Goal: Nut punch Goliath to death.

[Left]

To hold enough stock to be influential... I wonder how much stock that is, and how much it would torque their jammies.

I seem to remember individuals buying single stock shares in order to protest corporate meetings, and in response they changed the laws regarding stockholder's rights, such that petty shareholders can't pull such shenanigans...

Shareholders may vote only during a corporation's annual shareholder meeting or at a special shareholder meeting, which would normally be called by the board of directors. A notice of the meeting and a notice of the agenda (the major points of the meeting) must be provided before each shareholder meeting. Shareholder voting power is proportionate to the number of shares each shareholder owns. For example, if a corporation had two shareholders—one with 400 shares and one with 100 shares—the one with 400 shares would wield far greater voting power.

Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Sc-Str/Shareholders.html#ixzz2YuGZe443

...OK, that's basic, so...

http://www.gurufocus.com/term/Shares%20Outstanding/WMT/Total%252BShares%252BOutstanding/Wal-Mart%2BStores%2BInc

Mall-Wart has 3,318 stock issues @ $77.63, current market price (?)

As to what constitutes enough, that I don't know.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To hold enough stock to be influential... I wonder how much stock that is, and how much it would torque their jammies.

I seem to remember individuals buying single stock shares in order to protest corporate meetings, and in response they changed the laws regarding stockholder's rights, such that petty shareholders can't pull such shenanigans...

Shareholders may vote only during a corporation's annual shareholder meeting or at a special shareholder meeting, which would normally be called by the board of directors. A notice of the meeting and a notice of the agenda (the major points of the meeting) must be provided before each shareholder meeting. Shareholder voting power is proportionate to the number of shares each shareholder owns. For example, if a corporation had two shareholders—one with 400 shares and one with 100 shares—the one with 400 shares would wield far greater voting power.

Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Sc-Str/Shareholders.html#ixzz2YuGZe443

...OK, that's basic, so...

http://www.gurufocus.com/term/Shares%20Outstanding/WMT/Total%252BShares%252BOutstanding/Wal-Mart%2BStores%2BInc

Mall-Wart has 3,318 stock issues @ $77.63, current market price (?)

As to what constitutes enough, that I don't know.

Isn't it a great thing that corporations are entities now? So a corporation can be funded by countless individuals, and buy stock in another corporation.

[Doktor Howl]

To hold enough stock to be influential... I wonder how much stock that is, and how much it would torque their jammies.

I seem to remember individuals buying single stock shares in order to protest corporate meetings, and in response they changed the laws regarding stockholder's rights, such that petty shareholders can't pull such shenanigans...

Shareholders may vote only during a corporation's annual shareholder meeting or at a special shareholder meeting, which would normally be called by the board of directors. A notice of the meeting and a notice of the agenda (the major points of the meeting) must be provided before each shareholder meeting. Shareholder voting power is proportionate to the number of shares each shareholder owns. For example, if a corporation had two shareholders—one with 400 shares and one with 100 shares—the one with 400 shares would wield far greater voting power.

Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Sc-Str/Shareholders.html#ixzz2YuGZe443

...OK, that's basic, so...

http://www.gurufocus.com/term/Shares%20Outstanding/WMT/Total%252BShares%252BOutstanding/Wal-Mart%2BStores%2BInc

Mall-Wart has 3,318 stock issues @ $77.63, current market price (?)

As to what constitutes enough, that I don't know.

Isn't it a great thing that corporations are entities now? So a corporation can be funded by countless individuals, and buy stock in another corporation.

And it can even be make circular.  GE has sort of specialized in that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To hold enough stock to be influential... I wonder how much stock that is, and how much it would torque their jammies.

I seem to remember individuals buying single stock shares in order to protest corporate meetings, and in response they changed the laws regarding stockholder's rights, such that petty shareholders can't pull such shenanigans...

Shareholders may vote only during a corporation's annual shareholder meeting or at a special shareholder meeting, which would normally be called by the board of directors. A notice of the meeting and a notice of the agenda (the major points of the meeting) must be provided before each shareholder meeting. Shareholder voting power is proportionate to the number of shares each shareholder owns. For example, if a corporation had two shareholders—one with 400 shares and one with 100 shares—the one with 400 shares would wield far greater voting power.

Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Sc-Str/Shareholders.html#ixzz2YuGZe443

...OK, that's basic, so...

http://www.gurufocus.com/term/Shares%20Outstanding/WMT/Total%252BShares%252BOutstanding/Wal-Mart%2BStores%2BInc

Mall-Wart has 3,318 stock issues @ $77.63, current market price (?)

As to what constitutes enough, that I don't know.

Isn't it a great thing that corporations are entities now? So a corporation can be funded by countless individuals, and buy stock in another corporation.

And it can even be make circular.  GE has sort of specialized in that.

Where this becomes interesting to me, personally, is where any system is interesting to me, which is the areas in which it can be used exactly as it was designed to be used.

EXACTLY AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE USED.

[I_Kicked_Kennedy]

if this thread is still about taking down wal-mart - would it be possible to buy enough shares of wal-mart stock to railroad shareholder's meetings and set wal-mart on a path to demise?  if so, could a large group of investors have a single voice at shareholder's meetings?

it seems that the internet could be a tool for large groups of investors to take over publicly traded companies

Wait a minute... Wait a minute... Wait a minute...

What if we formed an LLC called "Shoppers and Associates, LLC."  I'm remembering a strategy in The Art of War, which basically suggests turning an army's biggest asset into a liability. What we do is approach the associates and the shoppers of WalMart (which are in a magnitude of millions, if you recall) and ask for $1. We pool a million dollars or so into WalMart stock. We now have voting rights as a shareholder, and when the dividends pay out, we buy more stock. We have no intention of making a profit, rather, we're just insuring we are a major shareholder so we can raise a ruckus. They call them "activist shareholders." We're technically not a union, just a unified collective in the post-union era. Plus, if we're only asking the associates for a one-time $1 fee, we aren't charging dues.

I realize there's holes in this idea, but if this got the idea ball rolling...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's a good idea, IMO.

[McGrupp]

This feels like a thimblefull of water on a fire, but here's what I got.

Have a local movement in each town that doesn't want to be totally Wal-Marted. Make a list of locally owned businesses. Also rate them in terms of where they get their own raw products or supplies (i.e. local businesses buying from other local businesses is better). The list is available online and you can search based on what you want. You want to buy a hammer, a couch, or some food? You can find out where to get that stuff in a way that doesn't encourage the giant mega box stores. I got the idea when I moved as I began to make a list of places nearby that I can go to and not feel like I'm feeding the corporate beast. (although using phrases like 'the corporate beast' would be a turnoff for some. Maybe emphasize local business and local workers)

The downside is that it would be entirely dependent on whoever does the research to be accurate, also it's a colosall pain in the butt. For example there's a restauraunt nearby that is family owned and all the workers are relatives, but what if they purchase their food from some big evil company? How do you decide where to draw the line and/or define local and worker friendly?

Also it would require people to vote with their dollar. The insidious thing about Wal-Mart is that voting against them with your dollar tends to cost more, as exploitation is a pretty good way to keep prices down, as is being an insanely large company. Even worse, if you are a worker affected by Wal-Mart, you now don't make as much money, making it even harder to vote with your dollar.

I'm lucky. I'm single, have no kids, and have a pretty good job. I can afford to take the extra time and go to the local food coop and pay a few extra dollars for local meats and vegatables, or hang around enough flea markets and garage sales until I find a nice couch. If you're a single parent with kids and a low paying job, it becomes a much more difficult decision to make.

I dunno, at the very least putting a website with such lists up could potentially make alternatives to Wal-Mart a little bit more convenient but, at the heart of it, the people themselves have to want to choose those alternatives.

I keep wondering how anyone thinks that a system based on infinite growth is rational when we happen to be sited on a finite sphere...

My favorite part of that is that capitalism somehow plays it both ways. When it comes to growth, resources are considered infinite. If it comes to sharing a piece of the pie, all of a sudden it becomes a zero-sum game and how dare you ask anything of your corporate masters for nothing, you dirty dirty commie.

[Cramulus]

I don't know if anybody's mentioned this -- but Washington DC is trying to pass a "living wage" bill, which requires companies that make at least a billion dollars, and have 75K square feet of retail space, to pay their employees at least 12.50. Walmart threatened to pull its stores out of the area, and cancel construction on new stores.

I feel like this might be a good angle -- the Frank Luntzes and right wing fast talkers are trying to brand minimum wage as an unemployment issue. "If we pay people fairly, we'll have to fire all these people!" But this bill wouldn't really affect small businesses. I saw an article somewhere in which small businesses were relieved - if more walmarts are built, it would put all those little general stores and hardware stores out of business.

So maybe this is a good moment to champion the increased min.wage framed as in terms of small businesses and upward mobility? I am curious to see how this issue progresses. I think the trick to blowing up a topic like this is to highlight evocative symbolic conflict. The Waldens vs the Poor. Prop up the champions of the living wage bill as heroes, etc. I wonder whose side America would take if you could frame an issue as big business vs small business.

I dunno, a bit of a ramble, but I'm just chewing on ideas...

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

IIRC, there were some vocal proponents of the Bangladeshi workers rights pledge thingy at the last big Wal-Mart hoopla. I can't remember if they got to speak, but their presence was known.

The Walton heirs do hold >50% of the shares, too. So outvoting them would be a no-go. Fucking with them, OTOH....

[Junkenstein]

On the stock purchase front, the best people to do it would be walmart employees.

Think of the PR when you have to kick a bunch of activist/shareholder/employees out of the AGM.

Possibly a letter writing campaign for some change that can only be detrimental to the business? (Bring back VHS! More choice of water!)

Given the size of the company, it would probably be most effective concentrating on one store at a time. "All of X walmart employees are shareholders" "X walmart caters to local demand for Y"

For something like this I have a feeling it's not about the size of the movement, more the appearance of size.

There's also the problem of actually stopping people (and yourself) spending cash there at all. That's a little trickier.

[P3nT4gR4m]

IIRC, there were some vocal proponents of the Bangladeshi workers rights pledge thingy at the last big Wal-Mart hoopla. I can't remember if they got to speak, but their presence was known.

The Walton heirs do hold >50% of the shares, too. So outvoting them would be a no-go. Fucking with them, OTOH....

Announcing that discordians own almost half their shares should be enough to persuade the stock markets to pull the rug out from under them 

[Junkenstein]

I don't know if anybody's mentioned this -- but Washington DC is trying to pass a "living wage" bill, which requires companies that make at least a billion dollars, and have 75K square feet of retail space, to pay their employees at least 12.50. Walmart threatened to pull its stores out of the area, and cancel construction on new stores.

Something along these kind of lines could be worth trying:
http://www.wewilldrivethemtotheairport.co.uk/

[McGrupp]

The Walton heirs do hold >50% of the shares, too. So outvoting them would be a no-go. Fucking with them, OTOH....

How many of the heirs are married? Use seduction as a path to power? We show a little leg, break up some marriages, then marry into being majority shareholders.

I don't know if anybody's mentioned this -- but Washington DC is trying to pass a "living wage" bill, which requires companies that make at least a billion dollars, and have 75K square feet of retail space, to pay their employees at least 12.50. Walmart threatened to pull its stores out of the area, and cancel construction on new stores.

Something along these kind of lines could be worth trying:
http://www.wewilldrivethemtotheairport.co.uk/

Last I heard that bill passed in council. I think it will go through. One potentially troubling thing is a late addition exempting stores operating with less than 75k square feet. Average Wal-Mart Supercenter is 182k square feet so it would still apply to them. I just can't shake visions of brand new 74,999 square foot stores popping up next to each other. I still really like the bill and hope it becomes a trend.

[Pergamos]

wal-mart does offer stock options to workers, so having employees purchase stock would not be difficult.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

I don't know if anybody's mentioned this -- but Washington DC is trying to pass a "living wage" bill, which requires companies that make at least a billion dollars, and have 75K square feet of retail space, to pay their employees at least 12.50. Walmart threatened to pull its stores out of the area, and cancel construction on new stores.

Something along these kind of lines could be worth trying:
http://www.wewilldrivethemtotheairport.co.uk/

that is fucking beautiful.