home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!world!ksr!zdenek
- From: zdenek@ksr.com (Zdenek Radouch)
- Newsgroups: misc.invest
- Subject: Re: street name vs delivery
- Message-ID: <20427@ksr.com>
- Date: 25 Dec 92 12:00:26 EST
- References: <22DEC199211174469@csa2.lbl.gov> <20366@ksr.com> <rlcarr.09ab@animato.network23.com>
- Sender: news@ksr.com
- Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.
- Lines: 31
-
- I wrote:
- >>
- >> I assume you lose your shareholder voting rights if you don't take the
- >> delivery, since your shares can be sold short.
- >
-
- Rich Carreiro writes:
- >That can't be right. I hold my stocks in street name with Waterhouse,
- >and I've gotten to vote on all proxy issues on all my stocks (or rather,
- >I get a form from Waterhouse which I use to tell Waterhouse how to vote
- >on my stocks, since the stocks are, of course, in Waterhouse's name).
- >I also still retain the option of actually going to the annual meeting
- >as well.
-
- Ed Krol writes:
- >Actually you don't lose your voting rights, but it is a bit more
- >inconvienent to vote your shares in person. If you want to attent
- >a shareholders meeting and vote your shares you have to make arrangements
- >through your broker I think.
-
- OK guys, then explain to me what's wrong with the following scenario:
-
- I want to take over the XYZ Corp. XYZ is public and is controlled by
- an entity holding 55% of all shares. I go and buy the remaining 45%
- of all shares. I hold it in a street name so that it can be shorted.
- I subsequently short one third of my shares against the box and have
- my partner buy it. Now I own 45% of XYZ, and my partner owns 15% of XYZ.
- Together we own 60% of XYZ, the controlling entity holds only 55%
- so we can take over XYZ any time we want!
-
- -Z
-