A company fighting for what currently makes them money ... never heard of such a thing ! 
 

With a "public company", aren't the shareholders the "owners" of the company? Shouldn't the "owners" therefore have some control over the company's vision, values, and operation?

The problem is that shareholders vote based on the number of shares they own. It's not a one, man one vote deal. Since the overwhelming number of shares are held by investment companies and executives of the business, I'm pretty sure their position will prevail . . . and that will be weighted toward profit building over anything else.

Just Fred wrote:

The problem is that shareholders vote based on the number of shares they own. It's not a one, man one vote deal.  -  rongone

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, there's the rub.

Well, the more of the company that you own, the more skin you've got in the game.

Rongone wrote:

Goose wrote:

Just Fred wrote:

The problem is that shareholders vote based on the number of shares they own. It's not a one, man one vote deal.  -  rongone

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, there's the rub.

Well, the more of the company that you own, the more skin you've got in the game.

 

Unfortunately, the game is kind of rigged. The average investor is not given a gazillion shares of stock at no cost or a highly discounted rate per their employment contract on an annual basis.

Like it or not, that is the way it SHOULD work (ie-the more shares you own, the more votes in essence you get) . In the same sense there have been a number of situations where large pension plans with their vast holdings in certain public companies have had influence that was not necessarily just in the interest of the "bottom line". 

Just as an aside, at a personal level,  I wonder how many do not take the time to use their proxy votes when you receive them from a corporation or fund ?? 



 

Rongone wrote:

"In the same sense there have been a number of situations where large pension plans with their vast holdings in certain public companies have had influence that was not necessarily just in the interest of the "bottom line". ". Tennyson


Enlighten me on these situations.

I remember Calpers being involved in such situations. I also remember Calpers CEO being sued for inappropriate financial dealings also. So, where groups like this can work opposite from corporate board desires they also can also be in cahoots or even out for their own gain (shocker). 

I still want the system (perhaps as bad as it is) to work the way it does (ie 1 share = 1 vote). Majority ownership should always have that right. What happens a lot IMHO is that the things being voted on are largely ignored by the voting public since they do not know or care about the situations being brought to a vote. That is why I also asked the quesiton about whether people take the time to research or even vote when you get a proxy vote. That same question would apply to not only individuals but also those groups such as pension funds, bank trusts, etc that hold large number of shares.