Thursday, October 3, 2013
Professor Bainbridge takes issue with my analogy between shareholder activists and Congress. I am pretty sure he's missing my point, in part because I have not disagreed with the points he makes. My point (or at least intended one) is not that shareholder rights should equal a strict democracy. My point is that shareholder activists, sometimes with less than a majoity, say 20%, try to improperly impose their will on the currently elected (and properly empowered) board. Further, they are seeking additional powers to further their influence.
I figure we all agree that if a majority of shareholders agree, they can, at the proper time, make the changes they want. In contrast, shareholder activists often try to make those changes before they have the votes -- votes they may never have to support their views. I happen to see at least some of the current Republican House in that same vein. That's my intended point. I am sure lots of people disagree with that, too, but I just want to make clear that I am criticizing what I see as the abuse of a powerful minority messing with a regime that was properly elected and exercising that power that was obtained via election.
I'm not suggesting shareholders should have more power; I am criticizing how they sometimes exercise the power they currenty have.