Gay marriage plebiscite - Result YES to SSM

[Dawgfather]

Unless grandstanding is profitable. And as you've already pointed out, supporting SSM is popular. I'm under no illusion here. I'm sure most of these companies are doing it for popularity purposes rather than supporting their actual beliefs, but the point is that they have every right to do that and there's nothing even remotely wrong with it.

I agree with you. I'm not trying to say it's illegal. I'm trying to say the ethics of it are entirely questionable.

 

[Papa Emeritus]

I thought this thing was supposed to be anonymous and the bar codes can't be tracked back to a specific person?

They definitely are traceable to prevent voter fraud. But they are destroying that information and not releasing it.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

So I'm assuming CEO's have taken a survey or poll of their MILLIONS of shareholders who live in Australia as well as around the world and asked them what their stances are?

That's what shareholder meetings are for. I guarantee you that none of these publicly traded companies started publicly supporting the Yes vote without the approval of the majority share holders.

 

[CaptainJackson]

If you're telling me that Joyce's sexual orientation has nothing to do with Qantas being on-board then LOL. There are a heap of big companies who have not gotten into which side of the debate they are on!

Do you want to point out where I said that Joyce's personal convictions have nothing to do with where he puts his support?

My comment was that Joyce would not have made this decision to publicly back the Yes side WITHOUT board approval. The Board would have voted on this.

 

[Dawgfather]

Do you have ANY proof that they're scared of the consequences of saying No?

Come on dude - are you really going to sit here and make out that people are not running scared on this issue? Everyone knows what the gay community and their 'hangers-on' can be like.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Come on dude - are you really going to sit here and make out that people are not running scared on this issue? Everyone knows what the gay community and their 'hangers-on' can be like.

I can make a completely baseless statement about the No side as well but I don't.

It's fairly plain and simple, where's the proof?

 

[Dawgfather]

That's what shareholder meetings are for. I guarantee you that none of these publicly traded companies started publicly supporting the Yes vote without the approval of the majority share holders.

I will put my entire life savings on the fact that NONE of these organisations have gone out and determined whether a majority of shareholders support SSM or not.

 

[Flanagun]

So I'm assuming CEO's have taken a survey or poll of their MILLIONS of shareholders who live in Australia as well as around the world and asked them what their stances are?

I'm sure if companies are making a public stance they are confident that stance reflects the views of the majority of its customers and shareholders. If they are wrong about that, it may effect their bottom line....and as I said, that's the only recourse against a company that adopts a political stance you don't like- don't support the company. A CEO or company adopting a public stance on a public policy debate is just not bullying. In any way, shape or form. It's free speech.

 

[Flanagun]

I will put my entire life savings on the fact that NONE of these organisations have gone out and determined whether a majority of shareholders support SSM or not.

If that's the case, they are all pretty stupid CEOs IMO, because business is all about the bottom line. Most major companies just would not take a public stance on the issue if they felt it would negatively effect their bottom line.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I will put my entire life savings on the fact that NONE of these organisations have gone out and determined whether a majority of shareholders support SSM or not.

Do you know what majority shareholders are?

Do you know who makes up the board?

I'm sincerely asking because from your statement it seems that you don't know the answers to these questions

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I will put my entire life savings on the fact that NONE of these organisations have gone out and determined whether a majority of shareholders support SSM or not.

I said "the majority shareholders" not "the majority of the shareholders". That means the shareholders that control the majority of the shares. In other words, the board members. The ones that control most of the shares. There is zero chance they went ahead with this without their approval.

 

[JayBee]

I will put my entire life savings on the fact that NONE of these organisations have gone out and determined whether a majority of shareholders support SSM or not.

I work for a fortune 500 company. They recently had a status regarding the current debate, in favour of SSM.

No email has ever gone out to discuss such things. Nor has it been raised in shareholder meetings, or any of our monthly/quarterly forums.

I have also discussed this with people who are a lot higher up than me (in global regional roles) - and they share similar views with myself. They too have not been part of any conversation, discussion or meeting where the decision has been made to fully support SSM.

 

[Wahesh]

Do you want to point out where I said that Joyce's personal convictions have nothing to do with where he puts his support?

My comment was that Joyce would not have made this decision to publicly back the Yes side WITHOUT board approval. The Board would have voted on this.

And how much influence on the board do you think he has?

 

[CaptainJackson]

And how much influence on the board do you think he has?

You do know that members of the board ARE HIS BOSS?

 

[Dawgfather]

If that's the case, they are all pretty stupid CEOs IMO, because business is all about the bottom line. Most major companies just would not take a public stance on the issue if they felt it would negatively effect their bottom line.

Of course it won't affect their bottom line. But it absolutely does not reflect all of their shareholders, and possibly not even a majority of their shareholders.

 

[CaptainJackson]

No email has ever gone out to discuss such things. Nor has it been raised in shareholder meetings, or any of our monthly/quarterly forums.

I have also discussed this with people who are a lot higher up than me (in global regional roles) - and they share similar views with myself. They too have not been part of any conversation, discussion or meeting where the decision has been made to fully support SSM.

Majority shareholders sit on the board. This means board members MUST HAVE a minimum investment in the publicly listed company.

They make many of the decisions on the direction of the company, whether it be public or commercial. This DOES NOT mean they send out a survey to EVERY SINGLE shareholder about the direction of the company.

When you invest in a company, you're effectively investing in the competence of the CEO and Board members

 

[CaptainJackson]

Lets say there are a million shares.

Person A owns 51% of shares

Person B owns 25%

Person C owns 20%

and the remaining 4% are spread amongst 200,000 people

And to sit on the board you need a minimum 22% shares

Sitting on the board is only Person A and B, they may invite Person C but will have to change the laws of the company.

When they make a vote on SSM, only Person A and B are taken into consideration, they do not need to ask Person C or the other 200,000 people who own 4%

 

[Dawgfather]

I said "the majority shareholders" not "the majority of the shareholders". That means the shareholders that control the majority of the shares. In other words, the board members. The ones that control most of the shares. There is zero chance they went ahead with this without their approval.

Board members in ASX listed organisations almost NEVER control the majority of shares. In fact I'm not sure that is true of any ASX listed organisations.

So if you're trying to say that a majority of shareholders would have approved of any ASX listed organisations supporting the Yes campaign, I still say that is 100% wrong.

CEO's and their management have made this decision without knowledge of whether the majority shareholders (or a majority of the shareholders) support it.

 

[Dawgfather]

Lets say there are a million shares.

Person A owns 51% of shares

Person B owns 25%

Person C owns 20%

and the remaining 4% are spread amongst 200,000 people

And to sit on the board you need a minimum 22% shares

Sitting on the board is only Person A and B, they may invite Person C but will have to change the laws of the company.

When they make a vote on SSM, only Person A and B are taken into consideration, they do not need to ask Person C or the other 200,000 people who own 4%

Yes this is true.

But give me even ONE example where this is true of ANY ASX 200 organisation. You can't because it's NEVER the case.

Take Commonwealth Bank, or Qantas, or BHP - they literally have MILLIONS of shareholders and none of them own even close to 50%.

BHP's biggest shareholder is the Bank of America who owns 4.2 million shares.
BHP has 3.21 BILLION shares on issue.

Bank of America therefore owns less than 0.13 of 1 percent of BHP.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Yes this is true.

But give me even ONE example where this is true of ANY ASX 200 organisation. You can't because it's NEVER the case.

Take Commonwealth Bank, or Qantas, or BHP - they literally have MILLIONS of shareholders and none of them own even close to 50%.

BHP's biggest shareholder is the Bank of America who owns 4.2 million shares.
BHP has 3.21 BILLION shares on issue.

Bank of America therefore owns less than 0.13 of 1 percent of BHP.

I just gave a completely hypothetical answer to what compromises of the board

There's probably a different company law which says they need 12 board members and they all compromise of the majority shareholders

So from top to bottom

It was just a hypothetical to say that the board is compromised of people according to the unique laws of the company and that they can make decisions without consulting the other small share owners