Anti-gunners buying stock in companies that sell guns, then forcing stoppage of sales

[usmarine0352_2005]

I'm not saying that the investors solely bought stock in Walmart so they could vote that they stop selling them.


I'm just wondering if this could become a national trend where anti-gunners buy stock in companies that sell guns and then force them to stop selling guns and gun accessories.





http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/7/wal-mart-franchisees-pushing-retailer-to-cease-sel/

.
Wal-Mart’s right to sell guns at risk in lawsuit

By Kellan Howell - The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest gun retailer, is awaiting a verdict Wednesday to see whether it can continue to sell modern sporting rifles if enough investors think it’s a business the company shouldn’t be in.

Arguing that Wal-Mart’s willingness to sell high-capacity magazine rifles contradicts its promise to uphold community and family values, Trinity Wall Street Church in New York won its case in November, when the district court ruled shareholders could propose and vote on a resolution that would force Wal-Mart’s board of directors to review its gun sales policy.

Wal-Mart is worried that the court’s decision will give investors power to protest any of the items sold in Wal-Mart stores across the country.
.

 

[barnbwt]

If they have to give you a bunch of money to meet their objective...I don't see this ending well for them. It's less efficient than buying airtime or legislators. Also a perfect way to turn the gun debate against the plutocrat crowd HARD; even the led-by-the-nose Occupy Wallstreet stoners would have a hard time ignoring that kind of blatant manipulation by our "betters." The Occupy people with guns could get ugly...

TCB

 

[Sol]

Stupid.

I would think a publicly traded companies loyalties lie with the consumer and the shareholders.

On the consumers behalf to sell products they want.
On the shareholders behalf to be profitable and make money.

Removing a legal product from consumption would in fact hurt the bottom line.*

I mean, it could happen if the BoD has a few infiltraters with an agenda. Plenty of shareholders blindly vote in people.

*I know CVS stopped selling smokes, which in turn would decrease profit, but the CEO claimed they are more of a health/ wellness service than a retail outlet. Could have fooled me.

 

[danez71]

I'm not saying that the investors solely bought stock in Walmart so they could vote that they stop selling them.


I'm just wondering if this could become a national trend where anti-gunners buy stock in companies that sell guns and then force them to stop selling guns and gun accessories.





http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/7/wal-mart-franchisees-pushing-retailer-to-cease-sel/

But that's not what the article is saying is happening.


Good summary from the article:

The church is asking that investors be allowed to discuss with the board what policies and standards are applied for the sale of items that might be considered dangerous, could pose a substantial risk to the company reputation and would reasonably be considered offensive to the community and family values that Wal-Mart associates with its brand.

Interesting....
The share holders DO have a vested interest in the company.


I liked this part:

Mr. Hammond added that if Trinity wants to focus its efforts on political activism rather than church activity, it should consider changing its nonprofit tax status to reflect those goals, calling it a “temple of political liberalism as opposed to a temple for the worship of God.”

The slope IS slippery on both sides.

 

[JSH1]

The share holders DO have a vested interest in the company.

Yes, they do and they should have more say in how a company is run. For example, executive pay should be approved by shareholders, not the Board of Directors packed with other executives.

 

[g.willikers]

Would that be a bad thing?
Eliminating retailers that mostly sells the bottom of the lineup, has employees with little enthusiasm, knowledge or expertise.
Might actually give the industry a boost and motivate more gun people to get FFLs and open stores.

 

[LemmyCaution]

My understanding of commerce revolves around a balancing of supply and demand. If activist shareholders attempt to eliminate firearms by cutting off a supply chain they control, it does nothing to reduce demand.

Others, who don't share the desire to eliminate firearms, will step in to meet that demand.

And life goes on its merry way.

In other words, I think such a strategy would be foolhardy.

Now, if activist shareholders could somehow corner the market for some essential material or component that no other could step in and replace- think DeBeers with diamonds, or pharmaceuticals against lethal injection with sodium pentothialate- then that might change things. But I think that's extremely unlikely with firearms.

 

[Davek1977]

Would that be a bad thing?
Eliminating retailers that mostly sells the bottom of the lineup,

Walmart sells the 6920 Colt AR-15 at a rpice few can match, hardly a "bottom of the barrel" firearm. The idea that "Wal-mart" guns are somehow inderior to the ones sold at your favorite ffl has largelu been debunked as so much BS. There are a handful of special "walmart only" versions of some guns, but even those simply offer features different than the standard varients and aren't so much "better" or "worse" than any other version of the same firearm. There's plenty of reasons not to like Walmart, but the idea their guns are somehow inferior shouldn't be one of them.

 

[Teachu2]

Would that be a bad thing?
Eliminating retailers that mostly sells the bottom of the lineup, has employees with little enthusiasm, knowledge or expertise.
Might actually give the industry a boost and motivate more gun people to get FFLs and open stores.

And the next step is they buy stock in manufacturers and ammo producers.....

 

[desidog]

So they're advocating less profits... That won't be a long discussion for the board.

While they're it, they should stop selling fatty/oily foods containing preservatives that give people heart disease, and anti-freeze because a dog might drink it and die.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

So they're advocating less profits... That won't be a long discussion for the board.

While they're it, they should stop selling fatty/oily foods containing preservatives that give people heart disease, and anti-freeze because a dog might drink it and die.

Yes, but how much of a profit is it really?



When it comes down to it, probably a very small amount in the grand scheme of things.



Similar to the case of the bakery not making a cake for a homosexual couple. Yes, they will lose that sale, but is one cake going to put them out of business? Most likely not and they are willing to lose those profits if it means standing up for their values, just as these anti-gunners are doing.

 

[cfullgraf]

With a public corporation, stock holders can initiate a proposal for changes in how the company operates. It is usually discussed and voted on at the share holder meetings.

Generally speaking, there is a small group of investors in most companies that hold the majority of the shares making it difficult to enact changes in the way the company operates.

I am not saying there are not other ways for protesters to get a company to change, but unless they can get control of a majority of the stock, change will not happen.

 

[HankB]

Don't shareholders have to have a certain number of voting shares even to get CONSIDERATION of a proposal?

Otherwise, everyone with a tiny percentage of the stock - maybe as little as one share - could propose something outrageous, completely bringing business to a standstill.

 

[g.willikers]

There's plenty of reasons not to like Walmart, but the idea their guns are somehow inferior shouldn't be one of them.

I wasn't particularly thinking of just their guns.
But the excellent value Colt mentioned is sold at discount lots of other places.
Walmart hardly has a monopoly on it.
And, while it's a great value, in the pecking order of ARs it is consistent with their overall strategy of mass appeal.
If anything better is wanted, if won't be offered at Walmart.
Would we really miss Walmart as a firearms dealer all that much?
Does anyone miss K-Mart or Sears selling gun stuff, anymore?
LemmyCaution's reply is right on the money.

 

[Sam1911]

Would we really miss Walmart as a firearms dealer all that much?

"the nation’s largest gun retailer"?

Yeah, I think that would leave a mark.

 

[g.willikers]

How did Walmart earn that reputation?
There's so much more they don't sell than they do.
Betcha' what they sell so much of is very narrow focused.

 

[jerkface11]

They got that reputation BY SELLING MORE GUNS.

 

[berettaprofessor]

G.wilikers do I miss gun sales at Sears and K-mart? You bet I do. And Walmart had best remember what happened to Sears and K-mart when they began to let social decisions determine what they sold....it is no accident that both are gone.

 

[g.willikers]

If Walmart has a claim to selling more guns than anyone, what are they?
And more than who?
Maybe for lower priced long guns as a chain of stores.
But as a whole as compared to the complete marketplace for guns?
They've chosen to ignore the huge handgun market, so It's doubtful they can still claim to sell more guns than anyone else.
Especially when many of their stores don't sell any guns at all.
Gonna' call Urban Legend on that one.
Anyone know how to find out if they do or not, with real numbers?

 

[barnbwt]

So long as we keep shooting popular (which is not what happened while Sears/K-mart were divesting, btw) new business will pop up to sell guns no matter how many/how fast Bloombucks could possibly shut them down.

This whole thing is such a blatant bluff it's laughable. They won't spend any money at all doing this, as the goal is to simply talk a good game and raise "worry" over their idiot moves. But, the bluff is not meant for us; it's meant for the idiot New York City stock trader or board member from Britain who actually calls the shots. I suspect the same decision makers operating from ignorance were also behind the department store divestment back in the 70's (coincidentally after the '68 GCA, I'm sure there's no connection)

I guess we all need to start calling him Sir Michael 'Hizzonah' "The Mayor" Bloomberg from now on; he's finally been recognized by another being with ostensibly divine origins like himself

TCB

 

[win71]

Control of Wal Mart gun sales buy stock buyers

First off Wal Mart is not a bad investment money wise. To think any one or group of anti gun investors could buy their stock and then somehow control the policies of the worlds largest retailer is questionable in my mind. Today WMT (Wal mart ) sold for around $80.00 a share. There are roughly 3 .22 B ( as in billion) outstanding shares. Vanguard Group Inc. alone holds over 99 million shares. Today over 7,000,000 shares changed hands.

How in the world could a group of anti gunners buy enough stock to gain control of any policy of a company this large.

Now, if something looks bad politically a choice will be made. For instance, Wal Mart will not be selling the MMA sensation Ronda Rousey's book due to the violence allegedly in it.
These are current management decisions. If I held a million shares I might be able to influence some thinking in Managements heads.

If anybody wants to debate with me don't do it. I simply looked this stuff up. My brain doesn't know diddly.........

 

[herrwalther]

Bloomburg would have the spend the vast majority of his $35.5 BILLION net worth to sway a large company like Wal-Mart to change their gun policy using stocks and voting at that level. This tactic is far simpler and cheaper to pull off than buying up voting stock: lawsuits. Nothing will turn a corporation on its heels faster than losing a lawsuit. Nearly every industry does cost calculations of fixing something on their end vs payout in the event of a lawsuit.

In any case I couldn't read the article. It loaded as dashes in Firefox and Chrome.

 

[Twiki357]

From what I’ve heard about it, it’s one church in New York that owns a whopping 2,500 shares out of how many million outstanding shares. They want to “discuss” gun sales with the board, whatever that means. Doubt it will go very far once the church gets its 15 minutes if airtime.

 

[hso]

Investors have always had the power to shape what a business does. The challenge is getting enough votes together to get control of the Board of Directors. It is very unlikely that enough voting shares would fall into the hands of a group that could accomplish this.

 

[Tirod]

It's a publicity stunt. Goes to the comment about the church rethinking it's mission.

One local church was raffling off a new AR15 with ties into establishing new members. When churches do that they get negative press at the national level. If the church directors are looking for attention from the national media, they cater to liberal bias knowing they will net positive media stories.

If a church gives away a rifle to attract new members, they are aware the national media will question it and put it in a negative light.

Who is working to enhance their image and for what purpose? Who is serving Mammon?

Always an interesting conversation when it pops up but this isn't about firearms.