Securities and Exchange Commission has some new proposals out.

One annoyance at company meetings has been activists going, buying a few shares and then putting their pet projects on the agenda. Animal rights, environmentalists, anti-Zionists, etc.

But the SEC is proposing some drastic rules to curtail that. A person proposing shareholder proposals would have to have $2,000 minimum share ownership and held the shares for at least 3 years.

Its a management protection proposal. Very bad law and very concerning.

be careful bullet.....it's akin to those that opine how voters should have skin in the game....

honestly, I see nothing but, 'buh bye riff raff'....it's an obvious waste of time if from one individual(s) splitting (s)hares....

however, I'd like to see how it would impact bloc purchases in the same vein....then we may be in agreement....

all I'm seeing is squashing a filibuster that is most certainly greater than 90% wasteful usage of time...

w/o a linky, that's the best I have in response...

(02-19-2020 07:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  be careful bullet.....it's akin to those that opine how voters should have skin in the game....

honestly, I see nothing but, 'buh bye riff raff'....it's an obvious waste of time if from one individual(s) splitting (s)hares....

however, I'd like to see how it would impact bloc purchases in the same vein....then we may be in agreement....

all I'm seeing is squashing a filibuster that is most certainly greater than 90% wasteful usage of time...

w/o a linky, that's the best I have in response...

Its the 3 year holding requirement that is a bigger concern, not so much the $2,000.

Saw it in the Journal of Accountancy. Not much info, just disclosure about a proposed rule. The first paragraph about the annoying activists was my commentary.

(02-19-2020 08:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 07:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  be careful bullet.....it's akin to those that opine how voters should have skin in the game....

honestly, I see nothing but, 'buh bye riff raff'....it's an obvious waste of time if from one individual(s) splitting (s)hares....

however, I'd like to see how it would impact bloc purchases in the same vein....then we may be in agreement....

all I'm seeing is squashing a filibuster that is most certainly greater than 90% wasteful usage of time...

w/o a linky, that's the best I have in response...

Its the 3 year holding requirement that is a bigger concern, not so much the $2,000.

Saw it in the Journal of Accountancy. Not much info, just disclosure about a proposed rule. The first paragraph about the annoying activists was my commentary.

based on the original post (and you're always on top of the linky), it was tough to sift through the issue.....I got ya now....

time is relevant vs. impact....I can easily see where 3 yrs. in today's rapidly changing enviro would be deemed extreme for many a shareholder....

#hostage comes to mind...

30-90 days would seem fair enough....2k is a pittance unless you're just dicking' around to cause a stir....that's what I couldn't figure out...

I'm too old and not liquid enough to play the individual purchase either long/short anymore....even when I played, it never mattered relative to the voting bloc....it was always proxy...

(02-19-2020 08:58 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 08:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 07:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  be careful bullet.....it's akin to those that opine how voters should have skin in the game....

honestly, I see nothing but, 'buh bye riff raff'....it's an obvious waste of time if from one individual(s) splitting (s)hares....

however, I'd like to see how it would impact bloc purchases in the same vein....then we may be in agreement....

all I'm seeing is squashing a filibuster that is most certainly greater than 90% wasteful usage of time...

w/o a linky, that's the best I have in response...

Its the 3 year holding requirement that is a bigger concern, not so much the $2,000.

Saw it in the Journal of Accountancy. Not much info, just disclosure about a proposed rule. The first paragraph about the annoying activists was my commentary.

based on the original post (and you're always on top of the linky), it was tough to sift through the issue.....I got ya now....

time is relevant vs. impact....I can easily see where 3 yrs. in today's rapidly changing enviro would be deemed extreme for many a shareholder....

#hostage comes to mind...

30-90 days would seem fair enough....2k is a pittance unless you're just dicking' around to cause a stir....that's what I couldn't figure out...

I'm too old and not liquid enough to play the individual purchase either long/short anymore....even when I played, it never mattered relative to the voting bloc....it was always proxy...

First of all $2000 isn't much at all, so the 3 years makes sense. That ties up 2G's for 3 years for protestors. Most of the voting members would probably own a lot more than $2000 worth of shares. So really to stop it you are faced with upping the minimum skin in the game, or tying up less for longer.

It still won't stop those wishing to harass some companies.

(02-19-2020 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 08:58 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 08:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 07:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  be careful bullet.....it's akin to those that opine how voters should have skin in the game....

honestly, I see nothing but, 'buh bye riff raff'....it's an obvious waste of time if from one individual(s) splitting (s)hares....

however, I'd like to see how it would impact bloc purchases in the same vein....then we may be in agreement....

all I'm seeing is squashing a filibuster that is most certainly greater than 90% wasteful usage of time...

w/o a linky, that's the best I have in response...

Its the 3 year holding requirement that is a bigger concern, not so much the $2,000.

Saw it in the Journal of Accountancy. Not much info, just disclosure about a proposed rule. The first paragraph about the annoying activists was my commentary.

based on the original post (and you're always on top of the linky), it was tough to sift through the issue.....I got ya now....

time is relevant vs. impact....I can easily see where 3 yrs. in today's rapidly changing enviro would be deemed extreme for many a shareholder....

#hostage comes to mind...

30-90 days would seem fair enough....2k is a pittance unless you're just dicking' around to cause a stir....that's what I couldn't figure out...

I'm too old and not liquid enough to play the individual purchase either long/short anymore....even when I played, it never mattered relative to the voting bloc....it was always proxy...

First of all $2000 isn't much at all, so the 3 years makes sense. That ties up 2G's for 3 years for protestors. Most of the voting members would probably own a lot more than $2000 worth of shares. So really to stop it you are faced with upping the minimum skin in the game, or tying up less for longer.

It still won't stop those wishing to harass some companies.

XACLY!....I'd jack the number to 100k/min and let Soros' and opposition dipshites liquidate that way if they so choose....

3 yrs is beyond excessive for the avg. joe that plays the game with earnest....they're few and far, but I get the argument across the board....

(02-19-2020 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 08:58 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 08:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 07:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  be careful bullet.....it's akin to those that opine how voters should have skin in the game....

honestly, I see nothing but, 'buh bye riff raff'....it's an obvious waste of time if from one individual(s) splitting (s)hares....

however, I'd like to see how it would impact bloc purchases in the same vein....then we may be in agreement....

all I'm seeing is squashing a filibuster that is most certainly greater than 90% wasteful usage of time...

w/o a linky, that's the best I have in response...

Its the 3 year holding requirement that is a bigger concern, not so much the $2,000.

Saw it in the Journal of Accountancy. Not much info, just disclosure about a proposed rule. The first paragraph about the annoying activists was my commentary.

based on the original post (and you're always on top of the linky), it was tough to sift through the issue.....I got ya now....

time is relevant vs. impact....I can easily see where 3 yrs. in today's rapidly changing enviro would be deemed extreme for many a shareholder....

#hostage comes to mind...

30-90 days would seem fair enough....2k is a pittance unless you're just dicking' around to cause a stir....that's what I couldn't figure out...

I'm too old and not liquid enough to play the individual purchase either long/short anymore....even when I played, it never mattered relative to the voting bloc....it was always proxy...

First of all $2000 isn't much at all, so the 3 years makes sense. That ties up 2G's for 3 years for protestors. Most of the voting members would probably own a lot more than $2000 worth of shares. So really to stop it you are faced with upping the minimum skin in the game, or tying up less for longer.

It still won't stop those wishing to harass some companies.

That $2K figure is what jumped out at me. That's nothing.