| There are several other companies in which the government is a substantial shareholder. These positions go against everything American-style capitalism stands for. Legally, shareholders with more than 5% stakes in companies can become activist shareholders, which often claim seats on the board of directors, pressure CEOs to step down, force management to sell assets (or even the entire company) for short-term profits, etc. I have no quarrel with a private investor deciding to invest a meaningful share of their limited capital, accumulating a large stake in a company, and then demanding change. I have a tremendous problem with the U.S. government, with its unlimited supply of capital, buying as many shares of a company as it wants. Companies are run for the benefit of their shareholders, not to execute political agendas - which is what will surely happen when the government is a large shareholder. If the U.S. government owns a big percentage of MP Materials and another rare earths miner is applying for approval to operate, will the government officials make the best decision for the American people... or for the share price of the government's investment? How about awarding contracts? This is an anti-competition policy, plain and simple. But that's not even the worst part... |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.