5 ms·

This all makes sense as to why they might not have wanted to sell, but doesn't this ruling invalidate the entire reason to vote? Constituents don't get any sor

by Vraxx 10y ago

This all makes sense as to why they might not have wanted to sell, but doesn't this ruling invalidate the entire reason to vote? Constituents don't get any sort of compensation if their preferred political candidate doesn't win the election, or if a bill passes that they voted against. Why would this be different in the case of a vote for a buyout?

robotresearcher 10y ago
Here's the idea: I own 51% of the shares, so have a strict majority of all votes. I call a shareholder meeting and propose to take the company private by selling all the shares to me, for any price I choose. The vote passes by majority. To prevent the 49% being completely screwed with regularity, the law provides for those who voted against such a takeover to have the sale reviewed by a judge. The 51% owner takes this into account when proposing a price. In the case of a political election, the losing minority does not have their property instantly and compulsorily purchased at an arbitrary price set by the winner.
- SilasX 10y ago
  Thanks, that makes a lot more sense now. I remember using the reverse of that strategy in Railroad Tycoon 2: if my company had a lot of cash, I'd buy up as many shares of a smaller company as I could, and then make a wildly-over-the-top bid for it to divert my company's money into my pocket! Interestingly, I think it capped the amount you could offer at something like 2x the current market price, their own version of imposing an "arm's length" restriction...
- tsmffh 10y ago
  >In the case of a political election, the losing minority does not have their property instantly and compulsorily purchased at an arbitrary price set by the winner. Perhaps not instantly, but it that's exactly what happens.
- SilasX 10y ago
  Also, forgot to add: >In the case of a political election, the losing minority does not have their property instantly and compulsorily purchased at an arbitrary price set by the winner. Actually, in many poorly-run democracies, they do something very close! I'm reminded of the Dilbert comic: "If you vote for me, I'll take money from the people who didn't, and give it to you!"
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    Yeah, I was anticipating that response, since that's a cynical description of taxation in general. There are safeguards for that process too, like term limits and multiple branches of government. Let's not have that argument here, though.

by Vraxx 10y ago

robotresearcher 10y ago

Here's the idea: I own 51% of the shares, so have a strict majority of all votes. I call a shareholder meeting and propose to take the company private by selling all the shares to me, for any price I choose. The vote passes by majority. To prevent the 49% being completely screwed with regularity, the law provides for those who voted against such a takeover to have the sale reviewed by a judge. The 51% owner takes this into account when proposing a price. In the case of a political election, the losing minority does not have their property instantly and compulsorily purchased at an arbitrary price set by the winner.

SilasX 10y ago
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense now. I remember using the reverse of that strategy in Railroad Tycoon 2: if my company had a lot of cash, I'd buy up as many shares of a smaller company as I could, and then make a wildly-over-the-top bid for it to divert my company's money into my pocket! Interestingly, I think it capped the amount you could offer at something like 2x the current market price, their own version of imposing an "arm's length" restriction...
tsmffh 10y ago
>In the case of a political election, the losing minority does not have their property instantly and compulsorily purchased at an arbitrary price set by the winner. Perhaps not instantly, but it that's exactly what happens.
SilasX 10y ago
Also, forgot to add: >In the case of a political election, the losing minority does not have their property instantly and compulsorily purchased at an arbitrary price set by the winner. Actually, in many poorly-run democracies, they do something very close! I'm reminded of the Dilbert comic: "If you vote for me, I'll take money from the people who didn't, and give it to you!"
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  Yeah, I was anticipating that response, since that's a cynical description of taxation in general. There are safeguards for that process too, like term limits and multiple branches of government. Let's not have that argument here, though.