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?)
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?)
Last edited: