« Once More Into The Che | Main | Advisory Opinion Needed »
Matt Joins The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy
A TPM reader suggests the possibility of blocking this nonsense through shareholder action. Certainly something worth pursuing if you happen to own shares in Sinclair Broadcasting. I also note via Angry Bear that the largest institutional investor in Sinclair seems to be Putnam Investments, owners of 9.2 percent of Sinclair stock, so if you have some kind of financial involvement with Putnam you might want to register your feelings to them. Clearly, this is a decision to use Sinclair's corporate resources in a manner that is contrary to the best interests of profitability. As long as the company is being managed in this manner, Putnam is very unwise to hold such a large stake in it, and if you're invested with Putnam you would do well to try and dissasociate your retirement fund from this sort of nonsense.
On the Putnam front conflicts of interest abound. My uncle Paul seems to be "a Trustee of the Putnam Mutual Funds" and Putnam is a division of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc on whose board sits Adele Simmons who's also on the board of The American Prospect. Meanwhile, my other uncle works for NERA which is another March McLennan property cofounded by my grandfather with, of all people, Irwin Stelzer.
October 11, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83421904853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Matt Joins The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy:
» Local News at 7, Followed by Jaundiced Quest for White Whale from Grammar.police
From DCRTV: The filmmaker of "Stolen Honor," Carlton Sherwood, once worked for DC's Channel 9. In 1984, then 9 News Director Dave Pearce went on the air to issue the apology for a four-part series by Sherwood, who questioned the... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 12, 2004 1:45:23 PM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 8:08:02 AM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 8:10:04 AM
Comments
If I were you, I'd start disassociating myself from myself as soon as I could.
Posted by: fightingdem | Oct 11, 2004 11:12:41 PM
This episode, and the swiftvets activities are a consequence of MSM's refusal to investigate, expose Kerry's record.
Discuss.
Posted by: am | Oct 11, 2004 11:13:48 PM
Obviously, all good people must boycott yglesias.typepad.com
Posted by: Atrios | Oct 11, 2004 11:17:28 PM
You need to get the good folks at uggabugga to make a flowchart for all this.
Posted by: dstein | Oct 11, 2004 11:27:59 PM
Just sent a polite complaint to Putnam. Others should do the same.
Posted by: rbottoms | Oct 11, 2004 11:32:43 PM
I will now proceed to boycott your advertisers.
No more will I click, click, click on Team America! NameSecure will get no more of my hard-earned dollars! And Art Spiegelman must be quaking in his Maus-like boots!
Posted by: praktike | Oct 11, 2004 11:55:30 PM
Part of my 401K is sadly in Putnam. I wrote them a note and told them I'd be moving that percentage to another investment.
Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Oct 12, 2004 12:43:40 AM
Matt -
Marsh and McClennan suffered huge casualties on Sept. 11th. The number is either around 90 people, or 190 people. I don't remember exactly. My cousin Frank was one of them - 91st Floor, Tower One.
Just FYI...
EdT
Posted by: EdT | Oct 12, 2004 1:36:51 AM
FYI, in October 2001, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer became Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Crisis Consulting Practice of Marsh Inc., an operating company of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC).
Posted by: PG | Oct 12, 2004 3:14:11 AM
Oddly enough, I just sold my Putnam investments last month. They were a poorly-performing Bar Mitzvah artifact; little did I know this was coming.
Posted by: Marshall | Oct 12, 2004 4:59:33 AM
Share holder action would be too slow, and it is doubtful that it would get the "desired" results. Attacking the advertisers is the only way to go.
Posted by: raj | Oct 12, 2004 7:22:11 AM
Part of my 401K is sadly in Putnam. I wrote them a note and told them I'd be moving that percentage to another investment.
Why "sadly"? It's hardly a giant mutual fund company's responsibility that one of the companies it owns a large stake in has decided to act as a propaganda mill to the likely detriment of its shareholders. There's not some sinister conspiracy on the part of Putnum or any of the other institutional holders to put Bush over the top; this is something that the management of the company has dreamed up. (Paul Viera, the CEO of 5%+ owner Earnest Partners, has given $2000 to John Kerry and $7000 to Barack Obama this election cycle; I doubt he's got an elaborate plan to cover his tracks.)
Posted by: Steve | Oct 12, 2004 9:31:30 AM
Why do you think this is contrary to Sinclair's corporate interests? Have you seen their internal marketing projections? Do you know how much money they expect to make off this versus the other opportunities? Do you know what secondary effects this might have in generating interest in their other public affairs programming?
Posted by: DBL | Oct 12, 2004 10:12:00 AM
My 401(k) is administered by Putnam, so I'm stuck there. But with Putnam's market timing scandal, lousy performance and general bad management, this is the least of their problems.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 12, 2004 10:33:19 AM
I understand Frontline is doing a pro-Kerry/anti-Bush piece tonight. Who owns PBS, again, and can I boycott their advertisers?
(Oh yeah, HBO is putting on Alexandra Pelosi's puff piece on Kerry too. Boycott! Boycott!)
Posted by: Al | Oct 12, 2004 10:42:48 AM
I understand Frontline is doing a pro-Kerry/anti-Bush piece tonight. Who owns PBS, again, and can I boycott their advertisers?
(Oh yeah, HBO is putting on Alexandra Pelosi's puff piece on Kerry too. Boycott! Boycott!)
Is that supposed to be a joke? Isn't that pretty much EXACTLY the pound of flesh that the right exacted for a soapy made-for-TV movie about the Reagans? The difference of course is that the movie wasn't an hour-long reiteration of a lie-filled ad campaign designed to directly influence an election.
But then, I'm sure nobody on the right would mind if CBS forced all of its affiliates to run, say, "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "Going Upriver" in prime time in the next couple weeks.
Posted by: chilly | Oct 12, 2004 11:30:09 AM
"Why "sadly"? It's hardly a giant mutual fund company's responsibility that one of the companies it owns a large stake in has decided to act as a propaganda mill to the likely detriment of its shareholders. "
Why not? Actually, forget the idea that this might be unprofitable--DBL is probably right on that score. The point is, if you own stock in something, you are partially responsible for its actions. You own a piece of the company. What percentage of the responsibility is yours is debatable, but it is not 0. You can abdicate that responsibility by not paying attention, the choice made by the vast majority of us, or you can at least try to inform your ownership with your values and ethics. Until people wake up to their stock owning responsiblities, "corporate America" is going to continue to have a disproportionate share of influence in the world, and that influence is going to be guided by profit alone.
Posted by: Saheli | Oct 12, 2004 5:25:29 PM
Why do you think this is contrary to Sinclair's corporate interests?
I find it hard to imagine that replacing an hour of ABC or Fox prime time is going to do wonders for their ratings, nor that a concentrated attack on their local advertisers -- like most broadcasters, Sinclair makes the bulk of its money off the nightly news -- is going to do wonders for their bottom line, but fair enough; maybe they know something I don't and this is going to be a break-even proposition. (Suggestions that this is payback for Sinclair Ventures' government contracts might even convince me that it's a money-maker, but I doubt Bush supporters are going to go there.)
The point is, if you own stock in something, you are partially responsible for its actions. You own a piece of the company. What percentage of the responsibility is yours is debatable, but it is not 0.
Granted, but that doesn't translate to a general attack on institutional investors, in my mind; the use of the word "unfortunately" suggested that Putnam was somehow tainted by its association with Sinclair. The corporate management is directly responsible to the board of directors, not the shareholders, and if the board of directors lets them perform like this, it loses money, and institutional investors don't attempt to do anything about it (by, say, denying votes or even nominating a slate of directors), that's the time to start thinking about recriminations.* As the endless struggle to get Eisner removed indicates, even large shareholders often have extraordinarily little control over the companies that they own huge pieces of. But contacting Paul Viera and asking his opinion couldn't hurt, I guess.
* Which is not to say that more direct measures than selling index funds wouldn't be a good idea right now if you don't want to see this happen.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 12, 2004 7:07:10 PM
Speaking of Bush/Sinclair/Contago
Connections:
Google for "Contango Oil", "Jay Brehmer", and "submarine" to learn about the role of Contango employees in the death of students aboard a Japanese fishing boat which was struck from below by the nuclear sub that Brehmer and other Contango employees were aboard on a joyride.
Or just go to Big Oil at the Controls: Subs Aren't the Only Things Dubya's Donors and Oil Buddies Are Mishandling
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Oct 12, 2004 9:58:01 PM
Steve:
"The corporate management is directly responsible to the board of directors, not the shareholders, and if the board of directors lets them perform like this, it loses money, and institutional investors don't attempt to do anything about it (by, say, denying votes or even nominating a slate of directors), that's the time to start thinking about recriminations.* As the endless struggle to get Eisner removed indicates, even large shareholders often have extraordinarily little control over the companies that they own huge pieces of."
Maybe it's precisely that first sentence (letting the indirectness of reporting absolve one of action, and waiting until that time when money is really leaking to expect InstInvs to do anything) that has led to the conditions of the second sentence--i.e. if people were well practiced at corporate oversight and quick to complain, the system might very well be more responsive.
There are insitutional investors who have an investment strategy parametrized by more variables than profit, and in their case the ideas of "tainting" and "glitter rubbing off" makes plenty of sense. If I as a stock holder decide to put my money with someone not just because I'm sure they will increase it, but beacause I'm sure they will incrase it in a way that's in tandem with my values, I expect them to worry about tainting.
True, Putnam probably has no reason to think the vast majority of its investors expect that kind of balance between making money and choosing likable investments. But there's no reason for the ScrewyRabbit not to be a little sad as they realize where their money's been sitting, and plenty of reasons for them to decide that they're going to put their money in investments that are more in line with their preferences for society. Why not support an index fund that you know you don't have to worry about because they worry for you? And thereby send a message to other index funds that they ought to worry some themselves.
The indirectness of the reporting process (1)management reports to boards, boards infrequently report to to 2a)individual stockholders or 2b)more likeley index fund managers who then report to customers 3 gives a buffer to management and an excuse to stockholders. But when the Secretary of the Interior instates hideous environmental policy, I'll still write to her to complain, even though she really only reports to the President who rarely "reports" to me. It might not get me anywhere, but it's still my duty as a citizen to register my protest.
Posted by: Saheli | Oct 13, 2004 5:07:15 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
