Is "Parent Company" a Misnomer?

[NW Mailing List]

For widely-held companies, I think that the conventional wisdom is  
that a lot less than 30% will give practical control as long as you  
have appreciably more than anybody else.

pete groom

pete groom
On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:38 AM, NW Mailing List wrote:

--- NW Mailing List <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org> wrote:


>     Only to use this as the most recent example, in

> the reading the new "N&W Steam in Color" book, there

> are many references to the PRR as being the "Parent

> Company" of the N&W. Through the years, this seems

> to pop up any time the N&W and PRR are mentioned in

> one sentence.

>     I feel this is a much overused (abused?)

> misnomer. Where is it written that the PRR had

> anything to do with the birth of the N&W? Does the

> fact that the PRR bought some N&W stock at some

> point in time automatically qualify the PRR to ask

> "Who's your Daddy"? If this parenting stuff had

> actually been true, then why is it also mentioned

> that the PRR kept their hands off what the N&W was

> doing?

>     What do you think?

> Jimmy Lisle>

==========================
My understanding is that PRR owned at most 30% or so
of N&W stock. While with this much of N&W stock they
could wield some influence they would need to own over
50% of N&W stock to "control" N&W.

Mark Peele
Catonsville, MD



================================
N&W in N scale



________________________________________________________________________ 
____________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives  
you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
________________________________________
NW-Mailing-List at nwhs.org
To change your subscription go to
http://list.nwhs.org/mailman/options/nw-mailing-list
Browse the NW-Mailing-List archives at
http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/