SEC Votes to Limit Shareholder Rights-(shocking...)

washington post ^ | November 29, 2007; | By Carrie Johnson

[Flavius]

Companies will be able to scuttle investor attempts to nominate board members under a plan adopted by a bitterly divided Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday.

The move drew an outcry from key lawmakers, unions and major retirement funds, which criticized SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, a Republican, for pushing the plan at a time when the agency is short one Democrat and another is on her way out the door.

[traderrob6]

I am ignorant on the specifics but I have to believe that any attempt to limit stockholders rights is not a good thing.

[Flavius]

whats disgusting is that proxy voting for retail shareholders is a joke as it is

now even though its a joke the ruling elite would like to even remove the nuisance, but they still want you to park your 401k’s and provide the daily bread

but hey this games have been crooked even before the tulips

[Eroteme]

I am ignorant on the specifics but I have to believe that any attempt to limit stockholders rights is not a good thing.

And that's exactly why the headline was written as it was: to immediately set a negeative in the reader's head.

The source is the Washington Post. That should tell you something. For a much more balanced and honest take, read this at the Motley Fool:

http://www.fool.com/news/associated-press/2007/11/28/cox-will-be-punished-over-proxy-access.aspx

[Finalapproach29er]

Chris Cox should be ashamed.

The world has gone nuts.

[snarks_when_bored]

SEC Votes to Limit Shareholder Rights

It's hard to believe, but Republicans continue to do their damnedest to live up to every crappy stereotype that Democrats try to hang around their necks come campaign seasons. It's as if the Republican SEC members were overheard whispering to each other:

"Yeah, let's further limit the ability of mom-and-pop public company shareholders to influence the make-up of boards of directors! These folks are clueless as regards corporate governance and they should just keep their yaps shut and let the professional board members steal their millions in peace Enronize the companies without impediment run the companies as they see fit."

Who will be the next SEC member to be rewarded with a highly remunerative sinecure on Wall Street? We'll hear soon enough, I expect.

[BohDaThone]

When you buy shares, you buy the rules of the company you are buying. Some have rules that allow anybody to put something on a ballot (not many -- remember, if one shareholder has the "right", so do the other 1 million shareholders, so you could have 1 million propositions.

Or, the rules may say "you have to have 1% (or 2 or 5 or 10) to get on a ballot." If the corporate charter and rules say that, those rules govern, the SEC isn't taking anything away.

What the headline means is that the SEC is limiting HOW MUCH IT (IT) will override company rules that you agreed to when you bought the stock.

Puts a little different perspective on it, no?

[jwh_Denver]

Thanks for the link, I’ll take yours over this one.

[snarks_when_bored]

To do political damage, a decision like this doesn't have to be wrong; it just has to appear wrong. That's the point I was making...