DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**smirnoffdear** · 02-18-2009, 07:50 PM

There are voting and non-voting shares. Non-voting shares have no control whatsoever.

That totally depends on the unique charter and bylaws of each individual corporation. Though it's legally allowed to have some "non-voting" stock, it's extremely rare in practice for the obvious reason that few people would buy it. So rare as to be a red herring in fact.

Not if the government takes over the business. I completely understand the problem with risk. If the business goes bankrupt then I lose the value of the share. If the government wants to take over the business, then they have to compensate me for the value of my property. They just can't take it.

BS. First of all, any intelligent investor should have enough sense of systemic risk and history to know that temporary nationalization of at least some banks is a very real possibility in the event of severe financial crisis. Secondly, since only insolvent banks would be nationalized, and since insolvent banks would otherwise have to go bankrupt, the nationalization would only be in lieu of bankruptcy, meaning you lose nothing! That much should be obvious. If the bank's insolvent, your choices are either A) bankruptcy or B) nationalization, but in either case shareholders get hosed. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that solvent banks should be nationalized.

So what you are saying is anyone who owns shares in any bank that has TARP funds should immediately sell to avoid the risk of nationalisation? Oh, that's really helpful. I'm sure that's what the government wants, to have struggling banks go completely broke.

I didn't say that, you did. I said that those who retain shares despite a policy they oppose are as responsible for their own losses as those who supported said policy. That doesn't mean "OMG SELL EVERYTHING NOW!!!1" but rather the past tense "you should have sold off in an orderly and gradual fashion years ago when the writing was on the wall, but you didn't, so here's the result."

or at least have the choice of selling before the government takes over.

A) Aren't you the one who just said a selloff panic should be avoided? B) Who would be stupid enough to buy shares that are 100% sure to be torched?

02-18-2009, 07:50 PM	#37
smirnoffdear Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 419 Senior Member	There are voting and non-voting shares. Non-voting shares have no control whatsoever. That totally depends on the unique charter and bylaws of each individual corporation. Though it's legally allowed to have some "non-voting" stock, it's extremely rare in practice for the obvious reason that few people would buy it. So rare as to be a red herring in fact. Not if the government takes over the business. I completely understand the problem with risk. If the business goes bankrupt then I lose the value of the share. If the government wants to take over the business, then they have to compensate me for the value of my property. They just can't take it. BS. First of all, any intelligent investor should have enough sense of systemic risk and history to know that temporary nationalization of at least some banks is a very real possibility in the event of severe financial crisis. Secondly, since only insolvent banks would be nationalized, and since insolvent banks would otherwise have to go bankrupt, the nationalization would only be in lieu of bankruptcy, meaning you lose nothing! That much should be obvious. If the bank's insolvent, your choices are either A) bankruptcy or B) nationalization, but in either case shareholders get hosed. I don't think anybody here is suggesting that solvent banks should be nationalized. So what you are saying is anyone who owns shares in any bank that has TARP funds should immediately sell to avoid the risk of nationalisation? Oh, that's really helpful. I'm sure that's what the government wants, to have struggling banks go completely broke. I didn't say that, you did. I said that those who retain shares despite a policy they oppose are as responsible for their own losses as those who supported said policy. That doesn't mean "OMG SELL EVERYTHING NOW!!!1" but rather the past tense "you should have sold off in an orderly and gradual fashion years ago when the writing was on the wall, but you didn't, so here's the result." or at least have the choice of selling before the government takes over. A) Aren't you the one who just said a selloff panic should be avoided? B) Who would be stupid enough to buy shares that are 100% sure to be torched?
	Quote