Example collocations logo

Shareholders in sentence

665 examples of Shareholders in a sentence

At the same time, the expected benefits of having SWFs as shareholders – that is, of having a long, stable investor – might simply be a mirage, which disappears precisely when that stability is most needed: during a global financial crisis.
The champagne that Enron’s Jeff Skilling drank when the US Securities and Exchange Commission allowed him to mark long-term energy contracts to market was paid for by the company’s shareholders and creditors, but they would not know that until ten years later.
Shareholders in banks could not have understood that the dividends they received before 2007 were actually money that they had borrowed from themselves.
Then they discovered that it had all been a mistake, more or less wiped out their shareholders, and used taxpayer money to trade their way through to new levels of reported profit.
Resources are relentlessly allocated to developing more oil and gas fields not because they are good for America or the world, but because the shareholders and managers of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Philipps, and others demand it.
And if they win, they and their shareholders keep the bonanza.
This was followed by a shareholders meeting of the RAO UES (United Energy Systems), Russia’s electricity giant, now headed by the reformer turned oligarch, Anatoly Chubais.
This created powerful barriers to public investment, as government spending was siphoned into massive profits for banks and their shareholders.
American commentators – and, increasingly, US judges – want to insulate CEOs and boards further from their firms’ trading shareholders.
But it’s not as clear as many believe that the holding period for traditional shareholders has shortened greatly – or at all.
Moreover, Arcelor represented a perfect takeover target: most of its capital belongs to diverse shareholders.
But the shareholders of Arcelor have made their choice.
So the shareholders chose to cash in on a temporary bonus, taking a risk on the progressive erosion of the firm, and perhaps the end of its policy of focusing on high quality while treating its workers with respect.
Indirectly, it concerns all of us, for the choice made by Arcelor’s shareholders is far from being an exception; on the contrary, it reveals the deep economic and social significance of corporate takeovers of this type.
For this reason, it is dangerous to maintain the outdated legal concept according to which a company belongs only to its owners or shareholders.
At the moment, the framework for property rights, investor protection, and corporate governance is extremely weak, and recent legislative measures regarding the personal liability of shareholders in limited liability companies have made things worse.
Despite this large capital shortfall, 28 of the 34 publicly listed banks in the stress test paid out about €40 billion in dividends for 2015, meaning that they distributed, on average, over 60% of their earnings to shareholders.
Dividend payments made by under-capitalized banks amount to a substantial wealth transfer from subordinated bondholders to shareholders, because it is bondholders who will suffer the losses in a crisis.
Moreover, it is potentially a wealth transfer from taxpayers to private shareholders, because under new banking rules government bailouts are possible after bondholders have covered (bailed in) 8% of a bank’s equity and liabilities.
Under the umbrella of common deposit insurance, US savings banks made a “gamble for resurrection” – borrowing excessively from their depositors and lending the money out to risky enterprises, knowing that potential profits could be paid out as dividends to shareholders while potential losses would be socialized.
Debt-equity swaps rescue the banks without rescuing their shareholders.
These debentures should be designed to create a strong incentive for bank managers and shareholders to issue equity rather than suffer conversion.
Meanwhile, the companies that have so gleefully enriched their executives and shareholders typically face little, if any, blowback from their illicit or unethical activities.
Doing so risks putting investors in the same position as the last shareholders in Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company, which is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
For example, if the required majority of shareholders adopts such a plan, the court should protect the rights of the minority of creditors who may have opposed it.
To say that they were implies three things: top bank executives were rewarded for short-term results with large amounts of up-front cash; bank executives did not hold sufficiently large amounts of stock to align their interests with those of shareholders; and executives with more short-term pay and less stock ownership should have had the greatest incentive to take bad and excessive risks, and thus should have performed worse in the crisis.
Thus, paradoxically nationalization may be a more market-friendly solution: it wipes out common and preferred shareholders of clearly insolvent institutions, and possibly unsecured creditors if the insolvency is too large, while providing a fair upside to the tax-payer.
It can also resolve the problem of managing banks’ bad assets by reselling most of assets and deposits – with a government guarantee – to new private shareholders after a clean-up of the bad assets (as in the resolution of the Indy Mac bank failure).
Who would deny that companies have a clear responsibility to earn profits for their shareholders, or that most shareholders invest primarily to make money, not to make the world a better place?
Second, not all shareholders are alike.
BackNext