It's always been true that small shareholders have very little influence over the companies whose stock they own, so I don't think they'd be able to change Halliburton's behavior and outlook.
It's a damned shame that's true, because if ever a company needed to be reined in, it's Cheney's former outfit.
On Thursday, a government investigation panel said that Halliburton might have played an important role in the April explosion of the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico by supplying cement that the company knew was unstable to BP, which used it to seal the well.As you might expect, Halliburton says it's BP's fault; that BP should have tested the cement Halliburton supplied.
Um. Aren't you responsible for your product? Is your customer the one who has to determine whether it's up to the job it's been designed to perform?
Halliburton really needs some loudly-activist minority shareholders who'll put up alternate slates of directors at every annual meeting. In addition, their customers need to start looking for alternate providers of the products and services Halliburton sells. I can't think of any other way to get the company's attention. Fines don't seem to do it.
Posted by Linkmeister at October 29, 2010 11:36 AM | TrackBack"Former"? Isn't he still a large shareholder?
Posted by: Rob McMillin at October 29, 2010 12:52 PMDunno. But he's not an executive there anymore, and thus probably not influential in its activities.
Posted by: Linkmeister at October 29, 2010 01:13 PM