Lapas attēli


[ocr errors]

requests regarding voting rights down to 1 percent. late the nominees to institutions. An excerpt from the (Common carriers, however, need report only the 30 Comptroller General's April 10, 1973 letter (the correlargest "holdings" of each class of stock to the FCC, with spondence with him appears in Appendix A, page 197) no reference to individual voting powers.)

describes the findings of the General Accounting Orice The Federal Power Commission asks for the 10 security on this point: holders “with highest voting powers

* * in order of

We examined a limited number of reports and voting powers." FPC requests, as several of the other

applications requiring ownership information. It commissions do, reporting of known particulars of trust

appeared that for large regulated companies the agreements, including identification of beneficial owners

names of nominees are often shown in lieu of the of securities held in trust by reported stockholders.

names of stock owners. The presence of nominees IDENTIFICATION OF SECURITY HOLDERS

in the ownership data was confirmed by officials

of each of the agencies who told us that the The Interstate Commerce Commission asks for identi- companies were not in a position to know who fication of the security holders with the “highest voting

the stock owners were. The officials stated that powers”—the top five in the case of railroad lessors, the the companies could only report the names of the top 10 in motor carriers and the top 30 in railroads.

stockholders of record, which includes nominees. The Civil Aeronautics Board requires air carriers to Using the Nominee List, published by the report the names of stockholders holding more than 5

American Society of Corporate Secretaries, we percent of the capital stock, and the person for whose were able to identify the person or organization account such stock is held, if other than the holder. In the nominees represented. For example, the 1972 addition, the CAB now requires reports from these large

annual report submitted to the Interstate Comstockholders, requiring disclosure as to who possesses or

merce Commission by one of the country's largest exercises the right to vote, sell, prevent sale or otherwise

railroads included 24 nominees among the list of dispose of the reported stock. This CAB surveillance of the 30 largest stockholders. The 24 nominees large stockholders includes the requirement that banks

represented two insurance companies and 12 and brokers holding more than 5 percent of any class of

banks. the capital stock file quarterly reports with the Board. For illustrative purposes, the 1973 report to the ICC of Despite agencies' requests for identification of those

the company referred to by the Comptroller General apsecurity holders with highest voting powers, the com

pears on the following page. (The company also filed the panies frequently report nominees" or "street names"

report with the SEC.) which represent the stock held by institutions which frequently are not named in the reports.

(Vol. 117, No. 98- Part II). Subsequently the Society decided to A single institutional investor may use a dozen or more sell the Nominee List, which

is updated and issued early

each year, different "street" names. Although some agencies tell com

for $20. The Society's address is 1 Rockefeller Plaza, New York,

N. Y. 10020. panies to list security holders "in order of voting power, holdings of the same institutional investor frequently are

5 The ownership reports filed with the ICC by railroads which have

become subsidiaries of conglomerate holding companies are even less not consolidated in reports to the Federal regulatory com- informative than the example used here. Each subsidiary railroad missions. The commissions nevertheless accept the uncon- simply lists the name of its parent company. solidated, unresponsive and misleading data, and place it Conglomerates have practically taken over the railroad industry in their public files.

in the short span of 11 years. In 1962 two major railroads were acquired by parent holding companies. By June 15, 1973, 16 major

railroads, which account for approximately two-thirds of the total THE NOMINEE LIST

industry revenues and ton-miles, were controlled by conglomerate

holding companies. Only through use of the Nominee List, published by the On August 9, 1973 the Interstate Commerce Commission advised American Society of Corporate Secretaries,“ can one trans- Congress of questionable and improper practices of the railroad

conglomerates. The ICC requested legislation which, among other • Some years ago the FPC's request to obtain voting right infor- things, would require reports to the ICC by any persons having mation on more than 10 security holders was denied by the Budget legal or beneficial ownership, as trustee or otherwise, of more than Bureau, on the advise of one of its business advisory committees 1 percent of the stock of major railroads. on Federal reports.

The ICC's report and recommended legislation (S. 2460) appears • A government regulatory agency official, a newspaper editor and in the Sept. 20, 1973, Congressional Record, pp. 17102–17107. ICC an attorney reported in 1971 that the American Society of Corporate Chairman George M. Stafford's September, 1973 correspondence Secretaries refused to sell them a copy of the Nominee List. The 1971 with Chairman Metcalf; and the ICC's accompanying report, appear edition was printed in the Congressional Record on June 24, 1971 in Appendix A, at p. 232.


29-553 0.74 - 2

Top 30 Security Holders in the Burlington Northern
As Roported by BN in 1973 to the Intors tato Commerce Commission.

109. VOTING POWERS AND ELECTIONS 1. State the par value of each share of stock: Common, s. NPV. per share; 6:st preferred, s. 10.,09bor share; second preferred, sNong.. per sbare; dabantur stock, S.Nong per share.

Voting rights on com 2. State whether or not cach share of stock has the right to one vote; il do:, give full particulars in a looloole

stock only....... & Are voting rights proportional to holdings? ... Yes. Il not, state in a footnote the relation between holdings and corresponding voting righto.

4. Are roling rights attached to any sccurities other than stock? ...No. If so, Dame in a lootnoto cacis security, olber lan stock, to which voting rights are attached (as of the close of the year), and state in detail the relation between boldings and correspooding voting rigble, stating whether soting rights are actual or contingent, and is contingcot showing the contingcocy.

3. Has any class or issue of securitics any special privileges in the clcction of director, trustees, or manager, or in the determination of corporate action by any methods.Common...858f} If so, describe fully in a footnote each euch class or impue and give a succinct statement abowing clearly the character and extent of such privileges.

6. Give the date of the latest closing of the stock book prior to the actual Gling of this report, and state the purpose of web closing January 12.. 1973 (Record date of common dividend p.syable Lebruary. 9....1973.)..

7. State the total voting power of all security holders of the respondeot at the date of such closing, it within one year of the date of such bling; if not, state as of the clove of the year.

12,438, 421

votes, as of ... January 12, 1973 & State obor total incluir of stockholders of rorurd, as of the Inte shown in answer to inquiry No. 7. 53.389. ..... stockholders

9. Give the names of the thirty security bubeless of the respondent who, at the date of the latrst closing of the stock book or conipilation of list of stock holders of the respondent (il within 1 year prior w the actual filing of this report), had the highest voting powers in the respondent, khowing for each his address, the number of volce which he would have had a right to cast on that date had a meeting then locco in order, and the clasification of the number of votes to which he was entitled, with respect to securitics held by him, such securities being classificd as conmmon stock, second preferred stock, first preferred stock, and other securitics, blating in a footnote the names of such other securities (if anyl. If any such holder held in trust, give (in a loot notc) the particulars of the trust. In the city of voting trust agreements give, as supplementiel : jorination on page 13, the names and addresses of the thirty Inrpris! 1:olders of the voting irunt artificales and the aniount of their individual holdings. If the slock book was not closed or the list of stockholders compiled within such year, show such thirly scrurily holders as of the class of the your.


[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]





[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]




Cudd & Co.

New York, N. Y.

683 858 683 858 New York, N...Y.

657 270 657 270 Fenner SALTRET

New York... N....Y.

342 607...342.607.. Ba rk & Co.

Boston, Mass..

3.0.0...000...300.000... Sigler & Co.

New York. N...X.. 248.87.5...248.8.75. Hemiar & Co.

New York, N. X.

223 950...223.950.. Pitt & Co.

New York, N. Y.

200 000 200 000 Touchstone & Co.

Boston, Mass

185 200.. 185 200 Douglass & Co.

New York, N. Ya

150 000...150 000.. Sabat Co.

New York, NY..

124.700...124.700... Hunt Foods & Industries Inc New York. N...X..

122.200...122..200.. Lehcor & Co.

New York, N..Y

210 000...210. QQQ... salkeld & Co.

New York...Ne..X.

107. 169.). 107 169 New York, N. Y.

100 000 1 Eguit LirAssur:Society

100 000 Petuftigebber, jackson &

New York, N. Y..

90 896 90 896 Pace & Co.

Pittsburgh, Pa..

80 100 80 100 Norton Şimon Inc.

Los Angeles...Cal. .7.8..600. .78.600. Ince & Co

New York, N. Y..

78 460 78 460 Mufun & Co.

New York, N. Y.

76 300 76 300 Lages & Co.

Jersey City, N, J.. 75 000 75 000 Congen One & Co.

Hartford, Conn.

75 000 75 000 Stephens Inc

Little Rock, Ark

69 975 69 975 Emseg & Co.

Minneapolis, Minn, 63 360 63 360 Pendiv & Co.

New York, N. Y..

61 000 61 000 Cross & Co.

Philadelphia, Pa. 57 308 57 308 Barnett & Co.

New York, N... Ya.

51 100 51.100 Monvan & Co.

Vancouver, B. Ce

50 800 50 800 Wilkin & Co.

St. Paul, Minn.

50 000 50 000 Julia & Co.

Log Angeles. Çal. 49 600. 49 600. Anderson & Co.

Philadelphia...Pa. 47...482. 47. 482 10. State the total number of votes cast at the latest general meeting for the election of directors of the respondent.10,671,887 votes cuas. 11. Crve the date of such inceting. May 11, 1972

12. Give the place of such inecting Saint Paul, Minnesota Note: · Code & Co., the nominee for the Stock Clearing Corporation, acting for members of the

New York Stock Exchange, held as of record January 12, 1973, 803, 604 shares. Shares
held by Cede & co, have been included in above listing to the extent applicable.



[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]




10. The holdings of Equitable Life Assurance Society,

an insurance company, were reported in that
company's name.


11. The holdings of Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis,

a brokerage house, were reported in that comStaff analysis of the preceding ownership report reveals

pany's name.

90, 896 that holdings are concentrated in banks that are not even

12. Pace & Co. is a nominee for Mellon National Bank

and Trust, hich was not mentioned mentioned in the company's report to Federal regulators.


80, 100 Furthermore, aggregation of stock reported in the name 13. Congen One & Co. is a nominee for Connecticut of multiple nominees for individual banks or other in

General Life Insurance Co. It was not mentioned vestors reduces the number of top stockholders reported

in the report. But the nominee name in this case,

"Congen,” offers a clue as to the identity of the from 30, as required by the ICC, to 20.


75, 000 For example, six of the “top 30" holders of voting stock 14. Lages & Co. is a nominee for the First Jersey Nareported by the company (the Burlington Northern) are

tional Bank, which was not mentioned in the nominees for Bankers Trust Company, which was not


75, 000 mentioned in the Burlington Northern's ownership report.

15. The holdings of Stephens, Inc., an underwriting

and holding company whose president, Justin T. Those nominees and the number of shares reported in

Stephens, was elected to the BN's board of ditheir name by the BN are as follows:

rectors this year, were reported in the name of the

69, 975 Hemfar & Co...

16. Emseg & Co. is a nominee for Northwestern Na

223, 950 Pitt & Co..

tional Bank of Minneapolis, which was not men

200, 000 Lehcor & Co.

tioned in the report (BN president Robert W.

110,000 Salkeld & Co..

Downing is a director of Northwestern National

107, 169 Pendiv & Co.


63, 360 61, 000 Barnett & Co.

17. Cross & Co. is a nominee for the First Pennsyl. 51, 000

vania Banking and Trust Co., which was not 1. Thus, Bankers Trust Company's aggregated hold

mentioned in the report..

57, 308 ings---

18. Monvan & Co. is a nominee for Montreal Trust

753, 219 2. Cudd & Co. is a nominee for Chase Manhattan

Company, which was not mentioned in the re-
Bank, which was not mentioned in the report.. 683, 858


50, 800 3. Lerche & Co. is a nominee for the Bank of New

19. Wilkin & Co. is a nominee for the St. Paul ComYork, which was not mentioned in the report.. 657, 270

panies, Inc., a conglomerate ingurance and

financial company whose president and board 4. Thrte of the reported “top 30” holders of voting

chairman, Ronald M. Hubbs, is a member of the
stock are nominees for State Street Bank and

BN's board of directors. St. Paul Companies Inc.
Trust Co. (Boston) which was not mentioned in

was not mentioned in the report...

50, 000

20. Anderson & Co. is & nominee for the Fidelity
the report. Those nominees, and the number of
shares reported in their names:

Bank (Philadelphia) which was not mentioned in
Bark & Co...

the report....

47, 482 300, 000 Touchstone & Co..

185, 200 In summary, 11 of the Burlington Northern's "30 Mufun & Co.

76, 300 security holders *** (with) the highest voting powers” Thus, State Street Bank and Trust's aggre

were nominees for four banks--Bankers Trust, Chase gated holdings...

561, 500 Manhattan, the Bank of New York and State Street 5. The holdings of a brokerage house, Merrill Lynch,

Bank and Trust-none of which were mentioned in the Pierce, Fenner & Smith, were reported in that company's name.

company's ownership report filed this year with the ICC

342, 607 6. The BN reported 78,600 shares held by Norton

and also filed with the SEC. The holdings of those four Simon Inc., a holding company. Two other re

banks totalled 2,655,847 voting shares of common stock, ported holdings represent the interests of Nor

or approximately 25 percent of the 10,671,887 shares ton Simon, a director of the BN. One is Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of

voted at the annual meeting of the company last year. Norton Simon, Inc., with 122,200 shares. The

The total holdings of all the unnamed banks among the other is Julia & Co., a nominee for Foundation

BN's reported “top 30” security holders amounted to Funds of Norton Simon, with 49,600 shares.

3,641,932 shares, almost four times as much as those of Thus, Norton Simon interests, aggregated._-250, 400 the other investors, most of which were identified, among 7. Sigler & Co. is a nominee for Manufacturers Hanover Trust, which was not mentioned in

the “top 30”. the report.--

248, 875

USE OF MULTIPLE NOMINEES 8. Two of the reported top holders of voting stock

The example upon which we have elaborated is by no are nominees for Morgan Guaranty Trust, which

means uncommon. The holdings of institutional investors, is not mentioned in the report and whose

especially banks, are often hidden from view of regulators former board chairman, John M. Meyer, Jr., is

and the public through use of multiple nominees—"Hema director of both the Morgan bank and the BN. (Morgan Guaranty Trust is also the stock transfer

far & Co.”, “Lerche & Co.”, “Kane & Co.”, “Bark & Co.", agent for the BN). Those nominees and the

“Pace & Co.” and many more. In response to the Federal number of shares reported in their names:

regulators' request for the addresses of these "security Douglass & Co...

150, 000 holders" the companies report simply “New York, Ince & Co..

78, 460 Thus, Morgan Guaranty Trust's aggregated

N.Y.", "Boston, Mass." or "Pittsburgh, Pa.", occasionally holdings

228, 460 adding a post office box number. These nominee names are 9. Sabat & Co. is a nominee for Savings Banks Trust

not in the city directory. They are not in the telephone Co. (New York), which was not mentioned in the

book. Letters to some nominees whose post office box is report.--

124, 700

listed have not been answered. 1 According to the Nov. 9, 1973 Wall Street Journal, Mr. Simon The consequence of this continuing use of nominees in recently sold a large part of his holdings in the BN, He criticized ownership reports to Federal regulators is a massive railroad conglomerates generally for spending undue time on nonrailroad enterprises, and for excluding women and younger men

coverup of the extent to which holdings of stock have from the boards of directors, which he found dominated by banks

become concentrated in the hands of very few institutional and trust companies.

investors, especially banks. 91-011–73

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

page 239.



The stock reported in the nominee name "Cede & Co.

has not been translated because it is in a different category. Part I of this report is an analysis of the responses A few words of explanation and caution about Cede & Co. received from 324 of the Nation's largest companies in are in order. response to a request last year for identification of their Cede (pronounced "seedy") & Co. is technically a 30 top stockholders, the amount of common stock each nominee for a nominee. It was created in 1966 and became held, and the total number of voting shares of common fully operational in 1969 as the nominee for the Stock stock. The letters to the chief executive officer of each Clearing Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the company stated that if the company records did not New York Stock Exchange, which furnished stock clearing conveniently identify the actual owner of the stock the service to member brokerage firms. Listings under Cede & street name (nomince) would suffice.

Co. formerly represented deposits in the Exchange's Eighty-nine of the 324 companies responded fully to

Central Certificate Service. In May 1973 the business of the query. Partial information was supplied by 74.

CCS was transferred to a new Exchange subsidiary, the Subsidiary. companies responded in 20 instances. Eighty- Depository Trust Company, for which Cede & Co. is three replied without submitting relevant data and 58 now the nominee. did not reply. All responses appear in Appendis B,

Cede & Co., as record holder of securities of New York

issuers, is entitled to vote stock, but does so only on The comprehensive industry-by-industry analysis of instructions of the Depository Trust member to whose these replies was prepared by Julius W. Allen, senior

account such securities are credited. (Recent correspondspecialist in business economics at the Congressional

ence regarding Cede & Co. and Depository Trust appears Research Service, Library of Congress, with the assistance in Appendix C, page 335.) of Miss Eugénie Dieringer.


Inconsistencies in reporting of Cede & Co. holdings are

described by Mr. Allen on page 131. In his Table 3 (p. 22), The 89 companies which fully responded to the query he identifies the 36 cooperating companies in which Cede deserve commendation. Their willingness to cooperate & Co. was reported as the largest stockholder, holding as contrasts sharply with the unresponsiveness of most of much as 39 percent of an individual company's stock, and the other companies. The most unresponsive companies often reported as holding between 10 and 20 percent of were generally those subject to minimal public disclosure a company's voting stock. requirements--banks, retail companies, industrial and The Burlington Northern's previously discussed list insurance companies and miscellaneous transportation of “30 top security holders” filed with the ICC this companies. Policy considerations alone do not appear to year (p. 4), provides an example of obscure reporting justify this inattention. For instance, banks not only involving Cede & Co. It is not listed among the BN's manage huge blocks of stock as trustees. They also provide top security holders. However, the footnote at the bottom large amounts of capital in the form of loans to the same of the report states that as of January 12, 1973, Cede companies (which make conflicts of interest a definito & Co. held 803,604 shares. That is even more than Bankers possibility). They have their own officers sitting on the Trust held in its six nominee accounts. The footnote portfolio companies' boards of directors (which makes it goes on to say that "shares held by Cede & Co. have difficult to avoid self-dealing on the basis of inside in- been included in above listing (of 30 top security holders) formation). Thus policy considerations would seem to cut to the extent applicable.” 'There is no indication as to the opposite way. It is fair to infer that nondisclosure is which of the “top 30” accounts shares held by Cede & more the consequence of governmental apathy than

of governmental apathy than Co. should be applied. corporate necessity.

It is important to note that not all of the stockholdings Concentration in New York Bank Trust Departments analyzed in Part I necessarily carry voting rights. Banks The concentration of stockholdings in a whole range of may have sole, partial or no voting rights in stock they companies-energy, manufacturing, transportation, comhold. (An analysis of new data dealing with stock in which munications and retail trade---among a handful of New banks and other institutional investors hold sole voting York bank trust departments is portrayed in Mr. Allen's rights appears in Part II. New data on holdings in which Table 4 (p. 24). It lists the holders of 2 percent or more of banks hold sole or partial voting rights appear in Part III.) the voting stock in three or more of the 89 cooperating

Using the Nominee List, Mr. Allen and associates on our companies. Following Cede & Co. which was the holder staffs translated nominees into the actual institutional of record of 2 percent or more of the stock in 55 of the 89 investors. They found that frequently the “30 top stock- companies, were the trust departments of four New York holders” were but 20 or so, because holdings of the same banks. institutional investor were listed separately in two, three Chase Manhattan held 2 percent or more of the stock or more accounts. Nominees used by the various investors in more than half (46) of the companies. are included in the tabulations within Mr. Allen's report. Morgan Guaranty and First National City Bank held

2 percent or more of the stock in almost one-third (29 and The letter from Senator Metcalf and Senator Muskie requesting

28) of the companies. the assistance of the Congressional Research Service in the prepara

Bankers Trust held 2 percent or more of the stock in tion of this report appears on p. IV.

almost one-fourth (21) of the companies. 7 The 1968 Patman Committee study of 13,598 employee benefit Ranking slightly below Bankers Trust were the New accounts managed by 43 banks showed that the banks had sole voting rights in all stock investments in 81.5 percent (11,087) of Smith, with 2 percent or more of the stock in 19 reporting

York brokerage house, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & the accounts. (House Banking and Currency Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, Commercial Banks and Their Trust Activities: companies, the Bank of New York in 17 companies and Emerging Influence on the American Economy, Vol. 1, p. 510.) State Street Bank of Boston in 16 companies.

[ocr errors]

Table No. 5 (p. 24) shows the holdings of the above regarding the number of institutional investors (often eight institutions in the 89 cooperating companies. These very few) which held sole voting rights to substantial are the institutions which held 2 percent or more of the percentages of outstanding stock in some 800 companies stock in 10 or more of the 89 reporting companies, arranged included in the sample. by industry groups. Thus, for example, Chase Manhattan's However, the IIS report did not indicate the extent of trust department held between 9 and 6.9 percent of the the sole voting authority of single institutional investors stock in each of four airlines, between 8.3 and 5.3 percent in the stock of all the companies, or those within various of the stock in each of six railroads, and more than 5 industrial classifications. percent of the stock in each of five industrials, in addition That information would have been an invaluable addito lesser amounts of stock in other companies in each of tion to the report. It would have shown the voting potenthe categories. Table 5 also shows that the above eight tial of individual institutional investors across the whole institutions together held 20 percent or more of the stock range of the economy encompassed by the 800 named in a number of companies.

companies in the sample. And it would have shown the

extent to which a few institutional investors have subThe Top of the Pyramid

stantial voting rights--and therefore influence or potential Were this report presented in geometric terms and

influence-among companies competing within an industry were full data on bank ownership available the top of group. the pyramid might well be the final page of Table 5, which

ANALYSIS OF UNPUBLISHED DATA shows the holdings of the eight above institutions in banks. As noted previously, the response from banks to the query studies could have been based. Last year, William J.

The SEC had collected the data upon which these regarding 30 top stockholders was poor; only nine of the Casey, then Chairman of the SEC, agreed to our request 50 queried responded fully. The nine cooperating banks include two which are also among the eight major in

to provide the data. The analysis of that heretofore unstitutional investors mentioned above. First National published data, by Professor Robert M. Soldofsky, a conCity Bank reported that Chase Manhattan's trust depart and Expenditures, is found in Part II of this report and

sultant to the Subcommittee on Budgeting, Management, ment held 2.7 percent and Morgan Guaranty's trust department held 2 percent of First National City Bank's Appendix D, page 345. stock. Bankers Trust reported that Chase Manhattan held

The Allen study in Part I, based on 1971 and 1972 data 2.4 percent, and State Street of Boston 2.1 percent of and supplied voluntarily by the companies, deals with Bankers Trust's stock.

stock holdings, not all of them necessarily carrying voting

rights. The Soldofsky study in Part II, based on 1969 data, BANK NOMINEES DOMINATE HOLDINGS

deals with the narrower matter of solo voting rights, ex

cluding partial voting rights sometimes vested in bank Data from banks which submitted partial responses trust departments. show that bank nominees dominate the holdings of the 30 top security holders in banks. More than one-fourth of Bank Voting Power Increasing the stock in Wells Fargo was reported held by 21 unidentified bank nominees. The 30 top security holders in

Professor Soldofsky finds the bank trust departments J. P. Morgan, holding more than one-fourth of the stock preeminent among the institutional investors, growing in that bank, included 22 unidentified bank nominees rapidly and attaining significant voting power within Fifteen percent of the stock in Chase Manhattan was

other institutional investors (insurance companies). reported held by 22 unidentified bank nominees. The Most importantly, his summary data in Appendix reported bank holdings, in most instances, were several Table 2 show the extent to which 4 years ago various times greater than the combined holdings of other in- combinations of big bank trust departments had attained stitutional and individual investors among the top significant percentages of sole voting rights within a broad security holders.

range of companies within the same industrial classificaA wealth of current (1971 or 1972) data not heretofore tions-airlines, drugs, electrical equipment, insurance, available publicly follows in Mr. Allen's report. His machinery, food, chemicals, aerospace, building conglomwell-grounded general observations and conclusions begin erates and finance itself. Professor Soldofsky emphasizes on page 129.

this point after citing sources of data on holdings of other PART II

institutional investors: SOLE VOTING RIGHTS

The only financial institutions not providing

complete information routinely about the comWhile banks are generally not permitted to invest in mon stocks that they hold are the trust departcommon stocks for their own account, they have become ments of the commercial banks. major holders of common stocks as trustees or in other fiduciary capacities and, most importantly, in their role

PART III as trustees of corporate pension funds. While banks do not own the beneficial interest in these securities which they

BANK VOTING RIGHTS IN BROADCAST COMPANIES hold in these capacities, they often have the power to exercise voting rights either solely at their own discretion panies provided by the IIS report too inadequate to

Professor Soldofsky found the data on broadcast comor with the concurrence of others. The Institutional Investor Study report of the Securities (sole and partial)' of named banks, in named broadcast

analyze. However, current (1972) data on voting rights and Exchange Commission concluded that institutions companies, was supplied to us by the Federal Communihave the potential economic power to influence many cations Commission. The data supplied by Chairman companies, particularly large companies, because of their Dean Burch, with accompanying analysis by the Constock holdings. The Ils report included, in Part 5, data gressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, • House Document No. 92–64, Eight Parts.

appear in Part III.


« iepriekšējāTurpināt »