"Tman" <no.email[at]no.email.com> wrote in message
news:WNOdnZqbHf92CnnUnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d[at]giganews.com...
- quote -

Why would you own stock in a company if you think their management is so
incompetent?

Elizabeth Richardson wrote:
- quote -

http://www.highdenomination.com/FiveThousand.asp

$190K. Your instinct is good (as usual).

"Alvin" <acorn[at]muncher.com> wrote in message news:NsoGl.1486
- quote -

I won't defend the cost to the taxpayer on this, but I'm pretty sure that
$5000 bill is worth more than $5000 as a collectible.

Elizabeth Richardson

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ak8Gl.130524$4m1.106387[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

I'm taking my chances like everyone else. I worry more about how greed
affects people than I do about the markets. Years ago I went into a Federal
Reserve Bank, I think it was Boston. Anyway, on the wall they had money in
picture frames. $500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000 bills. An armed guard
stood under each one. What a waste of taxpayer money. Geez, if you managed
to steal a $5,000 bill how would you use it?

"Alvin" <acorn[at]muncher.com> wrote in message
news:lE5Gl.1324$b11.1283[at]nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

- quote -


So you're putting it under the mattress or in a can in the backyard? OK, you
probably didn't mean you can't trust anyone. Who is it, then, that you think
we should/could trust?

Elizabeth Richardson

"Andrew Koenig" <ark[at]acm.org> wrote

- quote -

The flaw is that we trust people with our money. They can't be trusted. They
have proven it time and again.

On 2009-04-16 19:35:18 -0700, "Andrew Koenig" <ark[at]acm.org> said:

- quote -

If "Sarbanes-Oxley" didn't work, that doesn't necessarily mean that
"government regulation" doesn't work.

If Hoover's methods of regulation didn't work, it didn't imply that
Roosevelt's wouldn't work.

Yes, indeed! Lets analyze the older methods and come up with better ones.

"Andrew Koenig" <a...[at]acm.org> wrote:
- quote -

How can it be this black-and-white? For example Glass-Steagall was
repealed in 1999. Other regulations against abuse remained. Yet abuses
increased. Many argue Glass-Steagall's repeal was largely the cause of
this increase and the subsequent crash of the economy. Don's point is
perfectly well-reasoned. A person just has to have a handle on the
complexity of the issues here to get it.

"Don" <dwzimm[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:2009041613400250073-dwzimm[at]telusnet...

- quote -

If you try something and it doesn't work, it seems problematic to conclude
that you should be doing more of it.

At the very least, you should first understand the flaw in the reasoning
that led you to conclude that it would work in the first place.

On 2009-04-16 08:39:01 -0700, "Andrew Koenig" <ark[at]acm.org> said:

- quote -

When regulations are enacted to prevent abuses, and then some years
later the abuses are still present and worse than ever, it seems to me
that what we need are stronger and more effective regulations.

Whether they come from some level of governement or from companies
policing themselves actually is immaterial. But history has shown that
when we rely on self-regulation by industries, nothing serious gets
done, abuses spin out of control, and eventually government has to act.

It works that way no matter whether we are talking about the airline
industry, the coal mining industry, or the financial services industry.

On Apr 14, 4:03*pm, Tman <no.em...[at]no.email.com> wrote:
[snip]
- quote -

A lot of people are considering how to improve the shareholder control
of runaway boards. One change that has appeared is to make
compensation subject to approval. I've voted against many routine
proposals for the reasons you stated. The votes do get counted, and
shareholder unrest will hopefully be felt.

Writing thoughtful letters to management is another idea, asking
questions and voicing concerns. A phone call is another. Most people
do try, I believe, to do the right thing.

"Don" <dwzimm[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:2009041414550116807-dwzimm[at]telusnet...

- quote -

How do we get better corporate governance *with* government regulation?

The last time that was tried was Sarbanes-Oxley. How's that working out?

On 2009-04-14 13:03:40 -0700, Tman <no.email[at]no.email.com> said:

- quote -

And how do we get better corporate governance without government
regulation? Will all those greedy executives suddenly see the light and
reform? It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

On Apr 14, 1:03*pm, Tman <no.em...[at]no.email.com> wrote:
- quote -

You already said it don't make any difference, and you are right. So
why would it put the board on any kind of notice?

"Tman" <no.email[at]no.email.com> wrote in message
news:WNOdnZqbHf92CnnUnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d[at]giganews.com...
- quote -

But you said you are NOT paying attention. Your idea is a silly one.
Either be informed, or don't vote.

As most people are, I am swamped right now with taxes, bills, memos, and
other personal business to attend to.
I have a pile of proxy cards for various shares that I directly own. I
don't have the time or inclination to understand what it is I'm voting
on... a mighty fine example of rational indifference. But I think I
have a pretty good system that I wish more people would take advantage of;

Simply vote AGAINST the recommendation from the board on every vote
(unless there are some that you do in fact feel strongly about).

It takes no time, and it won't swing the final outcome of the vote, even
if the readers of mifp and their friends all do it. Hey, most votes are
carried by mutual funds and other institutional holders.

But it may serve putting the board on just a little bit of notice that
people are paying attention and not agreeing with their vote
recommendations.

T. -- A person that believes we don't need more government regulation,
we need better corporate governance.