|
COG
|
Homestead Discussion |
|||||||||
| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Fwd: Disclosure of employee share owners
>>From sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu Sat Sep 25 02:47:54 1999 >X-BPC-Relay-Envelope-From: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu >X-BPC-Relay-Sender-Host: m5.c2.telstra-mm.net.au [24.192.3.20] >X-BPC-Relay-Info: Message delivered as CC or BCC. >X-Sender: sturnbull@mail.mpx.com.au >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 >Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:45:22 +1000 >To: rerailer@earthlink.net, Norm Kurland <thirdway@cesj.org>, > MYERSFLAT <MYERSFLAT@aol.com>, dbinns <dbinns@fed.org>, > SCWPeace <SCWPeace@aol.com>, "OWNCO@aol.com" <OWNCO@aol.com>, > markreiners <markreiners@hotmail.com>, > mharrington <mharrington@milken-inst.org>, CURE <CURE@publicgood.com>, > CVEHORN <CVEHORN@imf.org>, rsmiley <rsmiley@comnett.net>, > info <info@fmcenter.org>, NETGROWTH <NETGROWTH@aol.com>, > mjnaughton <mjnaughton@stthomas.edu>, > garrydavis <garrydavis@hotmail.com>, hermesn <hermesn@helpnet.org>, > hbw <hbw@pixi.com>, banneker <banneker@progress.org>, > geonomist <geonomist@juno.com>, asky <asky@sirius.com>, > IPFA <IPFA@earthlink.net>, mali1610 <mali1610@bangla.net>, > thirdway <thirdway@dircon.co.uk>, Rhashford <Rhashford@aol.com>, > rshakes <rshakes@globalnet.co.uk>, lgranados <lgranados@mwe.com>, > rludwig <rludwig@lgklaw.com>, centbur <centbur@juno.com>, > crosen <crosen@nceo.org>, SpitzleyD <SpitzleyD@state.mi.us>, > lorned <lorned@attcanada.net>, dmoore <dmoore@cybersol.com>, > db <db@infoburst.cc>, billperk <billperk@midwest.net>, > jtruss <jtruss@syntegrity.com>, rlgcohen <rlgcohen@erols.com>, > "CT.06423" <CT.06423@aol.com>, Hadlyme <Hadlyme@aol.com>, > "jane.darista" <jane.darista@snet.net.Jane.D'Arista>, > kelsoin <kelsoin@hooked.net>, NMhermes <NMhermes@aol.com>, > "Majordomo@cog.kent.edu" <Majordomo@cog.kent.edu>, > Dan Bell <dbell@kent.edu>, Homestead <Homestead@cog.kent.edu>, > Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>, > Barry Randall <EOpriv@cog.kent.edu>, > Thomas Brandt <tbrandt@dbedt.hawaii.gov> >From: Shann Turnbull <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu> >Subject: Disclosure of employee share owners >Cc: jeffgates@mindspring.com, "kwilde@magi.com" <kwilde@magi.com> > >Dear Richard > >Thank you for your note. I support your argument that all publicly traded >corporations should make public who are their owners and controllers. >However, this issue if far wider than the concerns of employee owners. > >It is quite unconscionable for any government to allow security exchanges >not to disclose the identity of the contra parties before a trade is >executed. A basic rule of doing business is to know who you are dealing >with! In past years share traders at least knew an individual who was >their stockbroker but now they have been replaced by computers. > >Without disclosure of shareolder identity, corporations and their directors >do not know to who they owe a fiduciary duty. What is the use of the law >making directors accountable to shareholders when they do not know who are >the beneficial owners behind nominee and trustee companies, etc? As you >state, shareholders also want to know are the other owners if we are to >create what Jeff Gates calls "connected capitalism". > >Electronic trading now makes it practical for all those participating in >the ownership and/or control of a security to be disclosed to the >buyer/seller before a trade is executed in the same way internet brokers >show market depth. That is, the web page discloses the number of parties >willing to buy/sell a security at a given price before a trade is executed. > If buyers or sellers who have "a related party interest" in the stock like >employees, directors, etc. were identified in this disclosure then the >market could directly monitor insider trading to facilitate self-regulation >instead of relying on the Stock Exchange or government regulators, etc. > >No investor should be placed in the position of not knowing that they are >buying a share from a insider or selling a share to an insider. Big >investors do not want such disclosure because their actions can move the >market and make it difficult for them to take advantage of small investors >who cannot more the market and/or who are not insiders! But this is an >argument for full disclosure, not non-disclosure to protect the interests >of market movers and/or insiders. > >Employees are now the largest block of shareholders in a number of the >largest Australian companies but this is not disclosed to the public or >even to the employees as it is the directors that typically vote the stock >to further their agenda. Disclosure would be a first step is getting the >vote passed through to employees to obtain the benefits of participation in >control as well as ownership. > >Regards > >Shann > > > >At 10:28 PM 24/9/1999 -0700, Richard D. Foley wrote: >> >>X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 >>Message-ID: <37EC520B.CCC3E5DE@earthlink.net> >>Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:39:49 -0700 >>From: "Richard D. Foley" <rerailer@earthlink.net> >>Reply-To: rerailer@earthlink.net >>Organization: TFG, Inc >>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; U; PPC) >>X-Accept-Language: en >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>To: Thomas Brandt <tbrandt@dbedt.hawaii.gov> >>Subject: Re: Kurland v. Turnbull >>References: <9909249382.AA938225632@mail.dbedt> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; >>x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >>Dear Thomas, >> >>I saw your question to Norm and thought that this was a good time for me >>to bring forward a small idea. Perhaps this is not the exact format or >>place, as I am not quite sure of how this discussion system works. I've >>know Norm for a long time and support his work. I'll soon be sending in >>my personal data, but for now I think that Norm will vouch for me. >> >>Let me start by asking a few simple questions. What is the true extent >>of existing employee ownership? Ok, I know there are a lot of guesses >>and estimates, but is there any reason why this important information >>must remain only an estimate? What difference would knowing make? How >>would the dynamic change between management and labor if everyone knew >>that the employees combined ownership constituted the largest block in >>the company? How much pressure to move to an esop structure would build >>if the rank and file could see that this was a very real and doable >>thing and not just some pie in the sky in the great by and by? >> >>This is doable right now on both the state and the federal level. For >>example, any corporation the value of whose stock exceeds a specified >>amount shall be required to report the extent of employee ownership in >>the company. To protect and preserve the privacy of the employees, this >>can be accomplished by using an unrelated disinterested third party, to >>which the employees stock owners report their existing ownership. The >>corporation reports the results in its filings each quarter. This >>information could become one of the most important pieces of data that >>investors use to determine in which companies to invest their money. I >>believe the public has a need and a right to know this information. >>This could become the "First" question asked about every company. How >>much do the employees own? >> >>This small idea could be an good step in changing how people think about >>ownership. Freedom and justice come in to being not from the great >>thinkers, but rather from within the hearts and minds of common men and >>women believing three things: first, that it can be; second, that it >>should be; and third that it will be. >> >>Richard D. Foley >>President & CEO >>TFG, Inc. >>6040 N. Camino Arturo >>Tucson, AZ 85718 >>520-742-5168 >>rerailer@earthlink.net > >Shann Turnbull >P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350 >Phone: 02 9328 7466 office; 02 9327 8487 home >Fax: 02 9327 1497 home & office. Mobile 0418 222 378 >Outside Australia, replace first "0" with "61" after international access code >Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu >http://www.mpx.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html >
|