Re: [CANSLIM] Re: Retstatement of CANSLIM?

From: Spencer48@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: Retstatement of CANSLIM?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:50:42 EDT

Next Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] Re: Retstatement of CANSLIM? "Tom Worley"
Previous Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] Re: Retstatement of CANSLIM? "Tom Worley"
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: Retstatement of CANSLIM? Spencer48@aol.com
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: Retstatement of CANSLIM? "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

Tom:

     I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an independent director.  If this 
means a director who has no stake in the company's success or failure, I 
don't know that this is an idea that should be adopted.  

     It seems to me that a company whose directors own a certain percentage 
of the stock, would be more likely to have directors that care about that 
company's future.  An independent director (ie. someone who has no stake in 
the company's future), I see as nothing but a mouthpiece for whatever 
political agenda that particular director is driven by.

jans


In a message dated 6/26/2002 10:16:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
stkguru@bellsouth.net writes:

<< I would like to see the SEC mandate that the Board of Directors consist of
 51% independent directors in all cases. And for corps over certain market
 value, say $1 billion, require that independent Directors be over 67% and of
 those Directors include at least a minority of successful, but retired,
 businessmen or businesswomen (I nominate Katherine) that will be willing to
 speak out publicly if necessary when they are concerned about what they see.
  >>

- -
- -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
- -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
- -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.

Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.