When you say that shareholders don't deserve anything because of not being involved in the process. How does this go together?
First of all I didn't say that or write that. And before I write what I have said, I will write that companies are governed by the laws of the domicile state and by their by-laws. The only place shareholders are mentioned in all of the by-laws I have come across (and there are many because I am old and have been around), occurs when the BOD puts certain matters up for vote. And then shareholders can only vote, not dictate in advance, not ignore the vote, if any, and go on doing what they have been doing.
Now what I have said was that the CEO does not work for a single shareholder or group of shareholders. He works for the BOD. What I have also said is that shareholders have certain rights, but nowhere in those rights rests the authority to tell the CEO how to do his job, what to do in his job etc. A shareholder(s) can say or write much of what he wants, but the CEO is under no obligation to listen or respond. There is a lot of this saying or writing going on with DECN. Also, a shareholder(s) do not have the right to determine how the company raises its capital, what stock to sell, when, or how much. There is a lot of that type of saying or writing going on with DECN.
Now what can shareholders do? Well, if they as a group, one share more than 50%, decide that the BOD needs to be replaced, they can call a Meeting of Shareholders and vote in their own BOD, and then if this BOD wants to they can fire the CEO. Doing this is neither hard or expensive. But at a small company like DECN there are factions of shareholders all the time, and finding one share more than 50% will be difficult, and besides the existing BOD would otherwise put in a poison pill, because that's what will happen and during the 120 days that a proxy is written distributed and in place and while that one share more than 50% is arriving, the company will be frozen and be doing nothing except spinning its wheels and spending money awaiting the verdict of the shareholder action.
All of this would be music to bashers' ears who do not want the company to succeed and desperately want Mr. Berman thrown out and perhaps shot, thrown in jail, starved, and forced to undergo electroshock therapy.
And the sad thing is, people who have written that they want the company to be more transparent, if they keep pushing will fulfill the bashers' agenda. Canceling new products, for example, so that the company no longer needs to raise funds and therefore makes stock traders ecstatic will surely kill the company. People who write this stuff don't understand how corporations work. What is the main job of management and the BOD, to assure corporate continuity --- and not a higher stock price which is what stock traders feel they are entitled to or they feel betrayed and the recriminations begin. And for those people who think the company should tell its shareholders more, and preferably on a one on one basis, this is also a one way ticket to polukaville. Telling shareholders inside stuff, or trying to force the CEO to provide personal opinions in writing is naive and harmful to a corporation. While it may make stock trading temporarily easier, for example telling a shareholder(s) the company's litigation strategy, or providing daily updates for new products will end up within minutes in J&J's hands. And that's why real companies don't do these things, and those that do, are not real companies.
Enough said.
First of all I didn't say that or write that. And before I write what I have said, I will write that companies are governed by the laws of the domicile state and by their by-laws. The only place shareholders are mentioned in all of the by-laws I have come across (and there are many because I am old and have been around), occurs when the BOD puts certain matters up for vote. And then shareholders can only vote, not dictate in advance, not ignore the vote, if any, and go on doing what they have been doing.
Now what I have said was that the CEO does not work for a single shareholder or group of shareholders. He works for the BOD. What I have also said is that shareholders have certain rights, but nowhere in those rights rests the authority to tell the CEO how to do his job, what to do in his job etc. A shareholder(s) can say or write much of what he wants, but the CEO is under no obligation to listen or respond. There is a lot of this saying or writing going on with DECN. Also, a shareholder(s) do not have the right to determine how the company raises its capital, what stock to sell, when, or how much. There is a lot of that type of saying or writing going on with DECN.
Now what can shareholders do? Well, if they as a group, one share more than 50%, decide that the BOD needs to be replaced, they can call a Meeting of Shareholders and vote in their own BOD, and then if this BOD wants to they can fire the CEO. Doing this is neither hard or expensive. But at a small company like DECN there are factions of shareholders all the time, and finding one share more than 50% will be difficult, and besides the existing BOD would otherwise put in a poison pill, because that's what will happen and during the 120 days that a proxy is written distributed and in place and while that one share more than 50% is arriving, the company will be frozen and be doing nothing except spinning its wheels and spending money awaiting the verdict of the shareholder action.
All of this would be music to bashers' ears who do not want the company to succeed and desperately want Mr. Berman thrown out and perhaps shot, thrown in jail, starved, and forced to undergo electroshock therapy.
And the sad thing is, people who have written that they want the company to be more transparent, if they keep pushing will fulfill the bashers' agenda. Canceling new products, for example, so that the company no longer needs to raise funds and therefore makes stock traders ecstatic will surely kill the company. People who write this stuff don't understand how corporations work. What is the main job of management and the BOD, to assure corporate continuity --- and not a higher stock price which is what stock traders feel they are entitled to or they feel betrayed and the recriminations begin. And for those people who think the company should tell its shareholders more, and preferably on a one on one basis, this is also a one way ticket to polukaville. Telling shareholders inside stuff, or trying to force the CEO to provide personal opinions in writing is naive and harmful to a corporation. While it may make stock trading temporarily easier, for example telling a shareholder(s) the company's litigation strategy, or providing daily updates for new products will end up within minutes in J&J's hands. And that's why real companies don't do these things, and those that do, are not real companies.
Enough said.
3
1
