Apparently yes, according to the coalition government in the UK:
The Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon Nick Clegg MP, delivered a speech in London today in which he reflected on "responsible capitalism" and argued that shareholders should "behave like business owners rather than absentee landlords": see here.
I'd like to make Clegg reflect on my posts Will New Tools Help Small Shareholders Topple Giants and Shareholder Activism by Retail Investors. He'd learn two valuable things: (1) shareholders are not owners and (2) both sound social policy and rational shareholders themselves prefer that shareholders be passive investors rather than activists. Assuming, of course, that politicians are capable of learning.
The UK is moving in the direction "shareholder activism" According to a recent decision by the SFO "shareholders and investors in companies are
obliged to satisfy themselves with the business
practices of the companies they invest in" demanding that shareholders take an active role in monitoring the company's practices. The shareholders were punished with returning the dividends they have received because of the company corrupt practices. I understand the monitoring activity by "institutional investors" but how this apply to small investors and why the small investors should be punished? The comment were published by Dechert. SFO Recovers Dividends from Innocent Shareholder. http://www.dechert.com/files/Publication/1d9cdaa5-638d-4c9b-b0f5-865899aa38b8/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d203cec1-b012-4e93-90fb-8a552c9e58af/White_Collar_SA_01-12_SFO_Recovers.pdf
Posted by: Carlos_nyc | 01/17/2012 at 03:38 AM