I was torn between four different pieces in the WSJ today:
“Big Pay Day for Mylan Chairman,” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2017 B3. What does it say when the company that charges $600 for a two-pack of a delivery mechanism for $1.25 worth of epinephrine pay its chairman $100 million? Guess what that culture’s like.
“Molina Healthcare Replaces Top 2 Executives,” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2017 B3. Company removes two family members after poor financial returns (but they’ll stay on the Board). Guess charity doesn’t begin at home. Removing someone for poor performance is one thing; next they’ll remove people for violating the law, or company policy. But Thanksgiving’s going to be a bear.
“Beijing Places Curbs On Online New Portals,” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2017 B4. Managing information includes denying access to it. So much for net neutrality.
But I decided to go with “Berkshire Faces Pressure Over Political Disclosure,” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2017 B5. Vote on whether the company should disclose the amount of political contributions it makes, and to whom. Were I a shareholder, I might ask whether those expenditures were for the benefit of the company or for the benefit of incumbent management. But shouldn’t shareholders be able to ask the question and get the answer? Citizens United is fine, but disclosure to the shareholders makes sense, so they can decide whether to stay invested.
infogovnuggets 