Shareholder activism doesn't necessarily have to come from 50%+ stockholders. Squeaky wheel theory.They will certainly listen to anybody (or a block of shareholders) who owns more than 50% of the outstanding shares.
There's around 128.98 million HAS shares outstanding and a float of around 114.81 million HAS shares.
HAS Key Statistics | Hasbro, Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance
Anybody have $2.3 billion laying around to buy up more than 50% of HAS shares?
WotC's Annual Xmas Layoffs
Derulbaskul
Adventurer
Rich Baker?
I always thought that if Rich Baker was terminated in one of these mass lay-offs that WotC is so fond of that it would be the beginning of the end of WotC. Perhaps that opinion is a bit extreme but he is genuinely talented.
He's the only RPG designer who writes good novels and the few WotC adventures that are considered well-designed generally bear his name (as was the case with Bruce Cordell in the 2E era [but now his name seems to be the kiss of death]).
Very disappointing. Rich was a good guy, he communicated with the customer/fan base and he was (and is) genuinely talented. I hope he lands a really great job ASAP.
I always thought that if Rich Baker was terminated in one of these mass lay-offs that WotC is so fond of that it would be the beginning of the end of WotC. Perhaps that opinion is a bit extreme but he is genuinely talented.
He's the only RPG designer who writes good novels and the few WotC adventures that are considered well-designed generally bear his name (as was the case with Bruce Cordell in the 2E era [but now his name seems to be the kiss of death]).
Very disappointing. Rich was a good guy, he communicated with the customer/fan base and he was (and is) genuinely talented. I hope he lands a really great job ASAP.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
Still, you would need 40 grand to buy up even 1000 shares, and honestly, they aren't going to give a rat's tail about some clowns with 1000 shares whining about the poor workers at the company. This is a corporation. They exist to crush the needs of the many under the desire for profits by the few.
If I'm not mistaken, it's actually unlawful for them to proceed in any way which runs contrary to the best interests of the shareholders as a whole, i.e. maximizing profit.
That's why everything is outsourced and why you practically can't buy quality products these days, even if you shell out big bucks for them.
If I'm not mistaken, it's actually unlawful for them to proceed in any way which runs contrary to the best interests of the shareholders as a whole, i.e. maximizing profit.
That's why everything is outsourced and why you practically can't buy quality products these days, even if you shell out big bucks for them.
WotC_Huscarl
First Post
Thanks for all the well-wishes, everyone. It's heartening to see so many encouraging responses. This will be my last post here with "WotC_" in my username--from here on, I'll just be Huscarl--but I don't intend to disappear, and I'm sure Rich doesn't, either.
Steve
Steve
jaerdaph
#UkraineStrong
Thank you Steve for all the work you did on great products I've truly enjoyed and treasured over the years. Cheers and here's to the next great adventure!
Incenjucar
Legend
We all look forward to your future success in whatever direction life takes you.
Noumenon
First Post
Great post, the link did not lead to a Windjammer comment for me though.
9 posts under your WotC nick... well at least now you'll have time to bump that post count.
Too soon?
Mod Edit: Yeah, too soon. Poor form. How about we not try to wring enjoyment out of the misfortune of others for a while, hm? ~Umbran
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not that simple. Yes, they have to act in the best interest of the shareholders, but they historically have had great leeway in determining how to do that. It doesn't necessarily mean (as in this case) releasing your most-experienced but highest-paid employees in order to drive down costs. Note especially that keeping costs down never comes up in discussions of executive compensation or how much lawyers get paid.
It's actually been only the last few decades that there's been a push to define corporate responsibility as exclusively toward shareholders as opposed to other stakeholders including the employees and surrounding community.
OnlineDM
Adventurer
I agree with this. I personally work for a large, publicly-traded company, and I found it very enlightening a few years ago when senior management described having three groups whose interests the company needed to keep in mind: customers, employees and shareholders. That's a very useful way to think about companies in general.
Some companies put customers first. Zappos is a frequently-cited example here, and I'm sure there are others.
Some companies put employees first. Google gets this reputation, as does SAS. Tech companies do this a lot, especially when employees are also shareholders.
Some companies put shareholders first. Frankly, I think this is probably most companies, and it's understandable.
A well-run company will find the right balance of the three interest groups. You certainly have to take care of shareholders, but if you screw employees that will be bad for shareholders in the long run. The same goes for screwing customers. One argument I've heard is that it's rare to have long-term (as in decades) shareholders of companies any more, which means that shareholders tend to think in the very short term (since they don't plan to still be shareholders in six months' time). That's bad for the business in the long run, but if the current owners don't care about the long run, well, it's understandable.
Management is hard. It's possible that WotC is leaning too far toward shareholders and not far enough toward employees; I honestly don't know.
Similar Threads
