Woo! New site is online - select here to use it!


Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Who owns corporate Australia

Reply
Created by K Dog > 9 months ago, 27 Feb 2013
K Dog
VIC, 1847 posts
27 Feb 2013 2:38PM
Thumbs Up

Okay, committing the crime of copying and pasting a link, but some very interesting stats on the major shareholders in AUS:

independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/who-owns-corporate-australia,5033

News to me.... didn't know HSBC and JP Morgan owned large holdings in the majors......

Cambodge
VIC, 851 posts
27 Feb 2013 3:29PM
Thumbs Up

Most of those HSBC and JP Morgan-type shareholders that are listed are not actually on their "own account" but are instead Trustee (or Nominee) entities that are operated by the banks but the beneficiaries of those Trustee/Nominee entities are a multitude of other investors (both corporations and wealthy individuals) so it's not really true to say there are lots of corporate cross-shareholdings. What is true is that it's mostly the same investors investing in all the companies simply 'cos 98% of the wealth is owned by 2% of the population...or whatever the statistic is.

Mark _australia
WA, 23704 posts
27 Feb 2013 1:15PM
Thumbs Up

It is interesting when you see who owns who.

The irony of Wesfarmers owning Coles, and Coles are farking the farmers with their $1 milk etc.

The fact it is hard to choose an alternative product as you think it is a different brand but in the end it is the same company.

(This is gonna end up in Heavy Weather with talk about the 5 rich families etc isn't it..)

evlPanda
NSW, 9207 posts
27 Feb 2013 4:49PM
Thumbs Up

See the way to play Monopoly is to buy absolutely everything you land on. Mortgage what you own, whatever it takes. But buy everything. It was designed to show how monopolies work, and was a bit of a stab at capitalism (but I'll argue the state can be a monopoly too).

I think the crux of that article was:

This argument is often countered by stating that HSBC, J.P. Morgan and Citibank are only investing on behalf of small investors. What is of issue here is control and the prerogative of the funds to appoint a director to the board of their choice, not the investors.


It's an interesting predicament. They truly are investing on behalf of many small investors, but somebody has to be a director.

What's the solution? Is one required? If the goal of a company is to maximise profit then why would having an experienced director on a board be a negative? Or is the author hinting at collusion, corruption, and a lowering of standards for all as a result? The company as psychopath.

As usual there is absolutely no action suggested. It's all just raising awareness. 'Like' this. Lots of question marks and nothing else. The only message I took from the occupy movement, for example, was "Greed is bad. Give us more." The irony was almost everyone of them was in the 1% of the world and were having the same effect down the line as the people above them they were rallying against.

Mobydisc
NSW, 9029 posts
27 Feb 2013 4:58PM
Thumbs Up

Corporation: Noun

An ingenious device for making individual profit without taking individual responsibility.

sn
WA, 2775 posts
27 Feb 2013 3:52PM
Thumbs Up

well.........

Since Australia is an American registered company,

I guess you just look up who the owner of the company is?


stephen

mineral1
WA, 4564 posts
27 Feb 2013 8:28PM
Thumbs Up

sn said...
well.........

Since Australia is an American registered company,

I guess you just look up who the owner of the company is?


stephen


and didn't some chap on ch44 (local ch Perth) give the customs team some huge grief when they started antics on him with a car import requirement duties, asking them to prove that they were the Commonwealth Government body. He showed with data from customs own web site, that it kept coming up as a USA based Company so have no authority .....legally and he proved it
Was hard to follow his line but very entertaining none the less.

K Dog
VIC, 1847 posts
28 Feb 2013 10:38AM
Thumbs Up

evlPanda said...
See the way to play Monopoly is to buy absolutely everything you land on. Mortgage what you own, whatever it takes. But buy everything. It was designed to show how monopolies work, and was a bit of a stab at capitalism (but I'll argue the state can be a monopoly too).

I think the crux of that article was:

This argument is often countered by stating that HSBC, J.P. Morgan and Citibank are only investing on behalf of small investors. What is of issue here is control and the prerogative of the funds to appoint a director to the board of their choice, not the investors.


It's an interesting predicament. They truly are investing on behalf of many small investors, but somebody has to be a director.

What's the solution? Is one required? If the goal of a company is to maximise profit then why would having an experienced director on a board be a negative? Or is the author hinting at collusion, corruption, and a lowering of standards for all as a result? The company as psychopath.

As usual there is absolutely no action suggested. It's all just raising awareness. 'Like' this. Lots of question marks and nothing else. The only message I took from the occupy movement, for example, was "Greed is bad. Give us more." The irony was almost everyone of them was in the 1% of the world and were having the same effect down the line as the people above them they were rallying against.



Good points, but you have to give credit to the fact that the "investigated" the details in the article, rather than just writing an opinion piece like you usually see in mainstream media.

Nothing wrong with raising "awareness", writers don't have to come up with the answers first, the public have to do some of the legwork in debate....



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Who owns corporate Australia" started by K Dog