InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 2
Posts 117
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/05/2004

Re: oilman57 post# 1240

Tuesday, 03/29/2005 5:25:20 PM

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 5:25:20 PM

Post# of 362819
There is a balance, oilman. Too few, no incentive.

Too much control, no effective governance.

IMO, 40% is WAY too much.

The SEC has long recognized that greater than 10% holders are demanding of closer scrutiny - because they can be a problem for other shareholders. When a company employee is also the effective super-majority holder of stock (and 40% in an OTC is an effective super-majority), when that employee is the EMPLOYER of ALL the BOD MEMBERS, and he himself is on the BOD, there is a factually present conflict of interest. Conflicts of Interest absolutely require independent BOD Members to act as a check against abuse of corporate power. The ISS (very well respected organization) covers this quite well in their white papers - as does even the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

HP had SEVERE problems that they still suffer from, due to too high a concentration of power in too few hands. T.Boone Pickens was one of the pioneers in breaking these types of strangleholds.
The Standard Oil Companies are the pre-eminent, or HIGHEST example, of the problems inherant in these types of concentration of power in public (or super large private) companies.