5 ms·

I was going to point out that you're missing (or intentionally ignoring) the very next piece in that debate series[1] linked at the bottom of your link, which t

I was going to point out that you're missing (or intentionally ignoring) the very next piece in that debate series[1] linked at the bottom of your link, which takes the view that this requirement doesn't exist. But it's not a very good-quality piece, which is presumably a function of the article format (short-form debate aimed at unsophisticated readers). The flipside of that is that I don't think your original linked piece makes much of a case at all either. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

azinman2 7y ago
“Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.” We aren’t talking about corporations, but rather publicly traded companies. As the previous article pointed out you do have an obligation to your shareholders, and that obligation is to somehow act in their best interest. Certainly the stock market price goes down if you aren’t growing. And prices going down means you’re not doing right by your shareholders. I’m happy to be wrong here (I hope it’s true) but whether law or not it seems to be an immutable force.
- manigandham 7y ago
  The stock price does not have to keep going up. Dividends and buybacks are another option based on cashflow which doesn't require growth.
  - azinman2 7y ago
    And can they remain flat without impact stock performance?