Votermedia Finance Blog

February 27, 2010

Moxy Vote: The Video

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Mark Latham @ 3:36 pm

Here’s a fun video on how individual investors can vote smart at

February 7, 2010

Citizens United: U.S. Supreme Court decision

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Mark Latham @ 6:08 pm

Last month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case has given corporate management considerable latitude to use corporate funds in political campaigns. Many are concerned that corporate political spending often influences public policy in ways that harm the public interest. So the individual investor advocacy organization has launched a campaign to reduce the potentially harmful effects of corporate money on politics. is focusing on disclosure of political spending, and using investors’ voice to restrain management abuse of this power — details in the press release and this article.

I applaud the initiative, and would like to suggest an additional strategy. The voter funded media (VFM) system is designed to help us voters use our power in corporations (where we own shares) and democracies (where we are voting citizens) so as to serve our interests, which are generally close to the broad public interest. An important reason why corporate political spending can fool us into voting for politicians who do not serve the public interest, is that we lack well-funded media loyal to the public interest. Letting voters allocate public funds to competing media would fill this gap, thus undercutting the influence of campaigns that try to fool us.

Similarly, VFM applied to corporations would help us shareowners keep management accountable to our interests, e.g. ensuring that they do not spend our corporation’s funds on political campaigns that harm us. To see why management’s political interests diverge from ours, see pages 98-99 of “Democracy and Infomediaries” at

Thus I recommend supporting the spread of voter funded media implementations in democracies (e.g. and corporations (e.g. Proxy Advisor proposals), as well as for investor education.

December 28, 2009

On2 Shareowners Rebellion

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Mark Latham @ 4:09 pm

In the past three days I’ve received emails and comments (here, here, here & here) from shareowners of On2 Technologies – see the Yahoo Finance On2 message board, especially this post. Here is my response:

Thank you for contacting me.

Your horse has escaped, and you are chasing it through the forest. You want me to help chase your horse. I’m not good at chasing horses. I’m good at locking barn doors, and that’s what I’m doing. If I stop doing that to chase your horse instead, I won’t be much help at catching it, and meanwhile more horses will be escaping. But I do wish you success in catching your horse!


December 25, 2009

Jim McRitchie’s news now in blog form

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Mark Latham @ 4:33 pm

Good news! Jim McRitchie has just created a corporate governance blog, so you can now subscribe to his insightful news feed there. You no longer have to keep checking his news page for updates.

If you’re not using a blog reader (like Google Reader), you could instead subscribe via email using

November 27, 2009 has launched: “Let your voice be heard!”

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Mark Latham @ 8:11 pm

Capping months of anticipation, launched last week. It connects individual investors to opinion leaders on proxy voting. Jim McRitchie wrote a good article on it, but he doesn’t have a direct link so gave me permission to quote it here: launched on November 20, 2009 in Beta and has already attracted considerable attention. jumped right in with West Chester’s Moxy Vote boosts rebel shareholders on opening day. Cari Tuna did something a little more substantial with her Proxy-Voting Advocates Pool Resources on the Web (WSJ/11/23/09).

Of the systems utilizing the internet to increase retail investor participation in proxy voting by providing guidance on proxy issues from institutional investors, advocates or analysts, is the only one attempting to do so as a profit-making business, except perhaps FundVotes and The others – Investor Suffrage Movement,,,, and – are all using some sort of non-profit form.


November 6, 2009

Giving talks at Stanford & Berkeley

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — Mark Latham @ 9:11 pm

I’ve recently scheduled to give these three talks:

Nov. 16 at Stanford Law School’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance, mainly on the paper “Proxy Voting Brand Competition”, my work on the SEC Investor Advisory Committee, and ProxyDemocracy.

Nov. 17 at U C Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, mainly on the paper “Global Voter Media Platform” and

Dec. 10 at the 2009 British Columbia Pension Forum, mainly on the paper “Proxy Voting Brand Competition”, my work on the SEC Investor Advisory Committee, and ProxyDemocracy.

More info on the talks at The papers are available at

August 7, 2009

Vote to allocate investor education budget

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — Mark Latham @ 7:12 pm

I write two blogs, and their topics overlap somewhat. (The other is VoterMedia Democracy Blog.) This post is an example of that overlap.

Both blogs relate to the website, which is a political reform project that focuses on the economics of information that flows to voters, in corporations and in democracies.

I propose that voters in each community (corporation, city, country, labor union etc) vote to allocate a budget among competing information providers. These would be something like proxy advisors for corporate shareowners, and political media & think tanks for democracies. For smaller voter communities like student unions, the advisor/info role would often be filled by bloggers.

I first proposed this for corporations in 1988, and published it in 1997 (and later) — see I submitted it as a shareowner proposal many times, some of which are listed at Management of course opposed it, but I was disappointed in the lack of support from institutional investors.

So I expanded my scope to democracies, wrote some papers about how to apply the idea there, and sponsored several test implementations in the last few years, especially at the University of British Columbia’s student union and in Vancouver city politics. I explain the idea and test results in the paper Global Voter Media Platform, along with a plan for the website which we are now building. See also our FAQ page.

Thinking about the issues we are facing in the SEC Investor Advisory Committee, I found myself reacting to the problems of disclosure requirements, especially disclosure to retail investors, e.g. when buying mutual funds. It’s so hard to control the behavior of people who make money from investors. But a well-designed investor information/education system should be able to effectively empower individuals to make better investment decisions.

The economics of such an information system are similar to the economics of voter information systems. There’s a large shared public interest component of such a system, which private markets do not fulfill very well. But allocation and oversight of public funding is often inefficient and ineffective, so we end up with poor information systems. The voter funding allocation system I’ve proposed could be applied to investor education too.

So I recently added a page for that to our new website — see For now, the whole website is in public test mode. There’s no funding yet. Anyone can vote, with or without a login. So far I’ve just told a few colleagues about this new page, so the votes are too heavily weighted toward Proxy Democracy (where I’m on the board). Feel free to vote and tell others, to balance this out! (Also see example pages for Vancouver and UBC.)

« Newer Posts

Blog at