4 ms·
If you're advocating that the hedge fund managers and pension funds accept a smaller return on investment in order to save Yahoo! engineers from layoffs -- that
by stvswn 11y ago
If you're advocating that the hedge fund managers and pension funds accept a smaller return on investment in order to save Yahoo! engineers from layoffs -- that's a breach of fiduciary duty and against the law.
- craigyk 11y agoNo. It is not against the law. I think it is only unlawful in the case where the company is actively up for sale.
- stvswn 11y agoFiduciary duty applies to all agents acting on the behalf of principals, all the time. If an agent were to honestly believe that it was in the best interests of shareholders (financially) to keep Yahoo! jobs, it would be fine for him to vote that way. If an agent were to believe that layoffs were best for shareholder value, but voted otherwise in order to fulfill another objective, that's absolutely a breach of fiduciary duty, which is a legal duty.
- ashwinaj 11y ago> If an agent were to honestly believe "Honest" or it's derivatives is the last word I would use in a sentence which includes Wall Street. Haven't Wall Street proven time and again that they are only interested in short term gains rather than a long term vision? I would be skeptical about any advice/opinion from a Wall Street firm.
- the_watcher 11y agoIncorrect. It is actually against the law.
- lawnchair_larry 11y agoNo it isn't. It's called value investing.
- stvswn 11y agoFiduciary duty is in fact a legal duty, and it requires that agents act solely in the best interests of their principals. I have no idea what value investing has to do with this concept.
- lawnchair_larry 11y agoSure, but what the parent comment suggested isn't a breach of fiduciary duty.
- stvswn 11y agoSure it is.