Various Topics on Chrysler

....

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:13:09 -0400, "Joe" <Joe@dontspam.net> wrote:

>
>"who" <i@notaspammer.net> wrote in message
>news:i-EE3AE6.00583615082007@news.telus.net...
>> In article <h665c319n8eq6o8fap48nnreu5e37ulcaa@4ax.com>,
>> Doug <sparks06524nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, they are taking the company stockholders to the cleaners...
>>> I'm increasingly surprised that there are not more stockholder revolts
>>> at annual meetings.
>> Correct, but after the board approves of the stealing.
>>>
>>> I suppose the only reason why there are not more stockholder revolts
>>> is that the majority of shares in many companies are owned by mutual
>>> funds or pension trusts.
>.
>
>That's no explanation. Wouldn't pension trusts and mutual fund companies be
>well organized, and able to control a comany effectively?

Yes and no. They tend to be run by analysts who simply look at the
bottom line. Plus they may well have a certain sympathetic
relationship to executives who wine and dine them. The fund managers
own huge bonuses often depend more on marketing to new fund
shareholders than minimizing cost for their current fund shareholders.
The mutual funds with 7.5% loads are testaments to that.

>
>I can tell you that at my company, our big investors can easily get what
>they want when they stand their ground. If the board wants to do something
>stupid, the board gets a talking to from these people, and the board has to
>give in. I've seen them do it. Yet these "accountability sessions" don't
>seem to extend to the issue of executive giveaways.


Sure that's certainly true for the large investors like Kerkorian.
However, I'm sure that investors like him, used to making many
millions per year, are also sympathetic to multimillion dollar
executive bonuses.

Doug