ok; let's say you were a small-tier manufacturing company that had had trouble after trouble it's entire existence. Let's say you previously had had a CEO running the joint who was borderline megalomanical as to any criticism of his actions in running the company., You could.n't tell this guy the sun was out unless he said it was so. this guy really used company money to further his own lifestyle. Which wasn't extravagant, but did not use company money for the intended purposes. And he was a good talker; he could charm your granny out of her underwear and get her to give it to the company.
This situation went on for years, finally some of the grannies revolted and got him out. So the situation for the incoming CEO was not good. And years and years went by, and this CEO talked a good talk. And was able to convince lots of investors that their big win was coming right around the corner. an 12 years went by and still the shareholders had received nothing, and people had put in oodles of money(to their personal detriment) and the day came when these shareholders finally woke up and said to the world that they weren't going to take it anymore. At that moment, management (and less informed shareholders) started jumping down their throats shouting "insider actions; these people have no right to say anything" kind of stuff. let's say this CEO is the largest shareholder. and other shareholders start asking questions about "hey, maybe we can help the company mange things; help the company continue getting business and sales. Help keep in touch with the shareholders. Help keep them happy. help get the stock price up where EVERYONE benefits. Stockholder CEO,customer; everyone. What would be wrong with that? Please reply if you have valid reasons for this fictitious stock not being successful
-i can't figure out who we're fighting here; or if we're fighting at all... the win-win is to get you some help running the business, get the work orders signed, make product, get happy customers; rinse and repeat.. I don't see why this is confrontational in any form. It's just beyond me. Who are these disgruntled shareholders against? the CEO? i have spoken with at least a dozen shareholders recently; and not one wants to see you hung out to dry. They want a happy, successful company and everybody living in harmony...and able to take some money off the table before we all die? I'm certain the people who are interested in running leep are smart business men who will be forced to stick around and grow the company before they allowed to cash in on their stock position. I can't figure out who could be against such an outcome. Can you? Please see this little bit of fiction i found today on the internet. if we're not governed by some "cone of silence" and legalese, can we not cut through the obfuscation? jim
ok; let's say you were a small-tier manufacturing company that had had trouble after trouble it's entire existence. Let's say you previously had had a CEO running the joint who was borderline megalomanical as to any criticism of his actions in running the company., You could.n't tell this guy the sun was out unless he said it was so. this guy really used company money to further his own lifestyle. Which wasn't extravagant, but did not use company money for the intended purposes. And he was a good talker; he could charm your granny out of her underwear and get her to give it to the company.
This situation went on for years, finally some of the grannies revolted and got him out. So the situation for the incoming CEO was not good. And years and years went by, and this CEO talked a good talk. And was able to convince lots of investors that their big win was coming right around the corner. and 12 years went by and still the shareholders had received nothing, and people had put in oodles of money(to their personal detriment) and the day came when these shareholders finally woke up and said to the world that they weren't going to take it anymore. At that moment, management (and less informed shareholders) started jumping down their throats shouting "insider actions; these people have no right to say anything" kind of stuff. let's say this CEO is the largest shareholder. and other shareholders start asking questions about "hey, maybe we can help the company mange things; help the company continue getting business and sales. Help keep in touch with the shareholders. Help keep them happy. help get the stock price up where EVERYONE benefits. Stockholder CEO,customer; everyone. What would be wrong with that?
Because these shareholders have a primary responsibility to their families; they are interested in the progress of the company. Several of the shareholders of this fictitious company have placed themselves at great financial risk in trying to help out this company. They want to prevent the baby being thrown out with the bath water. None of these long-term, financially-thin, good-guy shareholders understand what could be anybody's possible objection to helping out in any way possible the management of the company. They have developed the understanding that the management of this company is the biggest roadblock to them having a successful shareholdership; and they don't understand what they did to the management for them to have developed such a cavalier attitude to success of the company. They also feel that they are willing to let bygones be bygones and move forward with a new administration, while allowing the current administration to exit-stage-right gracefully and humbly.
Do you know any company that fits this scenario?
Please reply if you have valid reasons for this fictitious stock not being successful.
