In answer to your question about the board. Who picks the people who serve on the board I don't believe I've ever nominated anyone, have you? Don't remember ever having a multiple choice to vote on any one position either. Seems like the current board or company executives make the decision of who is nominated. If you were in that position would you try to get someone who supports your position to serve on the board or someone completely independent and that looks out for the well being of the shareholders?
Come on folks! This is Business 101. Of course you "own" the company, if (and this is a mega "if") you own a controling interest in the company. If you don't, the Board, which is nominated by management for the most part, seedes it's power as representative of the owners to management. Management does what they want to for the most part. So if "own the company" means you direct what happens, well, that's just not the way it really works. Sure, you can mount a proxie fight, etc. if you've got the time and mega $$, but the reality is that your primary "control" of the company as an "owner" is your ability to sell your shares and buy something else.
BBT is not Enron, very few companies are, so don't use that as a rallying call. That's a cheap shot and not a valid or worthy argument line. You've done a much better job than that on this board jim, I'm disapointed in you.
So, if you want to get up a proxy fight - great. I may even vote for your proposal, but get real on how business works. It may not be the ideal, but it's better than any other system and we do eventually catch the true Enrons and make them pay. At least pay some.
Hope you just misread my earlier post or misinterpreted it. Which was
"However, on your statement about the SEC frowns on mirepresentations, there are real mixed feeling about that. Where were they if they are so good on Enron, WorldCom and Tyco just to name three. You don't really believe that they were all telling the truth in their annual reports and that the SEC was on top of the misrepresentations do you?"
The point I was trying to make is that I don't think we can take everything in any company's proxy or statements as the absolute truth just because the SEC is supposely policing what companies do. This was in answer to one of Fan's posts that the SEC was policing companies and we could all rest easy.
I did not compare BBT with any of the above companies in any fashion whatever nor was it my intent.
I'll be damned. You are finally getting to understand what some of the posts have been saying for a long time about the collusion that takes place between the Board and upper echelon management. Board chooses upper Mgt, Mgt chooses Board, You take care of me, I take care of you. How else do you justify the enormous salaries and perks of both the board members and upper mgt. This is the norm for all American corporations. (Some CEO's receiving up to 10 figure benefits.) Is the morally fair/legal???????
Fair? ROTFLMAO Fair? One of the most crippling concepts in our system. Fair? What ever the board and CEO owe shareholders "legally," don't you think it is appallingly naive of ANYONE to believe that shareholders' interests are of paramount importance to the management and Board?
Does anyone actually believe a business owner has EVER planned an IPO, and given away part of his "baby" with greatest motivation being to enrich shareholders? GAWD, I sure hope not. Have a nice bridge for sale, if you're the one.
Stock hit it on the head. Take control, or sell. Lordy, the whining solves little. Well, really whining solves nothing. IMO
Mutual funds, institutions, insiders and 5% owners hold 42%+/- of BBT float.