These are generally referred to as "shark repellents" and can be quite effective in driving off would-be suitors by frustrating in advance their plans to improve the company. Here are some specific "repellent" suggestions: To make it difficult to change the management, put in staggered terms for the board of directors. "Selling the crown jewels" is another effective ploy. This is a way of getting rid of the good assets that caught the raider's attention in the first place. You can hope his ardor will cool and he won't want the junk that's left. You can amend the Articles of Incorporation to require a very, very high percentage of shares that must be voted in favor of any merger. Finally, and best of all, there are "golden parachutes." Nothing contributes more to enjoying the corporate life than being so positioned that your income continues no matter who wins or what kind of a job you do. As for "shark repellents," recent developments suggest that they are more popular with managements than with shareholders. Shareholders are remarkably hard to convince that their interests are best served by devices that make their company less attractive to potential buyers. In short, I know of no more certain road to executive disaster than underestimating the long-term wisdom and perspicacity of shareowners. I feel quite strongly - and seriously - about that last comment, and many of those I've made earlier. Less we misunderstand each other, let me close on a more serious note. If I've offended anyone here today by my comments, I'm sorry but I do not apologize.