How to shoot yourself in the foot

S&W to change company name to ‘America Outdoor Brands’ if share holders pass this measure on Dec. 13th. That also happens to be the corporate name of their parent holding company. So effectively, they’d just be dropping the ‘Smith & Wesson’ name in favor of their parent company’s name. (See the first video in the link below).

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/09/25/smith--wesson-loses-fight-with-nuns-on-gun-safety-proposal.html

But that’s not the most insidious news contained in the link above.

Of even more interest is the information in the article that groups of large stock holders are banning together to effect change that runs counterintuitive to the financial benefit of share holders.

With the exception of the last paragraph of the article (which represents a more traditional ‘old school’ way of thinking) about the teachers union and their pension plan investing strategy (i.e., avoid buying stocks in gun manufacturers), the main topic appears to address these “internal takeovers” by what amounts to be anti-gun shareholders.

I note, the article also mentions Ruger has undergone similar influences from blocks of their shareholders. So, what am I seeing here? Is this a new strategy to ruin gun manufacturers? Where large stock holders sacrifice their own money in order to shut down a ‘publicly owned’ business. Is this a ‘nuclear option’ or ‘poison pill’ type of shareholder take over?

If that’s the case, will only smaller privately own gun manufacturers be left? (Those with less financial assets and less ability to defend themselves against future product liability lawsuits?)

busykngt said:

S&W to change company name to ‘America Outdoor Brands’ if share holders pass this measure on Dec. 13th. That also happens to be the corporate name of their parent holding company. So effectively, they’d just be dropping the ‘Smith & Wesson’ name in favor of their parent company’s name. (See the first video in the link below).

Click to expand...

Agreed. Smith & Wesson is a well known and positive brand in America. It would be a mistake to change the name. Just as bad as taking the Dunkin out of Dunkin Donuts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is an iconic brand. Can you imagine carrying around an A.O.B.? Not the same as S&W.

I guess this is the next way they are coming after our firearms.

busykngt said:

S&W to change company name to ‘America Outdoor Brands’ if share holders pass this measure on Dec. 13th. That also happens to be the corporate name of their parent holding company. So effectively, they’d just be dropping the ‘Smith & Wesson’ name in favor of their parent company’s name. (See the first video in the link below).

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/09/25/smith--wesson-loses-fight-with-nuns-on-gun-safety-proposal.html

But that’s not the most insidious news contained in the link above.

Of even more interest is the information in the article that groups of large stock holders are banning together to effect change that runs counterintuitive to the financial benefit of share holders.

With the exception of the last paragraph of the article (which represents a more traditional ‘old school’ way of thinking) about the teachers union and their pension plan investing strategy (i.e., avoid buying stocks in gun manufacturers), the main topic appears to address these “internal takeovers” by what amounts to be anti-gun shareholders.

I note, the article also mentions Ruger has undergone similar influences from blocks of their shareholders. So, what am I seeing here? Is this a new strategy to ruin gun manufacturers? Where large stock holders sacrifice their own money in order to shut down a ‘publicly owned’ business. If that’s the case, will only smaller privately own gun manufacturers be left?

Click to expand...

From reading the article, it would appear that these groups have been applying pressure upon Blackrock and Vanguard--who are the largest shareholders in both Ruger and S&W--to vote in favor of these social engineering propositions. Hey, all I have to say is where do Blackrock and Vanguard get off feeling like THEY get to express their views on these issues. It's NOT their money, it's their investors' money. Nobody gives a fûck about what the money men at those funds think about society, all the investors want is a reasonable (or higher than reasonable) rate of return on the money invested with them.

And here's the thing, it's one thing to say that a firearm is defective, and another thing entirely to say that this firearm performs exactly as designed--each and every time--expelling a projectile at high-speed from the burning of propellant as a result of a human actually pulling the trigger. The result of that firing doesn't make something defective or unsafe. It's whether or not the device functions as-designed AND doesn't function on it's own.

We do recalls on vehicles that are defective but we do NOT do recalls on vehicles merely because people are killed by being struck by a perfectly-functioning vehicle. The same is true with firearms, in that, were it in my power as CEO, I'd respond to the shareholder vote with something akin to this:

"S&W categorically state that their firearms perform as-designed and in accordance with all applicable laws. S&W distribute their products through legal channels through federally-licensed dealers. Furthermore, S&W and it's firearms cannot be held to blame when a human being opts to use a firearm improperly and/or in the commission of illegal acts. S&W weapons are safe; criminals are not."

In my opinion, the folks who invest their money with Blackrock and Vanguard need to know that their money managers are exercising social engineering choices in their name with their money without proper authority. And then elect to take your money to funds who are into it for business and not for social justice.

I’d like that group of nuns to consider a plan to help reduce the harmful effects of priests and the Catholic Church due to their wholesale acceptance of pedophiles in leadership positions.

It seems to me, it’s the smaller groups of direct company investors (like that little group of nuns) that are having an undue and disproportionate influence on large institutional investors (like those mutual funds). One would think, those large fund investors are only in it for the money to be made.

I mean, I realize *some* investment funds set out in their prospectuses, their investment strategy includes certain “socially responsible” considerations. But how is it a little group of nuns are able to unite other blocks of shareholders, to do, in effect what’s not in their best {financial} interest?

busykngt said:

It seems to me, it’s the smaller groups of direct company investors (like that little group of nuns) that are having an undue and disproportionate influence on large institutional investors (like those mutual funds). One would think, those large fund investors are only in it for the money to be made.

I mean, I realize *some* investment funds set out in their prospectuses, their investment strategy includes certain “socially responsible” considerations. But how is it a little group of nuns are able to unite other blocks of shareholders, to do, in effect what’s not in their best {financial} interest?

Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but that’s the chance you take when you go public.

Now, S&W could report that basically ‘guns don’t kill people; people kill people’ and point out LE and government at all levels epically failed in their roles.

But that won’t appease the activist investors who, theoretically, could garner enough power to shutter the business. That’s more concerning.

Low_Speed said:

... Just as bad as taking the Dunkin out of Dunkin Donuts.

Click to expand...

Actually, they are taking the Donuts out of Dunkin Donuts.

Diesel1959, I heard something similar on a radio show (I believe that the "Rick Roberts Show" here in Dallas covered this last week. Sorry, I only caught the tail end of this). Companies are basically being taken over to take on a Liberal agenda by larger shareholders. Vanguard and the like (think your 401k) sends everyone their "we will be voting on these items on your behalf...how do you wish for us o vote" packets....which most people tend to never really read and either file or throw away.

dapakattack said:

Actually, they are taking the Donuts out of Dunkin Donuts.

Diesel1959, I heard something similar on a radio show (I believe that the "Rick Roberts Show" here in Dallas covered this last week. Sorry, I only caught the tail end of this). Companies are basically being taken over to take on a Liberal agenda by larger shareholders. Vanguard and the like (think your 401k) sends everyone their "we will be voting on these items on your behalf...how do you wish for us o vote" packets....which most people tend to never really read and either file or throw away.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. That’s even worse. They still sell donuts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shocked? Don't be. Our society and its ethics, morals and dogma depend upon a people that love and believe in our founders dreams. Lets just look at one example:

Kneeling when the National Anthem is played. But wait it gets worse:

They do it in front of 80,000 scream fans and 25 Million fans on TV. But wait it gets worse:

They do it on while on the job, at their employers place of business. But wait it gets worse:

Other than Jerry Jones, Dallas Cowboys, not one single $ BILLIONAIRE owner has done anything about it. But wait it gets worse:

The NFL which is composed of all the owners and an admin staff that sets the rules and regs for the NFL and the players has done nothing about it.

If you add this up, you see the reality of the breakdown in our society. Had I done what the players have done, my father and mother would have disowned me completely.

The players that take a knee are only the results of: Mom, Dad, schooling, friends, the NFL, the owners and 80,000 people in the stadium that accept it...the kneelers are NOT the problem!

A free and open society like envisioned by our founders cannot last and ours is collapsing around us.

I suspect that what is happening with S&W is a well funded, organized effort by those who want to destroy our society, these people are told what to do and given the money to do it.

I agree that this is the way they will go, and it is a valid approach. If you step back and look at this objectively, these public companies have sold themselves. The owners get to decide the direction of the company via election of the board of directors who then elect the excutives who steer the day to day operations. This would be the same thing as a gun company selling to an individual who then decides to change the direction. Essentially, this is a hostile takeover, but without the fanfare. There is nothing stopping those with enough money from buying a company and destroying it.

The risk to this strategy is that when you don't have individuals doing it, but rather entities like vanguard using proxy votes, you are opening up the possibility for action against those entities by their incestors. If you think of it like 99 people give vanguard $1, and 1 person gives them $100, the 1 person can steer the investment (tyranny of the minority anyone). Then vanguard can buy a gun company and dissolve it. That could make the 1 person happy, but what about the 99 who had their investment deliberately tanked? That is the risk these companies face when they follow the liberal guidance of a their larger investors. Of course, that requires people to be aware, which is slowly happening.

This is similar to the situation Tesla is facing. Elon Musk wanted the money from the "public" but doesn't want them to have a say. Now he is starting to realize they do get a say and you can't always rely on the public being your puppet.

I predict the SJW will adopt this tactic and go after companies they don't like and change them through ownership. This will be very costly and will greatly polarize the investment community, but with enough money and not caring about returns, it can be done. This is like not liking your neighbor and then just throwing money at them until you hit that "make me move" number. You may take a bath on their property, but you got rid of your problem.

Where this will ultimately be unsuccessful is that you may destroy ruger, s&w, colt, remington, etc. You won't be able to shut down lwrci, runner runner, pa, etc. I forsee the closely held/family businesses rising back up. That or conservatives pulling their money out of vanguard/liberal funds and investing with conservative funds. Think if every conservative banded together and put their 401k with NRA investments how much power NRA investments would have. Don't like Facebook? Buy em and change em.

If you have not read it yet, I suggest Atlas Shrugged...

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

diesel1959 said:

From reading the article, it would appear that these groups have been applying pressure upon Blackrock and Vanguard--who are the largest shareholders in both Ruger and S&W--to vote in favor of these social engineering propositions. Hey, all I have to say is where do Blackrock and Vanguard get off feeling like THEY get to express their views on these issues. It's NOT their money, it's their investors' money. Nobody gives a fûck about what the money men at those funds think about society, all the investors want is a reasonable (or higher than reasonable) rate of return on the money invested with them.

And here's the thing, it's one thing to say that a firearm is defective, and another thing entirely to say that this firearm performs exactly as designed--each and every time--expelling a projectile at high-speed from the burning of propellant as a result of a human actually pulling the trigger. The result of that firing doesn't make something defective or unsafe. It's whether or not the device functions as-designed AND doesn't function on it's own.

We do recalls on vehicles that are defective but we do NOT do recalls on vehicles merely because people are killed by being struck by a perfectly-functioning vehicle. The same is true with firearms, in that, were it in my power as CEO, I'd respond to the shareholder vote with something akin to this:

"S&W categorically state that their firearms perform as-designed and in accordance with all applicable laws. S&W distribute their products through legal channels through federally-licensed dealers. Furthermore, S&W and it's firearms cannot be held to blame when a human being opts to use a firearm improperly and/or in the commission of illegal acts. S&W weapons are safe; criminals are not."

In my opinion, the folks who invest their money with Blackrock and Vanguard need to know that their money managers are exercising social engineering choices in their name with their money without proper authority. And then elect to take your money to funds who are into it for business and not for social justice.

Click to expand...

Well said bud.

Huh?

They’re just talking changing the name of the holding company that owns/operates the S&W brand along with other outdoor products.

They’re NOT talking about killing the S&W brand.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a novel idea to eliminate this anti-American position players are taking during the anthem.
Let's start praising them. Get the media to report their actions as respect and not protest.
You kneel in respect prior to a prayer. You kneel in respect when you propose to your wife.
Lastly, I am sure we will all kneel at the feet of God when our time is over.
Let's make kneeling positive, not negative. I bet they will find some other way to act very quickly!!

As far as Smith and Wesson, maybe their products that have the S&W name will become highly collectible when production ceases.

Oh hell no