Check the 2004 proxy materials. On page 54 next to last paragaph in the reply to a shareholder proposal the company states that A $100 investment in Common Stock on December 31,1998 would be worth $131.80 at year end 2002. On page 36 bottom of page they state a $100 invested 12/98 would be worth $102.59 on 12/2002. The figures on page 36 even states that it includes reinvestment of dividends. How does the same investment and the same time frame yield a difference of $29.21?
This would be the first set of pages numbered in the proxy materials. What I was told was that this exact information was presented at the shareholder meeting and even the page numbers were mentioned.
In fact I believe I saw this information posted on one of the message boards before the shareholder meeting.
Please check it out and then I would expect a reply and correction from you.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 8277 by BBTFan
While I was away on a golf trip, my office was reorganized and I can't lay my hands on the 2004 proxy. Since I've already reported what I heard at the s/h meeting, sitting two rows behind the speaker when the proposal was defeated, it's a dead issue.
We have more important frivolity to waste our time on like potential mergers and a $51 buyout. What's the gratification in knitpickin' a dead proxy? Call the bank if you really want to pursue it.
First you said on post 8277 that my post wasn't true. Now that I posted information showing that what I said was indeed true, you conviently lost your proxy showing my post was indeed the truth.
Guess, that there was only one copy of the proxy in the whole world for you to check the figures. Try the Yahoo web site and then check SEC filings.
You are trying to make the issue go away, but there are some of us who think that it is indeed a big deal for a company to put incorrect information in their proxy and then when confronted state that it was correct.
The original posts were would a company lie to their employees and if they would lie to the employees would they also lie to the shareholders. This is when you posted that the investors were not mislead.
You completely misrepresnted what happened to all the people reading this message board and now you want to play it down.
I'm still waiting for you to confirm the figures in the proxy and retract your statment that the investors were not mislead.
Yours for better investing and honesty.
If the SEC is so great at monitoring business practices, then why is it always NY Atty. Gen. Elliot Spitzer who takes businesses to the woodshed, while the SEC maintains they haven't had enough time to investigate?
"...they are saying -- you shouldn't question things."
Not even close to reality, at least on this planet.
They are saying, and have repeatedly said, or asked, as in a "question," "Why?"
As in, "Why spend so much time moaning about a 5-year flat-line stock price instead of moving on?"
As in, "Why parse words, meanings, and intent endlessly on a YAHOO! message board, attempting to hold casual posters to a grand jury standard of truth, attacking those who fail to measure up?"
Shades of Art Bell.....
As in, "Why campaign righteously for Truth, Justice, and the American Way on a powerless forum which is closely linked to the Great Lunatic Fringe, instead of tackling the perceived injustice in a venue designed for such?"
As in, "Is this where you start to save the world?"
I think not, but I don't have the game plan and play book.
As in, "Why is your world so bleak?"
NO ONE regularly posting here is "mindless." And there is no "authority" represented here.
Relax a little. There are some great fellers among the regular posters here.
Mike...sometimes financial wizzards can miss things. In 1977 Southern National Bank (now a part of the BB&T family) printed the wrong name of the corporation on the annual report cover. It was discovered the day before they were to be mailed. Report covers were torn off and correction sheets were placed in the envelopes...attorneys and the banks auditing firm made overtime. Mistakes happen, sometimes by error, sometimes otherwise. I guess ones view would be on just how cynical one was.
"... Mike can't change this fact regardless of what they post."
Wrong angle, Jim. Me? I really just don't care.
And wrong venue, Jim, as noted twice here, for anyone who feels wronged. There are better avenues for recourse.
"...then why is it always NY Atty. Gen. Elliot Spitzer who takes businesses to the woodshed, while the SEC maintains they haven't had enough time to investigate?"
Always? Rather an absolute modifier, isn't it?
Particularly if you peruse this link: