The confused idea of shareholder democracy suffered a set-back today when the SEC voted 3-1 to allow companies to block investors from placing board nominees on official corporate election ballots. There will no doubt be lots of hand-wringing about this vote but most of what you need to know about the proxy access proposals can be found by looking at its biggest proponents: labor unions and union dominated pension funds. The funds and unions favor proxy access rights not because they have an altruistic urge to help shareholders in general or out of a metaphysical attachment to democracy. They supported it because they believed it would give them a leg up in negotiations with management and corporate boards. Ordinary shareholders can breath a little easier that this attempted power grab has failed.
SEC denies shareholder bid for more power in board elections [LA Times]
Posted by Ain't No Che Guevera , Nov 28, 2007 4:45PM
"Power Grab"??
It's giving the owners of the company the right to be represented in the boardroom.
I'm sure some unintended bad shit would come from it, but it would help work towards getting rid of lap dog board of directors which seem to be prevelant.
Posted by Dumbass shareholder , Nov 28, 2007 5:03PM
Forget it, Carney is never going to answer directly why the owners of a company should not be allowed to select who and how they want to run the company. Probably reply with his spiel on the necessity to not have saintly management disturbed in their oracle-like 'we know what's best for you so shut up' endeavors on behalf of dumbass shareholders. Funny how managements across the country seem frightened that they would be unable to convince shareholders of the merits of their nominees instead of the special interest demon unions. Might have something to do with people highlighting all the now once removed 'independent' golf buddies being nominated by management.
Posted by One synapse clapping , Nov 28, 2007 5:58PM
Carney's just doing penance for his plebian roots. This is the assigned homework when the Bones boys aren't around to administer the, "thank you sir can I have another" routine. Next stop's a promotion to the executive wash room where he'll strut his stuff giving blue-blooded geriatric sphincter the gilded trombone.
Carney, if you suck as hard as your arguments blow, you have a bright future son.
Posted by Matt , Nov 28, 2007 6:41PM
Just temporary relief, I'm afraid. Not the end of the socialist attack.
I really have trouble understanding how people can support unions and their ideas with a straight face - the same unions which want to pass a 'free choice act' - the free choice being enforced by banning secret ballots in unionization drives!!
Or the unions who believe that measuring performance to differentiate pay (the primary problem with teachers unions) is unacceptable.
Unions themselves remain the MOST undemocratic institutions ever. Their talk of 'democracy' and 'freedom' thus is highly misplaced.
Posted by House Un-American Activities Committee , Nov 28, 2007 6:43PM
Ain't no Che Guevera, clearly a communist.
Posted by , Nov 28, 2007 8:18PM
Dumbass shareholder @5:03 said - why the owners of a company should not be allowed to select who and how they want to run the company.
You seriously ARE dumbass shareholder and a closet (or who know open?) communist.
Do you know ANYTHING about the proxy access debate other than what your local union has fed to you? Shareholders currently have FULL rights to nominate and vote for directors who are opposed to the company nominated directors.
The debate is around whether the interested shareholders should have to circulate a separate and self generated proxy (as is currently allowed) or whether they should be allowed to modify a pre-existing company charter (which they were presumably awareof when buying into the company) to be able to put their nominees on the company proxy with the official nominees.
It is currently prohibited due to disclosure issues that may come-up. A shareholder in his own proxy can say whatever shit he want to - but if it is carried on sompany stationary then it becomes subject to applicable securities laws.
It is not a matter of allowing or disallowing shareholders to nominate and vote for their directors - it is about whether they should do it separately and at their own cost or on company paper at the companies cost.
How is that tantamount to absence of shareholder democracy exactly??
Posted by a shareholder , Nov 29, 2007 12:47AM
Shareholders have no rights because they don't deserve them. Shareholders are gamblers. If the game is fixed, they hope it's fixed to their advantage once in a while.
However, boardrooms are wretched hives of scum and villainy. The capitalist society needs more effective ways to deal with that. If the shareholders can't do anything about it, at least the government should. I hear there's plenty of room in cold Waseca.
Posted by , Nov 29, 2007 3:32AM
"This is the assigned homework when the Bones boys aren't around to administer the, "thank you sir can I have another" routine. "
Whoever said that hasn't been to Yale in the past decade or two. Just because Carney's pandering to the neanderthals who comment on the WSJ message boards doesn't mean he knows anything else. Totally agree with the larger point, though.
Cheers!
-anon
Posted by just me , Nov 29, 2007 8:02AM
I think the term 'shareholder' on this website is a codeword for 'vagina'.
Posted by , Nov 29, 2007 8:04AM
12:47 so ... board rooms are like mos eisley is that what you are trying to tell us?