Is "Parent Company" a Misnomer?

[NW Mailing List]

I always understood that Pennsy held a 30% stock interest in the N&W.  Who 
owned the other 70% I have no clue.  Certainly, as others have pointed out, 
that 30% interest would have certain benefits, particularly on who sat on 
the BOD.

For those of us far removed from the inner sanctum of the Board room, for 
all intents and purposes, it appears that whatever influence PRR had upon 
N&W, at least on the surface, was minimal.  Perhaps the wisest thing PRR 
ever did was to leave the N&W folks run their own railroad; maybe, maybe 
not.

However, I must agree that the term "parent company" is a misnomer, at least 
as far as it is commonly understood.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
To: "NW Mailing List" <nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Is "Parent Company" a Misnomer?



> 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/

>

> ________________________________________

> 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/

>