Roshni Nadar Quotes

No one person controls Microsoft. The board and the shareholders decide whether they want to have me as CEO.

I think there's few cases in history where the C.E.O. steps down and is also the founder and reports to someone and that works.

We had the controlling shares but we weren’t in control.

When I took over the family business, it had already been a publicly traded company for 20 years. During one of the first annual meetings I attended, one shareholder stood up and advised me and everyone in attendance that I should resign.

My role is really just to try to make sure that the voice of all shareholders and employees is heard - that no one is bullying their agenda, their choice of a CEO, or their selection of who should be the board members. Benchmark, I believe, has been pushing their agenda at the expense of those stakeholders.

Well-managed companies with independent boards have nothing to fear from activist shareholders.

We invited HP executives to participate in the management and in the board. HCL had this concept of corporate officers since inception in 1999. We had a remuneration committee. Now everyone is talking about nomination and remuneration committee. We had this from 1999.

If there is one thing worse for a manager than having an interfering owner it is uncertainty over the ownership.

You can't put your name, recognition, your money in a company without having share in the control.

Roughly speaking, I think it's accurate to say that a corporate elite of managers and owners governs the economy and the political system as well, at least in very large measure.

The great power in America is the corporations - we're a corporate country. We're run by a CEO and the stockholders have very little to say on how the corporation is run. Fine, the board of directors run it and the stockholders can just be disgruntled, but who gives a damn?

I'm the C.E.O., nominated by the shareholders. If they're not happy, I have to take the consequences.

Most shareholders have little if any control over the companies in which they own stock, even if they own a million shares.

I would expect the family would continue to play a critical role in leading Fidelity. However, the company does not necessarily have to be run day-to-day by a family member. It will be run by the person who is determined to have the right skills and chemistry.

There are certainly valid reasons for taking a company private, and it's also possible that C.E.O.s perform better when monitored by a small number of owners in a private company rather than by the dispersed and often uninterested shareholders of a public corporation.

I'd be resentful if shareholders who don't know the business tried to tell me what to do.

Banks need to have large shareholders on the board that have a direct interest in their performance.

I'm willing to have two directors on the DuPont board, me being one of them.

The real mechanism for corporate governance is the active involvement of the owners.

In a corporation, there can only be one guy in the end: the CEO.

I really believe that all CEO pay should be voted on by shareholders ahead of time. Mine was.

I want to control the company, but I don't know how life goes. We are already a big company, and the larger our capitalization is, the lower goes the threshold for control.

I think it's very important to have the stewardship of a company by a family member.

Interestingly, many Indian companies where there's a father-and-son combination are being run as joint CEO organizations because the father has not given up running the company and the son is actively involved in running the company, and there is division of responsibilities.

I think there is empirical evidence that if you look at family controlled businesses, they actually outperform in terms of results and also valuations, the broader market.