Talk:Shareholder rights plan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggested merge with "Suicide Pill" page

There is another, very similar Wikipedia page called "Suicide Pill". The degree of overlap in subject matter is obvious. We should merge both items together into one.

Suicide pill

Nabokov 07:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

I thought the most prominent poison pill is an actual statute in the corporation's charter that make takeovers unattractive. Can someone expound on this? Kent Wang 07:55, 11 March 2004 (UTC)

Anyone give any examples of poison pill legislation in politics?

I can give an example of violent takeovers in literature. Refer to The Poison Pill, a work of fiction recently published by author Marciano Guerrero.

I think "suicide pill" as used in military text has a different meaning from "poison pill," which is an established financial term. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shark Repellent

Why does the "Shark Repellent" article redirect me to here? 220.239.204.81 (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalize

The "Business" section seems very U.S.-oriented. I know that U.K. law, for example, is much less conducive to poison pill defences, yet there's not a word about this. 86.136.249.177 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a section on poison pills in developed markets other than the US. I dont have the expertise to add any comments on Asian markets, however. I did remove your US oriented tag because I now believe that the article as it currently stands does not qualify. R550D 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is "The Company"

This article refers to "The Company" when discussing a poison pill. Especially when discussing take-overs, the question of who exactly a company is becomes confused. Is the company the owners? i.e., the existing share-holders? Is it the board of directors? The management?

The shareholders certainly don't need a poison pill to keep control of the company that they own. No one holds a gun to their heads and forces them to sell their shares to the acquirer. They voluntarily choose to sell because the acquirer pays them enough money to make it worth their while. If they are unhappy with the acquirer, they can always hold out for more money.

The primary losers in a takeover, and thus the primary gainers from a poison pill are the management, the board, and perhaps a controlling minority of shareholders, who would lose their control of a company to the new owners. By instituting a poison pill, they protect themselves by forcing the people who hire them, the owners of the company, to continue paying them.

It seems to me that "shareholders rights" is rather Orwellian. The acquirer captures the company precisely by buying a majority of shares, i.e., becoming the largest shareholder. "Shareholders rights" protects the controlling minority of shareholders by allowing them to cheaply buy even more control. It should be called "Minority shareholder's rights"

David s graff 13:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Coroporate jargon

A poison pill, in corporate jargon, is a financial arrangement designed to protect current management by crippling the company if someone else takes over. [1] --Mac (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Poison Put

"Poison put" redirects here but this article doesn't mention the term. A quick google suggests it's either another name for poison pill or a different takeover defense, but I don't know enough about it to make a change. Pippin (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

M&A Boom in 80s detrimental to company preformance.

I removed this because it is highly bias. The M&A boom helped align management incentives with shareholder (company owners) incentives by addressing the free cash flow problem. Executives were compensated based on size of the company so they would use cash generated by the company to finance projects that cost more than their cost of capital. Therefore, the money would have been better used as a dividend to the shareholder since they could at least recoup the cost of capital. The M&A boom largely split up these unproductive empires which shouldn't have been made in the first place and made executive compensation depend on stock performance rather than size. The resulting companies were worth more, therefore I do not understand how this could be detrimental to company performance. By what metric? To imply M&A destroys companies is pure bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.159.80.180 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)