Public

being managed.”

From 10% to 20%

Was it only a coincidence that SEC Memorandum Circular No. 13, which on Nov. 28, 2017 Herbosa signed as the chairperson of the not provide for the allocation of at least a board seat for the public?

The circular increased the public float to 20 percent from 10 percent of “outstanding shares” but limited such allocations to shares that “are freely available and tradable in the mean by said provision of the minimum public ownership rule? Was she referring only to listed shares, whether common or preferred, as long as they are “freely available and tradable in

Do the quotations cover only listed shares?

If Herbosa is really serious in public, she should have said so in her circular. The problem is, she did not, apparently forget the public investors in enabling family-owned companies to get their common shares listed on the PSE.

Haven’t the public investors been solely responsible for saving so much corporate fund for the listed companies when those companies issue common shares to themselves?

A non-listed company pays 25 them to the members of their families. A listed company pays only

No SEC protection?

Public investors could never expect from company insiders who also control the board. They should not also rely on Herbosa and company for help if they ever feel aggrieved advantage owners.

In the first place, as public how they lost their pre-emptive rights over the issue of additional common shares by listed companies.

Of course, being public investors, they may even be blamed for allowing themselves to be denied of their right to buy additional shares every time such shares are issued by the listed companies they partly own. The question that remains to be of their pre-emptive rights over the additional sale of shares? Why blame the public? The answer should have come - ers, who have chosen to remain which could be radical, they – meaning the public – should and Being active does not necessarily - holders who question every management’s prerogative in charting the growth of listed companies. of by the majority

Due Diligencer’s take

The SEC’s priority should not have been to increase the minimum public ownership to 20 percent. Instead, it should have reviewed the compliance of listed companies with the present pub five- person commission could why they have not been electing their own representative to the board.

Is it because the seats that be have been given away by the majority to the so-called independent directors? If that is so, then it is abolish their selection.

After all, independent directors are independent only in name. If supposed to do in the boardroom, of ostracism, if not outright expulsion from the board.

After all, there is no such thing as independence inside the board