10 seconds of your time to help everyone out.

As most people are, I am swamped right now with taxes, bills, memos, and other personal business to attend to. I have a pile of proxy cards for various shares that I directly own. I don't have the time or inclination to understand what it is I'm voting on... a mighty fine example of rational indifference. But I think I have a pretty good system that I wish more people would take advantage of;

Simply vote AGAINST the recommendation from the board on every vote (unless there are some that you do in fact feel strongly about).

It takes no time, and it won't swing the final outcome of the vote, even if the readers of mifp and their friends all do it. Hey, most votes are carried by mutual funds and other institutional holders.

But it may serve putting the board on just a little bit of notice that people are paying attention and not agreeing with their vote recommendations.

T. -- A person that believes we don't need more government regulation, we need better corporate governance.

Reply to
Tman
Loading thread data ...

But you said you are NOT paying attention. Your idea is a silly one. Either be informed, or don't vote.

Reply to
Gil Faver

You already said it don't make any difference, and you are right. So why would it put the board on any kind of notice?

Reply to
PeterL

And how do we get better corporate governance without government regulation? Will all those greedy executives suddenly see the light and reform? It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Reply to
Don

How do we get better corporate governance *with* government regulation?

The last time that was tried was Sarbanes-Oxley. How's that working out?

Reply to
Andrew Koenig

On Apr 14, 4:03 pm, Tman wrote: [snip]

A lot of people are considering how to improve the shareholder control of runaway boards. One change that has appeared is to make compensation subject to approval. I've voted against many routine proposals for the reasons you stated. The votes do get counted, and shareholder unrest will hopefully be felt.

Writing thoughtful letters to management is another idea, asking questions and voicing concerns. A phone call is another. Most people do try, I believe, to do the right thing.

Reply to
dapperdobbs

When regulations are enacted to prevent abuses, and then some years later the abuses are still present and worse than ever, it seems to me that what we need are stronger and more effective regulations.

Whether they come from some level of governement or from companies policing themselves actually is immaterial. But history has shown that when we rely on self-regulation by industries, nothing serious gets done, abuses spin out of control, and eventually government has to act.

It works that way no matter whether we are talking about the airline industry, the coal mining industry, or the financial services industry.

Reply to
Don

If you try something and it doesn't work, it seems problematic to conclude that you should be doing more of it.

At the very least, you should first understand the flaw in the reasoning that led you to conclude that it would work in the first place.

Reply to
Andrew Koenig

How can it be this black-and-white? For example Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999. Other regulations against abuse remained. Yet abuses increased. Many argue Glass-Steagall's repeal was largely the cause of this increase and the subsequent crash of the economy. Don's point is perfectly well-reasoned. A person just has to have a handle on the complexity of the issues here to get it.

Reply to
honda.lioness

If "Sarbanes-Oxley" didn't work, that doesn't necessarily mean that "government regulation" doesn't work.

If Hoover's methods of regulation didn't work, it didn't imply that Roosevelt's wouldn't work.

Yes, indeed! Lets analyze the older methods and come up with better ones.

Reply to
Don

"Andrew Koenig" wrote

The flaw is that we trust people with our money. They can't be trusted. They have proven it time and again.

Reply to
Alvin

So you're putting it under the mattress or in a can in the backyard? OK, you probably didn't mean you can't trust anyone. Who is it, then, that you think we should/could trust?

Elizabeth Richardson

Reply to
Elizabeth Richardson

I'm taking my chances like everyone else. I worry more about how greed affects people than I do about the markets. Years ago I went into a Federal Reserve Bank, I think it was Boston. Anyway, on the wall they had money in picture frames. $500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000 bills. An armed guard stood under each one. What a waste of taxpayer money. Geez, if you managed to steal a $5,000 bill how would you use it?

Reply to
Alvin

I won't defend the cost to the taxpayer on this, but I'm pretty sure that $5000 bill is worth more than $5000 as a collectible.

Elizabeth Richardson

Reply to
Elizabeth Richardson

formatting link
$190K. Your instinct is good (as usual).

Reply to
JoeTaxpayer

Why would you own stock in a company if you think their management is so incompetent?

Reply to
Disney Anna

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.