Recs

35

Are You a Real Shareholder?

We all think we know what a shareholder is: an individual or entity that owns shares of stock in a publicly traded company.

It sounds simple enough. But let's think a little deeper about who -- and what -- shareholders are -- and what that means for your portfolio and for society at large.

We're everybody
Shareholders, after all, run the gamut. Some are huge institutional investors that buy up millions of shares for other people's portfolios. Some are individual investors, many of whom are trying to fund their retirements by buying shares in small lots.

Some shareholders, like Warren Buffett, buy shares based on clear investing theses. Others fall so deeply in love with a company and its stock that they can't bear to hear anything negative. Don't believe me? Just look at some of the conversations around stocks such as Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) , Sirius XM (Nasdaq: SIRI  ) , and Crocs (Nasdaq: CROX  ) .

Some shareholders prefer to restrict their investments to their portfolios, while some investors want to get involved with the company itself. Recall Carl Icahn's involvement in the talks between Yahoo! (Nasdaq: YHOO  ) and Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT  ) , for example. Unions and political organizations often buy stakes in publicly traded companies so that they can try to encourage change as well.

Activist shareholders don't always have the best long-term interests of businesses in mind, of course. Sometimes, they're focused more on making a quick buck or a political point. For the most part, however, I'd argue that activist shareholders have something to teach the rest of us -- particularly in their focus on being "part owners" of the companies they invest in.

More than just short-term profits
Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, recently talked to the Fool. He pointed out, as he often does, that the stock market and its daily gyrations can be a major distraction from the real basis of investing: finding great businesses that will earn a return on capital over the long term.

When shareholders are focused on the fundamentals -- earning a return on capital and creating great businesses -- they're attentive to the choices being made and the money being spent -- and earned. But when shareholders are focused only on the daily gyrations of the share price, they end up tolerating "management culture."

Management culture is nothing more than the tendency to run a company for short-term profits, a strategy that enriches only the management team and all too often destroys real value over the long term.

And we've seen its outcome. While many things contributed to the fall of the financials, a focus on short-term "profits" -- with many CEOs, even departing ones, enriched immeasurably -- over long-term, sustainable practices, is one of them.

Just look at John Thain, CEO of Merrill Lynch before Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) swallowed it. Thain redecorated his office with rather decadent zeal. Call me crazy, but even if Merrill hadn't been in dire straits, a $1,400 trash can should have been viewed as a heinous waste of shareholder money. That's not exactly capital being utilized to build a solid business.

That trash can is a powerful metaphor for the way managements too often completely forget who they work for.

We paid for that!
Why have we tolerated management that wasted money, that didn't concern itself with the shareholders, and that focused on the short term instead of the long term? Because we don't consider the philosophical difference between being a speculator and being an owner.

I think that if we took our role as part owners more seriously, many of the problems we've seen recently might not have happened -- if only because managers would have known investors were looking at the long-term results, not the short-term stock price.

No, shareholders don't get to make management decisions -- and we shouldn't. But we can pay attention, and we can ask questions if we see something that doesn't support the long-term success of the company. We can vote our yearly proxy statements, and we can attend shareholder meetings. And if we have to, we can make statements by selling our stock.

Even though we want to profit from our investments, we must shoot higher than just passively looking to make a short-term buck. We must invest in truly great companies while having the patience to let solid management teams build sustainable businesses for the long term -- and agitate for change if they don't.

Let's just remember that management works for us.

Make it a good century
Shareholder-friendliness is one of the characteristics we look for at Motley Fool Stock Advisor. But it's not the only one. We also look at whether the company is built to last for the next 100 years or more -- and that means looking for solid, innovative businesses with great brands, strong balance sheets, and responsible management teams that take their responsibilities to shareholders to heart.

It's those kinds of characteristics that get great businesses such as Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A  ) on the Stock Advisor scorecard.

Any of us can run into pitfalls in assessing these things. For example, maybe a company's management isn't as solid as we believe -- that's what occurred with former pick Satyam. But it's important to ask the questions and remember our own responsibilities in assessing the long-term attributes of the companies we own.

Let's not be mere speculators who look at nothing but numbers and never care about the real things that create tangible value. Let's revive the philosophy that a shareholder is an owner, and let that responsibility be a prevailing theme in our investing strategies. You don't get better results until you expect better behavior. And stronger shareholder resolve and involvement can hopefully help us all be part of building the best companies for the long term.

If you'd like to see what shareholder-friendly companies we're currently recommending at Stock Advisor, you can take a 30-day free trial -- and our recommendations are currently beating the S&P by 30 percentage points, on average. Just click here to get started -- there's no obligation to subscribe.

Alyce Lomax owns no shares of any of the companies mentioned. Berkshire Hathaway and Apple are Motley Fool Stock Advisor picks. Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway are Inside Value recommendations. Bank of America is a former Income Investor choice. The Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and has a disclosure policy


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2009, at 12:04 PM, ehjude wrote:

    You've made some excellent points about being a shareholder. I'm a small investor and and even though I know my shareholder vote does count for much I look & try to evaluate what I am voting for,

    Now when the shameful greed of so many in the world of financial, business and please do not forget, politics have put the security of so many in danger I say it is high time shareholders revolt in mass and perhaps The Motley Fool can help. We need a massive movement to make CEO's responsive to their shareholders and their civic duty, not just to make money, but to make a better America and a better world. I say we, the shareholder, should strictly limit CEO compensation, make our companies go green, grow our companies for the future not just for the next quarter, and prevent them from ruthlessly exploiting the powerless in our country and abroad. I have much more to say and know the issue is much more complex but I say it is time for the biggest shareholder revolt since the beginning of the "free market"

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Brettze wrote:

    GM is now $3 a share down from all time high of 90's... Ford is $2 a share down from all time high of $40's... Are they no brainers by now?? Where is the real shareholders??

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2009, at 1:12 PM, Brettze wrote:

    We have a Social Securtiy yet many workers are not satisified and want pension plans plus perks at whose expenses?? Real shareholders's???

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Brettze wrote:

    When I get old and retire... I would be quite content to move out in the boonies for cheap.. I think those silly retirees think they must live in expensive condos...

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Brettze wrote:

    I would live in a trailer out in the boonies and taking it easy!!

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2009, at 3:14 PM, 1OBNA wrote:

    Several of the prior comments are of the "cut and run" variety ... that's about as "short term" as I can imagine. I prefer uhjude's input that we ALL need to be a part of the solution to the problem and demand that the "high roller CEO's" get dumped! But, we should not stop there; there are Boards of Directors who supposedly are the responsible ones to keep the officers and managers of every company headed in the right direction, for the right reasons and with legitimate purposes in mind. The Board of Directors need to be held just as responsible for the failures of these companies as the more visible CEO's, etc.

    My sense, due to my own limitations, is that many of the stockholders in the country (and indeed the world) do not have the time, energy, knowledge, access to relevant data, etc to make reasonable, logically analyzed, decisions on the issues being faced by companies they are invested in. In other words their investment philosophy and decision making is very shallow, and they realize that fact, but they want to participate in the benefits of investing in our country's business, technology and growth over the long term ... but they don't know how!

    Yes, there are many "investment advisors" who sell their services; but, most of the people (my guess) don't want to pay for advise that they aren't sure they can trust and feel that it will all be a marketing push to buy "a pig in a poke" ... of which they will be left taking the "poke" and the advisor runs off with the "pig" sells it on the commodity market and runs off with the profit.

    What organization analyzes publically traded corporate decision making in light of the company goals and objectives with an eye to the long term benefit of investors? I do think that Motley Fool goes a long way to try to do so; but, the cost of subscribing to all their services is "$-boggling." If Motley Fool provided a service that provided this kind of support for a "selectable number" of ten or twenty such companies at a set price it might be much more attractive. In other words, say ten companies of my choosing ... and you provide an indepth on only those companies that runs the gamit of expert advice to help me be a wise and effecitve long term investor. That would be good for me; good for the company I am willing to invest in and take more than just a monetary interest in their success; and, good for Motley Fool as you help small investors become long term "owners" of the companies of choice.

    Good luck ... I hope you take the challenge!

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Brettze wrote:

    Some of us elevates pro sports players above CEOs... Even Hollywood stars, rock musicians, book authors ,etc above CEOs... We frown upon CEO compensations, but ignore the rest ...Now we are in an economic mess probably because CEOs dont feel appreicated anymore... who knows? I dont mean to suck up to CEOs .. but look, hey, all of them are paid too much including pro sports players, hollywood stars, rock musicians, book authors....etc... We dont consider CEOs as gods and goddesses but we consider rock stars, pro stars, movies stars, talk show hosts, game show hosts as Gods and Goddesses!! Who are we fooling ourselves?? Huh?

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Brettze wrote:

    CEOs are mingling with rock stars, movie stars, dope stars, talk show hosts, anyway... They are laughing at us, anyway...

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2009, at 8:39 PM, IlanBigfoot wrote:

    Ufortunately, aside from the rhetoric of this article, there is only one short paragraph about HOW to be an active shareholder. Let me address the difficulties point by point.

    "No, shareholders don't get to make management decisions -- and we shouldn't. But we can pay attention, and we can ask questions if we see something that doesn't support the long-term success of the company. We can vote our yearly proxy statements, and we can attend shareholder meetings. And if we have to, we can make statements by selling our stock."

    1. Asking questions -- I have tried to contact Investor Relations boards many times. Most will be completely nonreponsive, including telling you that can't comment on any subject one can't read about in the SEC publications.

    2. Voting yearly proxies is something I do all the time. Boards of directors rarely offer any choice beyond yes/no and offer very slim details about who they are. I do vote against CEO of other companies becoming directors. I do vote on proposals that I like. *But the most important issues is this* ALL PROXY VOTES ARE NON-BINDING. Even if individual investors can overcome mutual, index, and ETF voting (which is inherently Wall-Street oriented and adverse to rocking the boat), the votes CAN BE IGNORED by a corporation if it wishes.

    3. Selling the stock, in my mind, is what most people do, and it is almost meaningless for changing the way a company runs itself. It is like saying, don't vote in national elections, just move overseas. It is less effective than an outright boycott of their products.

    I think the Fool.com could be the perfect organization to headline these issues and develop ways to overcome these difficulties!

  • Report this Comment On February 08, 2009, at 11:18 AM, riverfred wrote:

    Crooks should go directly to jail and all their assets confiscated. The problem is they get a slap on the hand and pay a $2.00 fine. That is because the judge wants the same deal.

  • Report this Comment On February 08, 2009, at 10:10 PM, neradatsonicdnet wrote:

    I still try, and likely will make money. The Fool and Brothers Motley tickle as much as anything. Best of investing to us all!

    nerad@sonic.net

  • Report this Comment On February 09, 2009, at 11:45 AM, chali2na wrote:

    Ethics has taken a back seat to the quick, fast profit. Once the technology boom hit, ethics went out the back door. Now we need to put the focus back on behaving morally and ethically on a DAILY basis. Not just one time so you can pat yourself on the back for doing so. Hollywood, pro sports, the music industry.....none of these venues can claim to have held themselves to a high ethical standard. If so, there wouldn't be 1,000 episodes of MTV cribs, or mindless reality shows with no plot or substance that rake in millions of viewers. Instead, there should be shows about which companies are investing into the community....show the few athletes (i.e. Chris Paul building home for Katrina victims) that ARE doing something. It's amazing how in this society, doing the right thing is not "cool". And part of the reason it is that way is because no one really gets punished for doing the wrong thing anymore. Bankrupting a company because you are greedy is no different thatn stealing. You steal the company's money in the form of salary, bonuses & perks, then cost people jobs because you stole the company's money that would've paid their salaries. And these big-wigs take their money and leave, scott-free. Mind-boggling. R.I.P. business ethics...

  • Report this Comment On February 09, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Brettze wrote:

    The real shareholders are hiding in money market funds now worth $7-8 trillions dollars and hoarding it.... While our government is on knees begging for a lousy trillion dollars for stimulus spending... Who is fooing whom??

  • Report this Comment On February 09, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Brettze wrote:

    Obama is our presidnent but the real shareholdrs are just nodding heads and still dictating own terms and ignoring Obama... Who is the real shareholders??

  • Report this Comment On February 09, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Brettze wrote:

    the real shareholders may be extinct now, I fear...

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 827141, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/25/2012 8:43:11 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:00 PM
MSFT $29.06 Down -0.01 -0.03%
Microsoft Corp CAPS Rating: ****
SIRI $1.93 Down -0.06 -3.02%
Sirius XM Radio CAPS Rating: **
YHOO $15.36 Up +0.01 +0.07%
Yahoo! CAPS Rating: **
CROX $17.44 Up +0.35 +2.05%
Crocs, Inc. CAPS Rating: *
AAPL $562.29 Down -3.03 -0.54%
Apple CAPS Rating: ***
BAC $7.15 Up +0.01 +0.14%
Bank of America Co… CAPS Rating: ***
BRK-A $119500.00 Down -717.00 -0.60%
Berkshire Hathaway… CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement