is being a private company the next being green?

[mizzou]

Saw a nationwide commercial with an ad stating thy report to their customers first, not shareholders. You can understand the appeal given in that statement, whether or not it really makes a difference is another story.


I could see this being the new edge, the way to stick it to walstreet, buy joining ranks with companies that do not feed profits back to evil shareholders.

Im fine with this actually, as long as you people continue to buy caterpillar heavy equipment because they do no wrong..., and a few other select companies.*cough*

 

[PeshakJang]

Any suggestion of giving people more freedom to do what they please with the money they've earned will not be received well by the left. Not here, and not in government.

 

[SamurAchzar]

No, I don't think it's a similar trend. It's no different than the "family-owned" businesses that always flaunted that to compete with the big guys. No.

An interesting phenomena is the private trading developing around companies like Facebook. Instead of going to an IPO, they are trading stocks inside a very limited, and rich, circle. I'd guess this will grow much larger with tech companies.

 

[Patranus]

Are you suggesting that a private company doesn't have shareholders?

 

[Infohawk]

This is just pure marketing. You shouldn't be reading too much into it.

 

[mizzou]

This is just pure marketing. You shouldn't be reading too much into it.

so is going "Green"

 

[wuliheron]

It is definitely pure marketing B.S.

Among Nationwide's biggest competition is State Farm which is a mutual insurance company with no share holders whatsoever. The company is entirely owned by the policy holders and, as such, can offer lower rates because they don't have to pay any shareholders. What this kind of B.S. is specifically aimed at is trying to assure customers that just because they have shareholders doesn't mean they screw people left and right as some companies do. You have an accident and some companies will drop you like a hot potato, refuse to pay damages, etc. knowing that most people will just switch companies rather then take them to court.

 

[Thump553]

This is just pure marketing. You shouldn't be reading too much into it.

Definately. The board of directors of all companies, public or private, legally owes their primary duty to the shareholders. They violate that duty they can incur substantial personal liability.

Unfortunately that basic principal has been corrupted by lax corporation laws so far too often these days the board looks more to the interests of management than the shareholders.

 

[Matt1970]

Since when are shareholders evil? I swear some people have no clue about how a business works.

 

[Scotteq]

Nationwide is a "Mutual" insurance company: To qualify for the 'Mutual' title the company can have no shareholders. Instead Policy holders - or at least certain classes of Policy Holders (i.e. - their customers) - are the ones who actually "own" the company. Profits are supposed to be paid out (in the form of Dividends) to said policy holders rather than to Stock owners as would be the conventional arrangement.


For the purposes of the commercials, yes it's advertising. But it's also true that (at least some of) their policy holders own the corporation, rather than purchasers of Stock.

Since when are shareholders evil? I swear some people have no clue about how a business works.

/agreed

 

[CPA]

This is just pure marketing. You shouldn't be reading too much into it.

Correct, there are many reasons why company's go private and it has nothing to do with the customer.

 

[CPA]

Since when are shareholders evil? I swear some people have no clue about how a business works.

I believe the OP was being sarcastic, but there are plenty here who thing corporations, profits, wall st. shareholder and their ilk are evil. Usually these people are morons.

 

[wuliheron]

Nationwide is a "Mutual" insurance company: To qualify for the 'Mutual' title, the company can have no shareholders, but rather Policy holders (i.e. - their customers) - or at least certain classes of Policy Holders - are the ones who actually "own" the company. Profits, in the form of Dividends, are supposed to be paid out to said policy holders, rather than to Stock owners as would be the conventional arrangement.


For the purposes of the commercials, yes it's advertising. But it's also true that (at least some of) their policy holders own the corporation, rather than purchasers of Stock.

/agreed

A quick check shows they've only been a mutual company since 2009 when they bought out their stockholders. Their commercials then may be a way of trying to get the message out.

 

[sao123]

Since when are shareholders evil? I swear some people have no clue about how a business works.

businesses worked just fine before shareholders. banks were a prefectly acceptable source of capital, with some upsides.

Capital was not just left pooling, it actually did something, because it had to be repaid with interest. There was no shareholder pressure to maximize profits and downsize workers.



the beginning of the stockmarket is what sent our economy south.

 

[IGBT]

stock holders are your neighbors/friends/family/ people down the street. Your public school education is showing.

 

[Matt1970]

businesses worked just fine before shareholders. banks were a prefectly acceptable source of capital, with some upsides.

When? In the 1700's?? Philadelphia Stock Exchange 1790

 

[sao123]

stock holders are your neighbors/friends/family/ people down the street. Your public school education is showing.

and me too... everyone with a retirement account.

that doesnt preclude the idea that everyone was better off (not as individuals but as the whole collective) when the stock market was traded by only a select few, and the economy was not tied to its success/failure.

it is too easily manipulated, violatile, and detrimental to the working class.


Capital should be taxed as income, and people should be forced to save for their own retirements in savings accounts, like the coal mining generation did it.

 

[Matt1970]

that doesnt preclude the idea that everyone was better off (not as individuals but as the whole collective) when the stock market was traded by only a select few, and the economy was not tied to its success/failure.

And we all built our own homes out of the trees we cut down and rode wagons into town for supplies.

 

[JS80]

businesses worked just fine before shareholders. banks were a prefectly acceptable source of capital, with some upsides.

Capital was not just left pooling, it actually did something, because it had to be repaid with interest. There was no shareholder pressure to maximize profits and downsize workers.



the beginning of the stockmarket is what sent our economy south.

stupid is as stupid says

 

[wuliheron]

And we all built our own homes out of the trees we cut down and rode wagons into town for supplies.

...and when there was no meat, we ate fowl and when there was no fowl, we ate crawdad and when there was no crawdad to be found, we ate sand.

Forrest Gump