by James Jack 59 Replies latest watchtower scandals
HalfBanana: I should like to ask: does anyone have any idea of what happened to the stock value of the WTBTS before the cut off date in the forties and does it still continue among the inheritors of the original stock holders ...or was it realised at that time and henceforth abolished? This does require an answer.
I have been curious about the very same thing, halfbanana.
And...what about the five women who had been named as the inheritors of Russell's stock?
"And...what about the five women who had been named as the inheritors of Russell's stock?"
According to the 1945 charter amendment, only men are to be nominated as shareholders.
I should like to ask: does anyone have any idea of what happened to the stock value of the WTBTS before the cut off date in the forties and does it still continue among the inheritors of the original stock holders...or was it realised at that time and henceforth abolished?
No, a financial gain was not realized for the voting members because the 1945 Charter was adopted almost unanimously by the 200 000+ shareholders.
The Board of Directors then could select the 300 - 500 shareholders according to the amended charter with the stipulations: "...No member shall sell, transfer or assign his vote... be conveyed by will or other instrument upon a member's death."
Just a thought; when Knorr, the pragmatic stoney faced business mind, began to preside in 1942, no doubt he had legitimate business shares in the WTBTS. Even in photos from Rutherford's time, Knorr was there with his defensive cane in hand protecting the queen bee JFR. He looked distinctly sycophantic. He wanted to inherit Rutherford's kingdom. It would appear politic or to use JW terminology,"theocratic" for him to abolish the monetary shares in the society in 1945 but would it not be in his financial and power interests to honour the original investments?
Ok, I am cynical of the intent of the WT leadership but it would be in keeping or would it not?
(me) "And...what about the five women who had been named as the inheritors of Russell's stock?"
According to the 1945 charter amendment, only men are to be nominated as shareholders.
That is right. Men only. That is why I wonder what happened to the women's shares (that had monetary value at the time they inherited them). Did the WTS just kick the women to the curb and confiscate the stock value?
He wanted to inherit Rutherford's kingdom. It would appear politic or to use JW terminology,"theocratic" for him to abolish the monetary shares in the society in 1945 but would it not be in his financial and power interests to honour the original investments?
I would agree. The directors could hand pick the nominees (voters) henceforth. Which meant that they would rubber stamp whatever the WT directors wanted. That is the norm to this very day. Being nominated is perceived as a privilege and so these voters are basically yes men to whatever the directors propose.
Saint B, I had read the same info a couple of years ago (probably supplied by Orphan Crow on another site) but there was no mention of the original shareholders and the value of those shares or the realisation of the value or the termination of the earlier shares.
To have it confirmed would at least put it to bed, otherwise a personal financial investment could so easily translate into business-first selfish rewards sought from the WTBTS. It may have been possible to obscure the status of the original shareholders with the promise of "look no more financially interested shareholding" but still leaving the original shareholders to make profits?
"Did the WTS just kick the women to the curb and confiscate the stock value?"
If the majority of shareholders of a corporation vote to dissolve their shares at zero cost and decide to give their voting rights over to a new scheme, the minority still has to abide.
This is what seemingly happened in 1945 with an overwhelming majority vote (Over 200 000+)
So it seems as if the bulk of the shareholders (men and women) were happy to give these shares back to the WTBTS directors to do with how they saw fit. Which the directors then duly did by hand picking the voting shareholders :)
"It may have been possible to obscure the status of the original shareholders with the promise of "look no more financially interested shareholding" but still leaving the original shareholders to make profits?"
Seems unlikely, the 1945 charter amendment states: "The corporation has no capital stock."
But have a gander at it, perhaps there is more to it than I can see. The devil may be in the details :)
http://www.a2z.org/wtarchive/docs/1945_Charter_of_the_Watch_Tower_Bible_and_Tract_Society.pdf
I'll will say this to our collective dismay: People like law professor James Penton has also studied the document, and he made no bones about it.
