Largely because I don't make many "buy" or "sell" calls. I expect to see lower prices in the forseeable future that I would rather buy at and higher prices in the not-so-distant future that I would rather sell at.
I also don't trade very frequently (other than monthly dollar-cost-averaging purchases which I don't count as a "buy" signal).
"A five and a half year time frame is hardly asking for 10% monthly returns."
Sure, but you don't HAVE a 5.5yr timeframe. That's just the past performance you are happiest with comparing to make your point. It's done much better over say 13 years (more than doubling the performance - the real performance - of the S&P).
In answer to your question. NO. Management does not have an "obligation" to determine the direction of the company based on someone who "buys" and "sells" on a weekly/monthly basis. This is "trading" or "speculation" NOT "investing" or "ownership" and the needs of these investors change with each wind. This is really gambling (which is fine, I lose the occasional buck on flyer picks, but I don't expect management to listen to me).
Management's "responsibility" to individual investors is to manage the company for the highest chance of the highest sustainable profitability. You can't make decision based on what will happen to the stock next week. That mentality is what leads to the "Enron"s of the world.
Almost EVERY bank merger sees the acquirer's stock price fall and the acquiree's price rise. Does that mean every "sell" decision was the right one? And every "buy" decision was a mistake?
In the VAST VAST VAST majority of cases, the people who run companies are incredibly better able to judge what is in the company's best interest than tiny investors who frequent message boards. I could almost run a company by reading all the advice on a board and doing the opposite.