portfolio including alcoholic iced tea and hard seltzers. These investments explain the high income from non-core activities and the varying returns explain the high abnormal and extraordinary charges.
In this case, the AI is fully aligned with the absence of C-suite concerns.
Five9 (FIVN)
The CEO elected to retire at the age of 62. The company operates in the highly competitive Contact Center as a Service (CCaaS) market. The CEO led the company as CEO from 2008 until 2017 when he stepped down after being diagnosed with cancer. He returned as CEO in 2022 and will remain on the job until a new CEO is appointed.
His departure is not suspicious, however the TRE suggests there may be other grounds for concern. The risk engine gives the company an “E” rating for 2024. The risk report emphasizes extreme leverage, heavy recognition of non-cash gains in the income statement, asset quality and governance.
Contact centers are a primary combat zone for AI between traditional call centers, big tech and new entrants. Judging by the TRE assessment, Five9 is showing evidence of intense strain. In this case, we would say that the TRE has more serious concerns than those suggested by the CEO’s resignation although the resignation might partly reflect corporate difficulties.
AirSculpt Technologies (AIRS)
The CFO retired on 1 August after a little more than four years in the office. The company’s Chief Accounting Officer also resigned on the same day after just nine months. The close timing of the joint resignation is definitely unusual.
The TRE gives AirSculpt a “C-” rating, which is about average for a company of its size. Nevertheless, there are several aspects of the accounts for which the system advises extreme caution.
The report emphasizes corporate governance at the top of a lengthy list of possible concerns. This is significant for two reasons. First, the system rarely places corporate governance at the top of the list of concerns. In fact, this is the first time we’ve seen it.
Second, it seems AirSculpt Technologies has faced accusations of wrongdoing, including lawsuits and serious allegations from former employees regarding its medical practices. The company has defended its medical practices. In this case, the AI is aligned with C-Suite Shuffle concerns, though not due to accounting concerns.
UnitedHealth Group (UNH)
The CFO resigned on 1 August after a little over nine years, following the CEO’s resignation in May. The close timing of these exits is a concern. After the CEO stepped down, the Wall Street Journal reported the Justice Department “is investigating UnitedHealth Group for possible criminal Medicare fraud.”
In December 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group’s insurance division, was shot and killed outside an investor conference.
The TRE gives UnitedHealth a “”B” rating for its 2024 accounts. This suggests that while the company has been accused of medical fraud, the system finds only modest risk of account manipulation.
Interestingly, however, the TRE suggests that corporate governance is the number two concern at UnitedHealth. This situation is therefore similar to the AirSculpt case. Both companies have been accused of medical wrongdoing but not accounting wrongdoing. In both cases, C-Suite resignations have signalled a red flag and in both cases, the TRE has signalled corporate governance concerns. We’d say the AI and the C-suite shuffle are aligned.
International Money Express (IMXI)
The Chief Legal Officer left the firm after a little over a year. Apart from this, there have been no reports of resignations or terminations at the C-suite level in the past few years, suggesting a consistent leadership team at the top of the organization.
The departure of the CLO is not suspicious. The TRE gives the company a “C” rating for 2024, better than average for a company of this size and the trend has been improving. The AI and the C-suite shuffle are aligned.
Closing thoughts
Transparently’s risk engine is complementary with C-suite concerns regularly monitored by professional investors. In fact, the two augment each other. Financial manipulation is not the only form of corporate malfeasance. C-suite turmoil can help us find and better define problems in companies that might have comparatively modest accounting concerns. Similarly, concerns over corporate governance identified by the TRE can help to add weight to C-suit concerns.
But there is a catch. Many investors do not want to outsource the critical thinking associated with company analysis and portfolio selection. They don’t trust AI because they don’t like reasoning they cannot observe or which they perhaps cannot understand.
Successful investors will incorporate AI into their investment processes, perhaps slowly at first as they learn to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their AI assistants. Using AI is no different than working in a team. It takes time to build trust.
A key challenge for AI companies is to make the reasoning of their AI programs comprehensible as far as this is possible. Transparently does this by breaking the AI analysis into different risk nodes and by providing a detailed explanation of the nature of the patterns observed by the AI.
Our observation is that comfort with an AI system grows the more one uses the system, or observes others using the system. A simple way to show the value of AI in financial analysis might be to compare the results from an AI's large-scale pattern analysis with the outcome suggested by a well-known, singular pattern. The greater the alignment, the more confidence one can have in the AI system.
%20-%20Wirecard.png)
