Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: tkc, Hi CF

By: tkc in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Mon, 02 Apr 12 5:33 AM | 44 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 07167 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 07166 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Just how many red herrings does it take to drown a discussion. Either the argument for better governance was so poorly framed, those throwing herrings are irrational or there is some other motivating force I'm unaware of. There is no logic that I can see to be in opposition to better governance. It really does appear that there is some kind of concerted subversion. Oh well, deja vu all over again. Thx CF


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: tkc, Hi CF
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Mon, 02 Apr 12 3:39 AM 		Msg. 07166 of 54959

Hi tkc,

The conflict comes down to this.

The interests of the family and shareholders may conflict.

In order to preserve the interests of shareholders, the company's board may demand that certain controls are put in place to ensure the fact that the appearance of family preference is prevented. Disclose those protections and the issue disappears.

There's a middle ground. But instead, folks choose to make it a binary choice between unrestricted family opportunity and family exclusion. There's more subtlety to be had in the conversation, but I don't see that it is going to be had.

Even so, if I were a Sprague and wanted what is best for the company, I'd agree with me that giving the appearance of even-handedness - and actually creating the conditions for equal treatment - is the right approach to resolving the issue!!

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next