-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever been to an airshow?
Telkom Shareholders list
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
ostensibly ones shareholdings are a private matter and so would be protected by the data protection act for certain - alacos? any comment?w1z4rd said:
unless a telkom mole would like to provide us with alist?
edit
another thought. i dont think the shareholders should be lobbied as "selling out" they after all are trading legitimate stock on legitimate stock exchanges. what is a possible angle is to lobby those shareholders to stand up in shareholder meetings and challenge the way Telkom exploit their position in the market. Now, where could we find a shareholder who puts ethical issues ahead of profit I wonder.......*draws blank*
DragonLogos
Expert Member
As I re-call Members of Parliament have to list all payments and stuff, be interesting to see who owns what
Vox Populi Vox Dei
High Tory
Well I did a bit of Google searching and this is what I've got (it probably isn't what you're looking for but anyway)
kilps
Expert Member
Um - very dumb question, but what heppens to the money made from the goverments shares? I was just wondering .... 
Darth Garth
Executive Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 6,207
- Reaction score
- 268
kilps said:Um - very dumb question, but what heppens to the money made from the goverments shares? I was just wondering ....
Treasury.
kilps
Expert Member
I thought so - but then why would it be so bad? Doesn't it help the goverment - except it gets some work cut out for them?
Oh well - I'll live with it
Oh well - I'll live with it
The names and address of shareholders in any JSE listed company are available from their registrars. In Telkom's case that is Computershare.
Its a legal requirement that any share holder can get a list of the share register, but it seems to have been opened up so anyone can.
But as far as I know there is a charge, something like 25c per name.
Its a legal requirement that any share holder can get a list of the share register, but it seems to have been opened up so anyone can.
But as far as I know there is a charge, something like 25c per name.
Peapod said:
I think it would be a good idea to have this list on hand. But we need to decide before hand what we want to achieve using the list as I am sure it changes regularly.
I will sacrifice buying the latest PC game towards this cause
caroper said:Why not use some of the fund to purchase shares and have a representative at each shareholder meeting. That should meet the objective and answer your question at the same time.
Well, caroper, if Telkom held valid shareholder meetings this would help.
As far as I am aware, a member of Antitrust is also a member of an association that has Telkom share(s).i agreebooswig said:
unless we have a specific strategy for lobbying shareholders, having the list is pointless. I cannot lobby all hell knows how many single handedly.
I vote for bumper stickers by the ton.
Telkom costs killing your business/budget?
Have your Say
MyADSL.co.za
Have your Say
MyADSL.co.za
There is no guarantee that Mr X will hold his shares in his name. He could easily form the XYZ Trust and you would not know it was him, unless you went to the master of the supreme court to get the trust document for every trust on the share register.
Could also be in the name of a CC, or other company.
So if they want to hide their shares they can.
Could also be in the name of a CC, or other company.
So if they want to hide their shares they can.
alacos
Legal Expert
Peapod said:
Well, Peapod, I know of at least two, viz.:
(1) Me -- I have 19 shares (which I applied for, in the South African IPO of 2003, in the thus-far-forlorn hope that they might give me a voice in Telkom's affairs which would be taken more seriously than my voice as a customer) -- and
(2) a sharholders'-rights association ("SAMSRA") of which Debbie Love is President (and which has one share!).
I also think that you might be quite surprised how many other small shareholders there probably are who fit your above description -- or, at any rate, who (for self-interested reasons if not ethical ones) are not terribly happy about the more abusive of Telscum's monopolistic practices.
After all -- and as I pointed out at a Telkom "AGM" which I attended last year -- I for one would be far better off if my shares (and expected future dividends) fell to a tiny fraction of their present value and I had a more reasonably-priced telephone service. Ethical considerations apart, there must be many Telkom shareholders in that position. (In fact, I recently read an article somewhere in the financial press which suggested -- with only a slight hint, I think, of facetiousness -- that owning some Telkom shares might be a good way of partially insuring oneself against the cost of rising Telephone bills from Telkom!)
Quite frankly, I think that the Gregg-Stirton customers-v-shareholders school of company analysis is extremely naive and simplistic. I'm not trying to knock Gregg -- in fact I regard him as something of an anti-Telscum hero -- but I do wish that he (and w1z4rd, and other active MyADSL mebers) would wake up to the fact that having a shareholding in a company is, at least potentially, a means of having an opportunity to influence the company's behaviour.
Michael Alachouzos
PS: I've put "AGM" in inverted commas above because I don't actually think that the "AGM" which I've referred to there was valid. But that's another story. [It's been mentioned/discussed elsewhere on the forum, and MaryJane obviously knows about it (see her posting #14 in this thread). If I'm right that the "AGM" wasn't valid, then that's likely to prove somewhat embarrassing for Telkom eventually, because subsidiaries of theirs bought a huge number of Telkom shares on the strength of a "special resolution" purportedly passed at it. The Hellkom site has an excerpt from a press story about this here: http://www.hellkom.co.za/info/samsra.htm)]
Last edited:
it's not really customers vs. shareholders - shareholders are important to any company and they deserve every cent they receive, although there has to be a balance struck in the situation of Telkom being a monopoly, and the shareholders should display understanding of our economic situation and disparaties brought along from the past which has millions of people now unable to afford to call someone. There should be some leeway where considerations for the poorer people of the country come into play, which is why I become angered somewhat when I chat with poor people who are afraid of making calls, but the shareholders in Telkom couldn't care less. If they did, they would look at ways of making things more affordable, perhaps even setting up low-cost call centres in poor communities etc - cut-rate phone calls only in poor areas. It would show a sense of responsibility and willingness to aid the people of SA, and it wouldn't take much effort at all.
Shareholders are good, exorbitant prices not.. obviously
Shareholders are good, exorbitant prices not.. obviously
alacos
Legal Expert
MaD said:
Hi, Gregg. You're missing the point of what I was trying to say. The point is that although the majority of Telkom shares may be held by the big guys, the majority of shareholders aren't big guys at all. In other words, there is probably a considerable overlap between the "poor people" that you're referring to and the shareholders (because a lot of the shareholders are -- compared, at any rate, to the fat cats -- poor).
Remember: there are degrees of "poverty". The destitute, of course, don't own Telkom shares. But a lot of middle-class people who are far from rich -- and who are every month mulcted in telephone charges -- do. And they are the people in the "overlap" I've just referred to.
Peadpod wanted to know, in effect, whether there might be any Telkom shareholders whom we could bring "on board" the MyADSL cause. And what I was trying to say is that there are probably plenty -- if we can find a way of identifying and targeting the people in the "overlap".
That's my point.
Michael Alachouzos
Last edited: