3 ms·

>> here is no default effective fiduciary duty to do anything related to profitability, be it "maximize" or otherwise I'm not entirely sure that's 100% true. I

• eropple 10y ago
  "Interests of shareholders" does not mean the same thing as "maximizing profits." For example, a forward-thinking Comcast executive could make the argument that the goodwill from not looking like creepy spying dudes hiding in your hedges outweighs the short-term increase in revenue.
  • lawnchair_larry 10y ago
    That's exactly the same as maximizing profits.
    • eropple 10y ago
      That depends on where you're standing and what your timeframe is. Which, by itself, is enough to put the boot to the aforementioned pernicious lie: it's impossible to "maximize profit" for the shareholders, because the shareholders aren't unified in purpose.
• pjc50 10y ago
  That ruling only really prevents companies from directly giving the money away in defiance of the shareholders. It's about 'means' and 'ends'. It can't meaningfully impose any particular strategy on a company. Think about it for a second: wouldn't profitability maximising oblige all companies to hurtle into whatever new line of business was deemed most profitable at that time - today we're an ISP, tomorrow we're real estate, next week we're hoarding gold?