Longcol Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Sure. But is it right that our paid and elected represenatives are also paid 'Advisers' for large private companies? No - I think MP's should have no other financial interest whilst MP's. Still doesn't mean we can do away with CEO's and Directors. Still doesn't alter the fact that the biggest shareholders in most plc's are pension funds and insurance companies. ---------- Post added 15-06-2013 at 00:55 ---------- [/b] This is the point I was aiming to dispute. I think I have succeeded. Major shareholder doesn't mean majority shareholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 No - I think MP's should have no other financial interest whilst MP's. Still doesn't mean we can do away with CEO's and Directors. Still doesn't alter the fact that the biggest shareholders in most plc's are pension funds and insurance companies. ---------- Post added 15-06-2013 at 00:55 ---------- Major shareholder doesn't mean majority shareholder. "Mr Jorgan Philip-Sorenson was chairman of the board of Directors until June 2006 and remained its major shareholder and President Emiritus until his death in 2010" Sounds pretty convincing to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 "Mr Jorgan Philip-Sorenson was chairman of the board of Directors until June 2006 and remained its major shareholder and President Emiritus until his death in 2010" Sounds pretty convincing to me... Yes - he's dead OK. He was the major shareholder (just as Invesco is now with 15% of shares). Doesn't mean he was majority shareholder. President Emeritus means effectively "honorary" - ie not the boss. If we were having this discussion 7 years ago you may have had a point........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 No - I think MP's should have no other financial interest whilst MP's. Still doesn't mean we can do away with CEO's and Directors. Still doesn't alter the fact that the biggest shareholders in most plc's are pension funds and insurance companies. ---------- Post added 15-06-2013 at 00:55 ---------- Major shareholder doesn't mean majority shareholder. I think we need to move away from this misapprehension that shareholders rake it in from such companies. Often, they see little return, whilst the CEO's and Directors get ludicrous ammounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 I think we need to move away from this misapprehension that shareholders rake it in from such companies. Often, they see little return, whilst the CEO's and Directors get ludicrous ammounts. And where do you get this gem of information from? If the shareholders aren't getting a reasonable return they'll either go elsewhere or get rid of the CEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 And where do you get this gem of information from? If the shareholders aren't getting a reasonable return they'll either go elsewhere or get rid of the CEO. Shareholders themselves. Like you said earlier (I think it was you who made the point ), these days there are so many shareholders, with smaller stakes, and hence smaller voices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Emma got set up by daddy just at the time Labour were looking to throw millions at the likes of A4e so she's an exception. G4S is the result of countless mergers of dozens and dozens of companies over many many decades hence it's the third largest private employer on the planet. The idea it has a "founder" who is sitting making most of the cash is rather silly. Until the principles of a Register of Beneficial Ownership are passed into law, corporations will continue to operate in secrecy, with the collusion of tax havens, and those who are benefitting financially will remain hidden - this is what 'secrecy jurisdictions' are all about. Anna's point is valid, and indicates one of the central techniques of tax avoidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 Until the principles of a Register of Beneficial Ownership are passed into law, corporations will continue to operate in secrecy, with the collusion of tax havens, and those who are benefitting financially will remain hidden - this is what 'secrecy jurisdictions' are all about. Anna's point is valid, and indicates one of the central techniques of tax avoidance. What point, that it is impossible to find the owner of G4S because of all the secrecy. She disproved that by finding out who started the company, who was the majority shareholder up until 2010 and who the major sharehoders are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 G4S are always in the Limelight for all the wrong reasons and yet they are allowed to function as a business, why is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 G4S are always in the Limelight for all the wrong reasons and yet they are allowed to function as a business, why is this? Because there is no law that says if you make mistakes you must stop operating. They obviously provide a LOT of services and probably most of them very well however that doesn't sell newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.