Fwd: BOUNCE homestead@cog.kent.edu: Non-member submission from ["Dave Wheatcroft" <dwheatcroft@lineone.net>]

[Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>]

>>From dbell@kent.edu  Mon Jan 10 11:31:46 2000
>X-Sender: dbell@pop.kent.edu
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:30:57 -0500
>To: dgo@esoplaw.com
>From: Dan Bell <dbell@kent.edu>
>Subject: BOUNCE homestead@cog.kent.edu:    Non-member submission from
>  ["Dave Wheatcroft" <dwheatcroft@lineone.net>]   
>
>Deb,
>
>This message from Dave Wheatcroft did not get relayed
>becaused he is not subscribed to the homestead list.
>
>Dan
>
>>From: owner-homestead@cog.kent.edu
>>Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:44:25 -0500
>>X-Authentication-Warning: cog.kent.edu: majordomo set sender to
>owner-homestead@cog.kent.edu using -f
>>To: owner-homestead@cog.kent.edu
>>Subject: BOUNCE homestead@cog.kent.edu:    Non-member submission from
>["Dave Wheatcroft" <dwheatcroft@lineone.net>]   
>>
>>>From cogowners@cog.kent.edu  Sat Jan  8 13:44:25 2000
>>Received: from shaggy.lineone.net (shaggy-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.225])
>>      by cog.kent.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA20826
>>      for <Homestead@cog.kent.edu>; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:44:19 -0500
>>Received: from default (host62-6-28-173.btinternet.com [62.6.28.173] (may
>be forged))
>>      by shaggy.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA15877
>>      for <Homestead@cog.kent.edu>; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:43:40 GMT
>>Message-ID: <001901bf5a07$8ea1c2e0$ad1c063e@default>
>>From: "Dave Wheatcroft" <dwheatcroft@lineone.net>
>>To: "Homestead COG" <Homestead@cog.kent.edu>
>>Subject: Comments to Deb 5.1.2000
>>Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:36:13 -0000
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>      boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01BF5A07.3DF68420"
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
>>
>>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>
>>------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BF5A07.3DF68420
>>Content-Type: text/plain;
>>      charset="iso-8859-1"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>>Dear Homesteaders
>>On the risk factor can I just make the following comments.
>>As a worker the things that dominates how you spend your money depends =
>>on disposable income.
>>I don't take the view that workers don't invest in ownership (Shares) =
>>because of the risk factor. More likely there are other forms of =
>>competition for the money that are more attractive to the worker, =
>>betting on the horses and the lottery to name just two of the most =
>>popular but far more risky, the reason for this, in the UK at least is =
>>the fact that the workers were not brought up in a shareholder =
>>environment and they don't understand it, they are far more familiar =
>>with  betting as it is straightforward and easily accessible to them =
>>even though it is almost certain they will lose their money.
>>So this is the challenge for us, how do we convince them that "Betting" =
>>on shares particularly in the company where they work is better?
>>The answer is publicity, education and accessibility.
>>For one thing it can be as secure as banks, take the record and returns =
>>of the share markets over the past few decades.=20
>>For another it can just as exiting as horses (although a little slower =
>>tracing the movement of your shares every day or hour if you are that =
>>keen.
>>Finally if you pick the right investment you can be on a real winner, =
>>which is especially rewarding if you are involved and have contributed =
>>to it yourself.
>>These are the points we are not getting across to the workers.
>>I read in a book once that the test of how good a company thinks it is  =
>>to offer some of it's shares to the workers to buy and watch the take =
>>up.
>>If the workings of the company is transparent the workers would be more =
>>likely to invest in it, it's the secrecy of the Board Room that puts =
>>workers off and the feeling that they are just a number and not a valued =
>>person, even if that converts to a valued asset.
>>
>>Spreading the ownership and sharing the wealth, even in some small way, =
>>can only be good for the company, community, nation and world. =
>>unfortunately in the past few decades things have been moving the other =
>>way and although EO has slowed it down a little there is still a =
>>mountain to climb to even stop the trend let alone reverse it, but that =
>>shouldn't stop us from keeping on trying
>>  =20
>>
>>Dave Wheatcroft
>>01246 233438 -Tel
>>
>>------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BF5A07.3DF68420
>>Content-Type: text/html;
>>      charset="iso-8859-1"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
>> >>>http-equiv=3DContent-Type> >> >> >> >> >>
Dear Homesteaders
>>
On the risk factor can I just make the following = >> >>comments.
>>
As a worker the things that dominates how you = >>spend your=20 >>money
depends on disposable income.
>>
I don't take the view that workers don't invest = >>in=20 >>ownership
(Shares) because of the risk factor. More likely there are = >>other
forms=20 >>of competition for the money that are more attractive to the
worker, = >>betting on=20 >>the horses and the lottery to name just two of
the most popular but far = >>more=20 >>risky, the reason for this, in the
UK at least is the fact that the = >>workers were=20 >>not brought up in a
shareholder environment and they don't understand = >>it, they=20 >>are far
more familiar with betting as it is straightforward and easily=20
>>accessible to them even though it is almost certain they will lose their
= >> >>money.
>>
So this is the challenge for us, how do we = >>convince them=20 >>that
"Betting" on shares particularly in the company where they work is=20 >>better?
>>
The answer is publicity, education and=20 >>accessibility.
>>
For one thing it can be as secure as banks, = >>take the=20 >>record and
returns of the share markets over the past few decades.=20 >>
>>
For another it can just as exiting as horses = >>(although a=20 >>little
slower tracing the movement of your shares every day or hour if = >>you
are=20 >>that keen.
>>
Finally if you pick the right investment you can = >>be on a=20 >>real
winner, which is especially rewarding if you are involved and have=20
>>contributed to it yourself.
>>
These are the points we are not getting across = >>to the=20 >>workers.
>>
I read in a book once that the test of how good = >>a company=20 >>thinks
it is to offer some of it's shares to the workers to buy = >>and watch=20
>>the take up.
>>
If the workings of the company is transparent = >>the workers=20 >>would be
more likely to invest in it, it's the secrecy of the Board Room = >>that=20
>>puts workers off and the feeling that they are just a number and not a =
>>valued=20 >>person, even if that converts to a valued asset.
>>
 
>>
Spreading the ownership and sharing the wealth, = >>even in=20 >>some small
way, can only be good for the company, community, nation and = >>world.=20
>>unfortunately in the past few decades things have been moving the other =
>>way and=20 >>although EO has slowed it down a little there is still a
mountain to = >>climb to=20 >>even stop the trend let alone reverse it, but
that shouldn't stop us=20 >>from keeping on trying
>>
   
>>
 
>>
Dave Wheatcroft
01246 233438=20 >>-Tel

>>
>>------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BF5A07.3DF68420--
>>
>>
>--
>Dan Bell
>International Program Coordinator
>Ohio Employee Ownership Center
>Kent State University
>Kent, OH 44242
>(330) 672-3028
>(330) 672-4063 fax
>dbell@kent.edu
>http://www.kent.edu/oeoc/
>