3 ms·

> Letting China browbeat businesses into submission for the privilege of operating in that market isn't a good thing I don't think "letting" is a very accurate

> Letting China browbeat businesses into submission for the privilege of operating in that market isn't a good thing I don't think "letting" is a very accurate word in this case — Marriott could pull out of China (likely at a loss) but the company doesn't want to because it would be financially stupid. In fact, as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests.

michaelmrose 9y ago
"as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests" The reality: You can't take shareholder money out on the front lawn and set it on fire What the internet thinks: Company not only can do insert shitty thing here but MUST do insert shitty thing here because they have a fiduciary duty. The problem is that the internet perception of reality is semi fictional. They damn well could have simply stated that they as a company don't take a personal position on Tibet but wont be bullied and faced near zero chance of successful lawsuit even if investors took a short term bath due to business in china. To refute this simply provide examples of investors who successfully sued because of decisions they didn't agree with an explain how this situation is similar.
- wcunning 9y ago
  The recourses available in court are few and far between against officers of the company as a shareholder. That's not how this gets resolved or what the officers are concerned with. The shareholder power is to vote in a different board of directors that will do what you as a shareholder want done -- virtue signaling against China included. The best example of that, and the amount of power it actually takes is probably Carl Icahn.
acct1771 9y ago
> In fact, as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests. Mandated by what law? What if Marriott determines that long-term goodwill in their brand is what's in their shareholders' best financial interests?

michaelmrose 9y ago

"as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests" The reality: You can't take shareholder money out on the front lawn and set it on fire What the internet thinks: Company not only can do insert shitty thing here but MUST do insert shitty thing here because they have a fiduciary duty. The problem is that the internet perception of reality is semi fictional. They damn well could have simply stated that they as a company don't take a personal position on Tibet but wont be bullied and faced near zero chance of successful lawsuit even if investors took a short term bath due to business in china. To refute this simply provide examples of investors who successfully sued because of decisions they didn't agree with an explain how this situation is similar.

wcunning 9y ago
The recourses available in court are few and far between against officers of the company as a shareholder. That's not how this gets resolved or what the officers are concerned with. The shareholder power is to vote in a different board of directors that will do what you as a shareholder want done -- virtue signaling against China included. The best example of that, and the amount of power it actually takes is probably Carl Icahn.

acct1771 9y ago

> In fact, as a public company Marriott is mandated to act in its shareholders' best financial interests. Mandated by what law? What if Marriott determines that long-term goodwill in their brand is what's in their shareholders' best financial interests?