4 ms·

Alphabet is a publicly traded company and the officers have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for their shareholders. This normally means maximizing profits. A

Alphabet is a publicly traded company and the officers have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for their shareholders. This normally means maximizing profits. A corporate officer could make a case to shareholders that not maximizing profits in X area could have Y long term benefit, but that’s not very common these days.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Maximising shareholder value is very often not what's best for shareholders. The current popular myth that it is somehow mandatory has been coincident with a definite change for the worse. Hasn't Amazon been notable for actively avoiding profit through much of its existence? https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard-business-review-the-pernicious-nonsense-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard... https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
- anoncake 8y ago
  They reinvested their profits in themselves. That's not really avoiding profit (and I think there is a definition of profit that includes the company gaining value)
newscracker 8y ago
Of course, the officers of public companies try to do what’s best for shareholders. But here’s a different take on it by Tim Cook five years ago [1] (interpret it however you’d like): > "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader. > … > He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." [1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholders-meeting-tim-cook-tells-off-climate-change-deniers/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholder...

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Maximising shareholder value is very often not what's best for shareholders. The current popular myth that it is somehow mandatory has been coincident with a definite change for the worse. Hasn't Amazon been notable for actively avoiding profit through much of its existence? https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard-business-review-the-pernicious-nonsense-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard... https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...

anoncake 8y ago
They reinvested their profits in themselves. That's not really avoiding profit (and I think there is a definition of profit that includes the company gaining value)

newscracker 8y ago

Of course, the officers of public companies try to do what’s best for shareholders. But here’s a different take on it by Tim Cook five years ago [1] (interpret it however you’d like): > "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader. > … > He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." [1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholders-meeting-tim-cook-tells-off-climate-change-deniers/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholder...