Chrxind, you seem to be very negative in your outlook toward NSC and it's stock. You aren't satisfied with it's past performance and you seem to be very pessimistic about NSC's future potential. It's obvious that you nitpick, in order to find any drawbacks to owning this stock. Maybe you are shorting the stock, purposely trying to put a bad light on it, so that you will profit by convincing others to sell.
Chrxind, as a NSC shareholder, you absolutely have the right to own NSC stock and to voice your opinions on the stock. But, if you are so dissatisfied with the stock's past performance and if you see no hope for it's future performance, why do you continue to hold on to NSC stock? There are many other companies, besides NSC, in which to invest.
I never short stocks, I really dislike the practice because shorts really don't own anything, yet they manipulate the stock price they are shorting.
If you read my posts, I am not dissatisfied with NS’s asset base. It is good. My problem is with current management conduct that could jeopardize the operation, and apparently has based on the stock performance as of late if you haven’t noticed. My fear is that it could get worse. I have sold about one-third of my position. That portion went back to 1986 timeframe. I have not bought any back since then andn not even during the Conrail nose-dive when the stock fell to eleven and change. I do have other long-term companies I invest in. The one-third of NS is sold partially went into current long-tern holds, as well as new positions. The result is that portion of moneys is doing better since.
For me additional selling will hinge on 4th qtr reports and management’s analysis. Holding until then presents risk, but willing to accept it until the data is out.
One note the 20 Dec 2012 Form 8-K indicates that at the next shareholders meet, vote to amend the current bylaws will be brought up to vote regarding the amount of share owned by a shareholder to call special shareholder meetings. I find that interesting. I suggest some homework for you on that, and how this differs from what the current bylaws state? I haven’t looked into that yet. So perhaps you could provide some insight as to whether current management may perceive a potential current management overthrow threat in the future, kind of like what happened to CP.
Figured you wouldn't. Probably couldn't even find it on their website, but here we are:
Current - February 12, 2012 bylaws:
SECTION 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the stockholders shall be held whenever called by the chief executive officer or by a majority of the directors.
SECTION 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the stockholders shall be held (a) whenever called by the chief executive officer or by a majority of the directors or (b) subject to the provisions of this Section 2, and all other applicable sections of these Bylaws, whenever called by the Secretary upon written request (a "Special Meeting Request") of one or more record holders of shares of stock of the Company representing not less than 20% of the voting power of all outstanding shares of all classes of stock of the Company entitled to vote on the matter(s) proposed to be voted on at such meeting (the "Requisite Percentage"). For purposes of this Section 2(b) and for determining the Requisite Percentage, a beneficial owner shall be deemed to own the shares of stock of the Company that such beneficial owner would be deemed to own pursuant to Rule 200(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. For purposes of determining the Requisite Percentage, the deemed ownership of any record holder or beneficial owner shall exclude any shares as to which such record holder or beneficial owner, as the case may be, does not have the right to vote or direct the vote at the special meeting. The Board of Directors shall determine in good faith whether all requirements set forth in this Section 2(b) have been satisfied and such determination shall be binding on the Company and its stockholders.
Remember folks...a thumbs down on this assumes a thumbs down for the new proposed change.