Misconceptions about LPC in the West

[M.Dancer]

Regular citizens as shareholders don't typically make decisions for a company... if you mean by buying/selling stocks... no explanation is given as to why stocks are sold, so a company doesn't necessarily have the info needed to realize that people don't like consolidation.

Competition bureau = regulation... not a free market

That's not correct. Shareholders get to vote on numerous issues of governance including M&A.

[Kitch]

That's not correct. Shareholders get to vote on numerous issues of governance including M&A.

Thank you for correcting me.

Would shareholders not have to possess a certain proportion of stocks in order to be eligible to vote on such things?

Even if they don't, would a shareholder not vote for whatever will increase the value of their shares? Even if it's a short term gain? Maybe that's a dumb question...

Do investment decisions really play a role in competition between companies though? (This is not an area of expertise for me... I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm actually trying to learn about this... if it helps me support my argument, that's an added bonus!)

[Slim MacSquinty]

you only need to have one share to earn a vote, for what little it is worth, most votes are proxied, ie you transfer your voting rights to someone or some group. as a single shareholder you haven't much power. however recently there have been some shareholder advocacy groups who will proxy votes together to try and make changes.

They have been of limitted effect however, I've been watching a bit of a game with GE shares over the last few years. they are starting to get their message out better. It was an advocacy group who took down Conrad Black, interesting enough that particular advocacy group ruined the company and primarily enriched themselves, it was more vengence than shareholder rights.

I think with all the goings on in the states this concept is going to get a hell of a lot more traction, I see a bright future for corporate governance experts and ethics experts in the very near future and happily so.

[Kitch]

you only need to have one share to earn a vote, for what little it is worth, most votes are proxied, ie you transfer your voting rights to someone or some group. as a single shareholder you haven't much power. however recently there have been some shareholder advocacy groups who will proxy votes together to try and make changes.

They have been of limitted effect however, I've been watching a bit of a game with GE shares over the last few years. they are starting to get their message out better. It was an advocacy group who took down Conrad Black, interesting enough that particular advocacy group ruined the company and primarily enriched themselves, it was more vengence than shareholder rights.

I think with all the goings on in the states this concept is going to get a hell of a lot more traction, I see a bright future for corporate governance experts and ethics experts in the very near future and happily so.

So shareholders don't have the power to impact (significantly) decisions about mergers?

So what can prevent media consolidation in the absence of regulation?

[M.Dancer]

So shareholders don't have the power to impact (significantly) decisions about mergers?

Oh don't be to sure about that. It was the retail shareholders that killed the Onex takeover of Air Canada. They had the most decisive vote of all....they didn't sell their shares.

So what can prevent media consolidation in the absence of regulation?

I'm not sure why shareholders would be oppose a particular media merger without the facts. Some takeover make sense, some not so as far as shareholders are concerned.

[Kitch]

Oh don't be to sure about that. It was the retail shareholders that killed the Onex takeover of Air Canada. They had the most decisive vote of all....they didn't sell their shares.

I'm not sure why shareholders would be oppose a particular media merger without the facts. Some takeover make sense, some not so as far as shareholders are concerned.

So shareholders DO have the power to impact corporate decisions... but it depends on what their interests are?

Well, I suppose a merger wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for people with money invested in a company, but you do understand why media consolidation is opposed by certain people, right?

[Kitch]

The same way competion works in any other company. Media companies deal in a commodity and that commodity is audience. We offer audiences to marketers, we strive to attract a better audience than the other company and to offer that audience more efficiantly than the other company.

So if the public was opposed to media consolidation they'd have to refrain from being a member of the audience for that company. Makes sense.

But how does the average audience member get information about media consolidation? The only reason that I've learned a LITTLE bit about it is because it's something that I'm interested in. The average person would have no reason to suspect that anything has changed with their favourite TV station. Thus, the narrowing of the scope of opinions broadcast on media airwaves goes unnoticed. So then our culture and ideas can be shaped... we could even have a "Wag the Dog" scenario and few people would be the wiser... and those that were would be ridiculed for holding 'fringe' opinions and believing "conspiracy theories".

The WHOLE point of bringing up media consolidation was to say that a right wing agenda could be the dominant source of information in our media today, resulting in an absence of criticism (serious criticism) for such an agenda. It's possible... given what all of you have said with regard to how media corporations work. Very possible.

[TCCK]

.

The Liberals, during the Chretien regime, gave Quebec a shower of bribes to try to convince Quebec voters that federalism was good for them.

-k

This is truth, Harper is honest and open and hands Quebec money trying to get them to play nice. Chretien and the Liberal party did it through the back door to all their Quebec friends and pissed off the rest of the country and most of the people in Quebec too. No one likes a politician that bribes and back door hands out contracts to friends. Thus why the USA $2 bill is not liked, it was a bribe payment in the depression years by politicians to the poor to vote for them. Still to this day the Americans hate the $2 bill. Thus why Dion and the Liberals are hated so much in Quebec, they deserve what they have sown for so many years. I hope Harper gets a massive Quebec vote to show the Liberals a Western can be liked in Quebec, then maybe some of the people in Ontario will open their eyes. (My apologies if you live in Ontario and vote CPC, you are the minority there.)