Shareholders on the rise

[eyeball]

If this is appropriate for a corporation it should be appropriate for a country, human beings are people too after all.

Some executives and directors still harbour the view that corporations are not democracies, and should not toss shareholders any kind of direct power.

Link

Nonetheless corporate shareholders are, albeit slowly, engineering the sorts of reforms many of our country's shareholders can only dream about. Unfortunately politicians not to mention many voters still harbour the view that people should not have any kind of direct power. That seems perverse and backwards in light of the evolution of corporations and their governance.

What are we so scared of?

[M.Dancer]

None of that is particulary new or scarey. Say on Pay has been an issue for at least 3 years.

You may find this of interest as we head into the proxy season.

http://www.ogilvyrenault.com/en/resourceCentre_9870.htm

[Michael Hardner]

I voted yes, because I believe that the 'big questions' of "whither government ?" have been largely answered. The convergence of policies of our three national parties tells me that we have arrived at a place where government doesn't need to be debated in the same way it has historically been debated.

As such, I propose that the bulk of government services be moved to a crown corporation to manage, under general government stewardship, recognizing the public as stakeholders, and with a board of directors of revolving MPs from all parties.

That would leave parliament free to do what it does best - talk. What would it talk about ? They would discuss 'the big issues' - our role in global conflicts, and in protecting the environment and so on. Almost anyone from the public can follow these larger and more weighty issues, and has an opinion.

[M.Dancer]

Unfortunately politicians not to mention many voters still harbour the view that people should not have any kind of direct power. That seems perverse and backwards in light of the evolution of corporations and their governance.

You realize don't you that democracy in a public company means one vote per share? That direct power has always existed? It's called the Annual General Meeting. You have an issue you want raised and voted on, all you have to do is get support for your position. 50 plus 1 is the magic number.

[eyeball]

You realize don't you that democracy in a public company means one vote per share? That direct power has always existed? It's called the Annual General Meeting. You have an issue you want raised and voted on, all you have to do is get support for your position. 50 plus 1 is the magic number.

Wonderful. Now lets bring our country up to the same standard.

Two decades ago, individual Canadian shareholders had extremely limited input into how companies were governed.

Individual Canadians still have extremely limited input into how they're governed. We're simply not evolving like corporations are and it looks like that situation is worsening. We're in a state of suspended development. How long would a corporation last if it didn't change with the times?

[M.Dancer]

Wonderful. Now lets bring our country up to the same standard.

Individual Canadians still have extremely limited input into how they're governed. We're simply not evolving like corporations are and it looks like that situation is worsening. We're in a state of suspended development. How long would a corporation last if it didn't change with the times?

Sounds like you want the individual voted weighted according to how much ownership (taxes) one pays....

Individual shareholders have less say precisly because they have less investment in the company, those with the most as stake (most at risk) have the biggest say...you can't compare a citizen's input in a democratic state to the rights that shareholders in corporations have.

[Michael Hardner]

Sounds like you want the individual voted weighted according to how much ownership (taxes) one pays....

Individual shareholders have less say precisly because they have less investment in the company, those with the most as stake (most at risk) have the biggest say...you can't compare a citizen's input in a democratic state to the rights that shareholders in corporations have.

Wow, that was artful. I thought you were going to get tackled on the 10-yard line for supporting PR, and you lateraled the ball and went the other way.

[Michael Hardner]

double post. :angry:

Edited November 26, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

Sounds like you want the individual voted weighted according to how much ownership (taxes) one pays....

No I just want our human governance to evolve the way corporate governance is evolving.

Its the process of evolution that I want to see unfolding. I'm not saying that we should govern ourselves exactly like a corporation only that we should change with the times. Like I asked how long would a corporation last if it didn't?

Edited November 26, 2009 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Wow, that was artful. I thought you were going to get tackled on the 10-yard line for supporting PR, and you lateraled the ball and went the other way.

Eyeball thinks that 50 plus one votes means 51% percent of the shareholders....when in fact it could mean simply me, you and the and the investment fund manager over on the left versus 10,000 other retail shareholders...

In the link I provided they talked about exactly how many votes are being cast at AGMs and what it can mean to a proxy fight. In theory every shareholder is advised of an upcoming AGM and they can either attend or assign their vote(s) to a proxy agent. In fact most shareholders are terribly apathetic and only wake up if there are contentious issues tabled. Many AGMs only see 20-40% of the votes cast so if anyone wants to defeat a board motion they only need get onside just over half the expected amount of votes to be cast. In some cases of companies that are not widely held, that would not be many individual shareholders.

One of the most intersting proxy fights in tha last decade was the Air Canada Onyx battle...when it came down to it it was a battle between competing proxy solicitation specialists, one was Canadian, the other was not.