2 ms·
>> in your case was the consultancy owned by the people making these short-term profit maximizing decisions[?] >It was a publicly-listed company, so that'd be a
by njarboe 8y ago
>> in your case was the consultancy owned by the people making these short-term profit maximizing decisions[?]
>It was a publicly-listed company, so that'd be a yes.
I'm a bit confused. I stated that public companies are not often owned by the people who mange them and that is a real problem. You are asserting that all publicly-listed companies are managed by their owners. That is just wrong. I own both TSLA and AMZN and of course there are hundreds of things that need to be done to make a sustainable business. Just talking past each other at this point, I think.
- nkoren 8y agoAh, sorry, you're correct. The company was owned by people who wanted short-term profit maximising decisions (its shareholders). The people actually making the decisions also owned shares, but nowhere near a controlling interest. Anyhow, I agree with your point about companies that are controlled by founders (whether public or not). A (sufficiently pragmatic) visionary with a controlling interest can achieve things that no amount shareholder-focused governance can. Of course they can also drive a company into the ground faster than anyone -- but the heights are reserved for them.