*Can somebody explain to me the difference between persons wanting a plasma screen or a house overextending themselves and losing the lot and a bank or company going bankrupt in the pursuit of ever greater returns in unsustainable ways.*

Ananasi, at some point you have to stop and ponder about what drives
corporations. Would you like a pay rise, if you do a great job
at work? It seems that most people would, which is what drives
the cycle.

The CEO and managers of companies are there to increase company
profits. A CEO who does that, can expect a pay rise, one who does
not, would soon lose his job. The CEO is a worker at the end of
the day, not an owner or supplier of capital. He does as instructed
by his board.

Who owns most large listed companies these days? Well its workers,
through their investments in superannuation. Super Funds compete
with each other, to show who is achieving the best returns. A Super
Fund which going backwards, will soon be abandoned by those with
deposits in it. Super Funds again employ managers (workers) to
oversee their investments. Those managers crack the whip and
soon remove their investments from a company which is not making
good profits. If they do well, they want a pay rise too!

So CEOs are under pressure to perform, so are Super Fund managers,
as all want a pay rise, just like you :) So everyone cracks the
whip at everyone else, in one big cycle.

Yabby

"Who owns most large listed companies these days? Well its workers, through their investments in superannuation."

Few workers have any idea which companies their super funds have invested in. How can you be said to own something if you don't know what it is you're meant to be owning?

The majority of shares in any large listed company is always owned by other large companies. The idea that workers or mum and dad investors own companies is a myth, perpetuated by those whose interests are served in maintaining the fantasy, and those stupid enough to believe them.

Bronwyn,

Thats right Bronwyn- and they bank on it.

The public dont have a clue what banks and Governments invest THEIR money in.

The know people are too busy working to sit and trace many of the investments that they go to the ends of the earth to hide.

We ALL know the control over the media by Government and Industry as well.

Tell you what however i will post a few interesting companies name where the unsuspecting decent hard working Australian citizen 'dont' know their funds go.

Greed is the cause here and let me tell you because of greed and the utter cruelty to both people and animals our world leaders have brought this on.

This is going to be far worse than anybody ever could imagaine and to make it even harder on Oz we most certainly have the wrong Government in power.

I hated Howard but I will give his old team the credit they deserve for dragging the country out of the debt labour left us

*Few workers have any idea which companies their super funds have invested in. How can you be said to own something if you don't know what it is you're meant to be owning?*

Bromwyn, the problem there is not ownership, but largely
disinterest. Many people simply read their annual return and
if their money has grown by x% that year, they are content with
that and don't ask further questions.

Fact is that the majority of workers can choose which super fund
should manage their money for them and change funds, if they are
not satisfied with the fund's investment strategy.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians in fact run their own super
funds and choose directly in which companies they invest and that
includes me. If I had my super in a public fund, I would certainly
be asking lots of questions. Most people simply can't be bothered.

A couple of links for you:

http://www.austethical.com.au/ethical_investment/ethical_company_profiles2

Those are the companies where Australian Ehtical invests its money.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.asp?news_id=456&c=13656

A link about your options which is written for people just like
you.

The fact remains that fund managers manage money, they do not own
it. That money and thus the stake in companies, is owned by
workers.

Bronwyn “The majority of shares in any large listed company is always owned by other large companies.”

Yes, the “the other large companies”, the investing companies, are insurance funds, mutual funds and superannuation funds.

Insurance funds are investing the cash deposits received as premiums, to cover future insured risks.

The mutual funds are where many ma-and-pa investors acquire unit trusts and other income enhanced (relative to cash deposit interest) returning deposits.

The superfunds are those things we are required, nowadays by law, to deposit into. Their funds are again chasing return and you can tell them what sort of return you want, high risk, low risk, medium splits etc.

“The idea that workers or mum and dad investors own companies” depends on the mum and dad and the company. Rupert Murdoch certainly owns and controls Newscorp.

Ma and Pa investors own the shares they own, just like Yabby owns his Westpac shares, which he previously mentioned, and they are entitled by ownership to receipt of dividends, to attend and vote at AGMs to sell the shares they own.

Theirs may not be a majority of the shares and they maynot work for the company in any capacity but they do own their shares.

My daughter owns shares in the company she works for, they have an employee share scheme, an excellent way for companies to motivate their staff, as well as generate loyalty.

Yabby

"Bromwyn, the problem there is not ownership, but largely disinterest."

Even if a small share holder, or a number of small share holders, was interested enough to go along and vote at a shareholders' meeting, say against a proposed merger, how is their vote going to have any influence against those of the majority ownership? I repeat, the idea of workers 'owning' companies and having a say is a total fiction.

"A link about your options which is written for people just like you."

Thanks, Yabby, your concern is touching! I wasn't talking about myself. I already have my super invested in an ethical fund. I was talking about the vast majority, who as you say are much more interested in the return their money is generating (on paper at least), than on whether or not it is funding the myriad of dirty, dangerous and dubious enterprises that most banks and super funds fail to discriminate against, And of course never draw attention to, it's in the interest of their continued spiralling profits to keep the plebs focused solely on that return margin. I'm talking big picture here, Yabby, not worrying about my own self interest.

Col

You can lay out example after example for the likes of simple minds like mine, it won't change the reality that that little bit of 'ownership' you are at pains to convince me, PALEIF and the rapidly-growing number of sceptics of, confers no power over decision making whatsoever. That little bit of 'ownership' is nothing more than a total gamble, as so many 'mum and dad' investors are about to find out the hard way, as the whole precarious deck of cards comes tumbling down, crushing them, while the manipulators at the top get away scot-free and profits intact.