While the shareholders and board of directors at at Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ: WFMI) wish CEO John Mackey would pipe down, and the board at Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK), if it exists, seems indifferent to CEO Patrick Byrne's Regulation FD-flouting rants, Herb Greenberg has a nice WSJ column (subscription required) on executives who take a different approach. To borrow a line from Calvin Coolidge, these companies have decided that nothing they don't say will do them any harm.

The piece talks about a few thinly traded, closely held companies, several of which list their shares on the OTC markets, which tend to be highly illiquid and provide little exposure. These companies don't hold regular conference calls and don't present at investor conferences, but some have actually provided investors with very strong returns.

The highlight of the column is a company called Expeditors International (NASDAQ: EXPD), a transportation and logistics business. Expediters responds to shareholder inquires by filing 8-Ks with the SEC providing pithy, and often bitchy, responses to questions. The latest series is one of the strangest 8-Ks I have ever seen.

Here's the beginning of the company's answer to the first question:

As long as you're quoting us to us, perhaps we should begin with a short grammar lesson on the meaning of the word "either" augmented by a short airfreight primer. That should add some much needed context to your question.

With respect to the grammar discussion, the use of the word "either" in the sentence from our 10-K which you reference in your question (noted below -- underlined for emphasis)

"When performing airfreight services, the Company typically acts either as a freight consolidator or as an agent for the airline which carries the shipment."

should be read in context with the meaning of the first definition that exists in our version of the Oxford Dictionary, being "one or the other of two". That implies a degree of mutual exclusivity.

Funny as this stuff is to read, I just don't get the point. Why does management display such contempt for its shareholders? If the idea of corporate governance is that officers are working as elected officials on behalf of the shareholders, can you imagine President Bush answering a question from a fifth grader at an elementary school photo-op this way?

I hate heavily promotional executives as much as the next guy, and I've seen research that companies that issue a lot of press releases tend to underperform over the long-term (Universal Express stockholders take note). But is it really necessary, or in any way advantageous, to cop an attitude with investors?