Hi John and Thread, there's a push to allow only those to be Board Directors that have no previous 5 year relationship with a company. Wouldn't that mean people like Andy Grove would have to be excluded from Intel's board by this proposed rule? As a former CEO of Intel he has the know-how on Intel - he's exactly the kind of person that needs to be on Intel's board. Knowing Grove is on Intel's board makes me feel a lot more comfortable with my investment. He has the know-how to detect if there's something wrong, which is critically important for my investment. He also has the personality that doesn't allow for BS and goes after anything that's wrong and sees that it's fixed.
I don't like this proposal. BODs need to have at least one person that's got the know-how on the operations of their company's business that's sitting on the board, otherwise a board could make some really huge unintentional strategic mistakes that could hurt investors.
The proposal should change, at a maximum, to "...no board directors that had a relationship with the company in the past 5 years, unless the person was a former CEO of the company." A former CEO of the company s/he is a board member of, would have incredibly valuable knowledge on the company they were in charge of, and that type of internal operational knowledge should be encouraged to reside on the company's board. Only a former CEO of the same company, would have the know-how on the internals of their company in order to watch things carefully as a director and catch anything.
Anyone know the status of the push of that particular proposed rule? I think it's a really, really bad proposal.
This proposal rule is essentially like saying, "American corporations will be enforced by police officers that have blinders on there eyes." That operational knowledge is critical to have. One former CEO of the company needs to be on the board of a company they were in charge of.
This proposal is really concerning. Anyone have any information on it? The status? Is it really going to be passed? SJMN had a blurb on it, but I can't find any more information on it. What's going on?
RE: "I have never seen such a persistent bear market."
Really? Wasn't the 70's a lot worse? In my investment course, I learned the real rate of return was negative over a 10 year period, slow and painful. Not fast and quick.
Regards,
Amy |
