PETA Gets More Involved

[jay68802]

Buying shares in tracks.

http://www.horseracingnation.com/new..._boardroom_123

[classhandicapper]

In terms of trying to implement positive change, this is probably a better idea than standing outside the track or near the paddock with signs and chanting loudly enough to make everyone miserable and hate you.

We'll see if they overshoot.

Some changes could put those smaller tracks at a competitive disadvantage. When the stock they bought is down 50% or the banks are calling them up about loan covenants, we'll see how strong their resolve is. Are they willing to go bust on their investments just to close a few small tracks?

[davew]

isn't that their goal? to close the tracks?

[Maximillion]

You dont want to punish tracks just because the horses are slower.To me that makes no sense.Like everything else its better to look at things on a case-by case basis

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by davew

isn't that their goal? to close the tracks?

Please add "at a profit" to your statement.

Has a new age dawned?
Is this "virtue signaling for profit?"

[cj]

I own stock in Apple and Tesla but I don't think I have a lot of pull at either company believe it or not. It is a publicity stunt, nothing more.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by cj

I own stock in Apple and Tesla but I don't think I have a lot of pull at either company believe it or not. It is a publicity stunt, nothing more.

CJ, you likely would if you held SUBSTANTIAL stock. (Whatever that is.)

But the logical question would be, "Why are they doing it if not for control?"

My thought is to push for closure and sell the property, resulting in profit. Thus, two goals are met.

[horsefan2019]

PETA doesn't want humans to have any interaction with animals. They are the epitome of a fringe group.

[classhandicapper]

“PETA is eager to get inside the boardroom and push racetracks to make simple changes that will make a world of difference for vulnerable horses.”

I assumed since they suggested they want to talk to the board they are planning on taking significant positions eventually. If they are just buying small positions maybe they can get a vote on a proxy or something like that at the annual meeting but they are unlikely to have any impact.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by davew

isn't that their goal? to close the tracks?

Traditionally, when investors take a large enough position in a company to become an activist shareholder they think they can make changes that will IMPROVE the company and lead to a much higher stock price.

You have to be pretty dedicated to your cause to make changes that could damage the company and cause you to lose some or all of your investment. I was questioning their willingness to follow through and commit financial suicide. But maybe that have very small stakes and are just going to disrupt the annual shareholder meetings and accomplish little. Or maybe Dave is right that they want to close the tracks, sell the land, and win both ways. I hadn't thought of that and don't know the financials of the companies.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

CJ, you likely would if you held SUBSTANTIAL stock. (Whatever that is.)

But the logical question would be, "Why are they doing it if not for control?"

My thought is to push for closure and sell the property, resulting in profit. Thus, two goals are met.

I'd be shocked if PETA actually bought enough stock to make any kind of impact, similar to my "involvement" with Apple.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

But maybe that have very small stakes and are just going to disrupt the annual shareholder meetings and accomplish little.

^^^^^^^^^^
THIS right here

[MooseDog]

Exactly. One share gets you stockholder rights. They probably bought one share in each of those companies when someone figured out they could do that on Robinhood, then be able to attend in person or virtual annual meetings and make a stink (with media present, of course).

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I assumed since they suggested they want to talk to the board they are planning on taking significant positions eventually. If they are just buying small positions maybe they can get a vote on a proxy or something like that at the annual meeting but they are unlikely to have any impact.

Classic & CJ,

Yes, this would make more sense.

They are disrupters at heart.

[MooseDog]

PETA does not have the resources to take "significant" positions in any of these companies to where they'd have any say in the management of the companies. No way, not even close.

Like everything else they do, it's just for publicity. They probably bought one share in each just so they could put out the press release with some "factual" basis.