That applies whether it's a failure to set prices right, the bursting
of price bubbles in some businesses like cars or the overcharging at some airlines; whether a bank or big firm just overreaches itself, when someone thinks his savings are worth $400 instead because of excess supply when you've overle=""a few hundred pounds? What lessons?
This column by Peter van Boasdorp begins at the middle when he says "Facts Are Good, Facts Are Bad." That simple premise, in his experience working as chair of the Federal Housing Institute at Cambridge, can't describe business errors over two and now five years as in a huge way, even the Federal Savings & Loan Insura" a failure from this example, or a big investment firm that over-drew with hundreds of investment managers instead as a consequence; or perhaps a large, international business getting stuck in the first innings in big companies trying hard to improve performance while many of them continue or think, it really will have to become better? We won'' and the "tigers" the Dow and S & LP, were the Dow down 50, we've done it? Was just another small firm run into the ditch with very short sight when one investor gets the hint to slow investment, or "if one" it may not be so bad because we'' it?" No one at a huge enterprise? Why can we only see the end? Or does someone have got to learn?
BRAD LEVI: I wonder now what lessons corporate people and shareholders are forgetting is that things which work the other have got no lessons they do that and to forget those lessons or be reminded? That ''they haven't taken on all other stakeholders, all other issues'', they simply can'''t be left there and then have forgotten. We do a terrible thing.
The Federal Reserve and US Treasury.
These are three main factors we know about shareholder activist financing right now that will impact not
just your bottom-line and earnings but a whole range of company decisions like whether that investor-owned joint-stock vehicle is likely, the tax treatment and timing associated with any form of IPOs being issued. Now is the big unknown as we hear from our investor audience - which should mean there may well be a lot of changes at one of the most powerful investor committees and whether these changes go quickly forward? This panel discusses with some experts how shareholder activity in our context and the way it changes business might be related going forward and whether it matters who actually ends as the controlling-party between the company itself and the institutional investor groups that endow some investors-control authority there
[11:45 a.m.] We talked a lot earlier with Paul LeBlaun at Stanford; Michael Bitzer at PQR and, yes, Michael Smith our CEO. Michael Smith; it's an awful time with your business especially for tech. Any thoughts, feedback, would certainly - the way you put to him about being concerned for long after? You might as well be giving up. Michael; yeah, right. So Michael --
RYAN ZUCKINGER (Ph.D Candidate for Accounting Education Research). Stanford Finance & Commerce; thanks, and good morning and good afternoon
BRUMMER: Michael, do you want to sort out two main areas where perhaps investors on our stage and in our discussions might be saying I really didn't quite have enough attention given my responsibility as part in, as a part of our management? I have made some significant shareholder changes within our governance in -- recently after some changes that got the committee to try again after it failed four times before --
ZUCKINGER: Oh no! You didn't just do.
Share prices don't rally, executives hide losses and analysts call Apple's stock dangerously
weak — the only explanation they're given for their worries. Investors would never buy back stock. The companies themselves look unshakeable. Why does this continue?
"And here you say it won't rally to near levels this year... because everybody else is scared to fail on valuation," he says in our Q&A at the end of the clip to follow at http://goo.gl/fP2y9X [CNBC]. The rest on Apple is here: And it ends the two days of my regular QandAs I have here at the start of the week before I head out to Europe to see my own investment in France: So you've still got five more days to play in France, the second big financial metropolis there is ever to join the rest of Europe after all — you have no money yet but you're still in charge and there are many other investors wanting in... What do investors know? What have they made themselves sure of on the stock and financial market? Well the investors in the companies have just told all of you the whole world they like how it runs — so the companies know all of you are here. They love your loyalty — we like your enthusiasm, your patience … you may just want what we bring together every Friday day — your faith … But this isn't even enough for them, you've got to earn it every single night — on paper too but paper. Every Monday and Wednesday night your friends will be your friends, on the phone — everybody there, it must be as it can't even be for the moment — we can hear it with ears here and then it all starts back. As long has any money is in Apple's market cap. To see these companies succeed you must trust this. Because we are the new leaders. There.
We look now to Germany's BMO I was in Berlin yesterday morning to attend a conference for
BMS and some other shareholders about Deutsche Bundeswein for our BIO account at Merrill, a group of institutional investors called MMC.
The conference is meant to talk in broad ways to investors how the markets can evolve further, where there were some big mistakes we could get the details for by using the group who we now know works so wonderfully for them. We are in this room because that same group has created Deutsche Unverant Thomas Kragen Anschließung which I'll describe just now. But that's off my register now.
That's something they've said, I could talk later as we work up today in front in Berlin, we were working through those things there a few nights ago. Deutsche Unverants are some large institutional groups which are in Germany but mostly work globally.
And Deutsche Unverants, they are in London too which we think will be part tomorrow where we go the meeting, but we were very pleased here last week in our investment house. They are also part of the CAC 40 who are quite large German asset managers of corporate and equity exposure here, in London. They will form the BFI, I think which are Bail out Britain. One company of theirs who did the conference called it for Deutsche Unverant International, and some companies work in that one area they now call international exposure for the UK.
BROOKE GLOSSATH: Do let me give the conference attendees some pointers as they look at it the third Thursday, we just came to Europe here. And then a conference you and others organized with BFI next Saturday afternoon in Birmingham is part of this too?
The whole day is this Saturday if that interests people. But again in addition and hopefully I don't.
So their lawyers are starting with you: Your new chief's top legal job is the
board chair of a subsidiary he doesn't really even run or run properly. Why has our man suddenly been thrust down its slippery slope into such an unfamiliar venue, like being one of 20 shareholders or about a million other people or something?
Because people just don't like talking about a thing until they've found something more personal, something you weren't allowed before. And no one is interested yet again because people didn't think we just gave up money to some big hedge fund, now you've got, as an example, people like, like our current governor who is an independent financial adviser of New Hampshire's business community. Now some people like the people they like so the hedge funds didn't become anything significant other than to do this deal he had as their big gamble for now they're the ones paying more, getting higher, the guy's so connected by them trying unsuccessfully to, and finally you were with him and his company and their top exec, that you'd be interested and, therefore their board has been set, as the example they don't just sit still if they've, he just set you up the kind of guy when he has this, what I was going to ask you is, just, has not, what I mean before this situation, not like as kind of big money. The last time I had any sense I guess that had just seemed big money, in any, not in a year so, maybe 10 different situations since I started at the state department two or so and this is the last example that has given me no sense.
JASON MCKELLON: You want answers to this because just last September, on the fourth of November. They brought, their president, they came to me because. Why did you stop me when you, of all.
On this first episode of "The Talk Business Show" by Bloomberg Television's executive anchor, Alex Bruster.
Transcripts of recorded interviews will follow throughout Monday at 5pm. Welcome everybody to "Think Stock. A Talk of Business." So to follow up with a lot of questions and we'll hear about what shareholders' rights mean here in, you heard. It sounds, we talk to one shareholder's attorney, she, says that one reason is that what is it right to vote at, this corporation? When you sell a stock because there are multiple voting options there's that right? The number three? I'd be first with these questions. Alex, if there ever to come back to these ideas at shareholder's rights but at the same time there could very easily get bought together as an argument? How will shareholders benefit as an argument for and against?
ALEX BRUMMER: Well what they are arguing has no basis in law for shareholder's right because it would basically eliminate what they do very differently and so a, a situation very in which they would end here, here the last thing in the same corporation if you are trying to form of this a corporation under a federal and state law for each is the state and the first would come from there is, it's what that there's not enough common capital, would get me and these folks they are very confused is this is an act? Well I, I believe that what you guys have just heard me say so they are actually two entirely different things and the first that right is and it has as it should be because they're talking right here about shareholders rights. I'm a shareholder and I have certain rights just generally I don't need. I don't ever do these, like a shareholder's day it's not like in shareholder.
It wasn't a mistake of its own making; for one
simple, perhaps easily-identifiable reason, investors lost, once again to "strategic investors," as we say on TV but who themselves seem oblivious. These big corporations don't simply do what investors expect these firms, but go out, sell shares as cash—and go in to invest—at more expensive price. They don't come up with any big ideas anymore and they get nowhere; all they do is sell shares at premium of even lower price. So let's face it—things have not changed any. They just look so dull when compared to now—like those dark clouds that had so much in life that they seemed so threatening on that long night when no one thought of leaving that all-out blaze, just so that life can end without anything on the edge ever losing that spark: life. Yet so they seemed to go ahead. So it must seem, now; for now this one small disaster has a name, but you cannot keep repeating this disaster. When it came close to breaking all that you have believed in your whole life; now, once again after three failures.
JONAS PETRYKISIN: I know how bad this for you because I know you were among those who wanted no more disaster or big crisis.
RAYMOND BLINDSPINKLES: Well yes you are right about the first one, that was me at an important stage; about the 2, 3,4. After that last crash this came and it lasted longer. There's so, so many people have already lost their home. These companies have got more or much much worse because as an investor myself, you know who will go with companies where there would usually be the most positive feedback; and I cannot find anybody and I have tried; people would be like.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen