6 ms·

All the revelations regarding Boeing are pretty damning. Though it seems they are too big to fail with defence contracts, huge market share and thousands of pla

All the revelations regarding Boeing are pretty damning. Though it seems they are too big to fail with defence contracts, huge market share and thousands of planes already in service, that will need continued maintenance. It is a worldwide duopoly, just Boeing and Airbus. So where too from here? I can't see the USA ever jailing executives - but potentially they could ramp up the fines? In my opinion we need Europe and other countries to begin heavily fining companies skirting their responsibilities, because what we are doing at the moment is obviously not working.

SubiculumCode 7y ago
Or they can jail executives.
perl4ever 7y ago
"In my opinion we need Europe and other countries to begin heavily fining companies skirting their responsibilities" Well, the cliche when stuff like this happens is that the company diverted too much money to stock buybacks, dividends, and so on, leaving their actual business operations starved for resources. So, sounds reasonable, but how then does diverting more money to more external entities cause them to do better? I'm not arguing against it, I just don't understand what the rationale is. I think it's unwise to try to punish an abstract entity without thinking carefully about how it will affect the actual people involved.
- mulmen 7y ago
  You don’t think there is a difference between a stock buyback and a fine?
  - salawat 7y ago
    A stock buyback decreases external liability. It may decrease liquidity for the company, but the asset tied up in that Stock is still retained, and remaining stocks increawe in share value accordingly. This can increase liquidity in the long run, by stimulating demand whilst supply dwindles. It all depends on the Market. The fine, to my understanding, extracts liquidity whilst also leaving all existing liabilities intact. It "sets the company back'. As it were. At least, that's how it works to my meager understanding. If that isn't, could you go into detail about what really happens?
    - mulmen 7y ago
      That is my understanding as well. The GP suggested that fines would be ineffective because resources were “spent” on stock buybacks. I asked for clarification of the GP’s understanding of the difference between buybacks and fines.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        I do not care to argue the consequences of stock buybacks, because I was just referring to a commonly held opinion, not endorsing it. If you want to dispute how it works, could you please not frame it as a vague argument with me.
        salawat 7y ago
        Wasn't framing it in an argumentative manner. What was written seemed to be phrased in a way that indicated the author had an expectation of the existence of a shared context, not in need of articulation. I offered an articulation of what I've come across through research to be the eventual outcome of a stock buyback, and how it differs from a fine, along with some encouragement to share what knowledge you may have that contradicts it. It's not the first time I missed the bus on some common understanding after all, and I don't mind learning something new.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I mean, pretty much everything that you can compare is similar in some respects and different in others. Of course I don't think there is no difference between a stock buyback and a fine; that would be stupid.
dheera 7y ago
We also need to think of ways to invert the incentives. Right now, most of these are public companies, who are incentivized to hide details because (mostly idiotic) shareholders do bad things to the stock price when they reveal any kind of technical issues. If I were a shareholder, I'd actually bid up a stock if they were forthcoming and honest, because I value transparency, scientific rigor, and admitting fault where it is due. I would inherently consider such a company to be more valuable in the long term. Unfortunately 99.99% of investors would do the exact opposite and short the stock; their actions are the exact opposite of an honesty-valuing system.
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  If you're right, you've made a fortune buying cheap stock of more valuable companies.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  The problem is that we all are stockholders, pensions and other complicated instruments tied to these public companies.
- zapita 7y ago
  You may find LTSE.com interesting. It stands for “Long Term Stock Exchange”. It is an ongoing attempt to create a new stock exchange, with rules meant to discourage short-term minded investors.
kortilla 7y ago
>I can't see the USA ever jailing executives Enron?
- sekh60 7y ago
  Politically speaking that was very long ago. I doubt any of the recent U.S. administration's would have jailed Enron execs.
- philjohn 7y ago
  They ripped off rich people ... no evidence Boeing has done that. I realise this is a pretty low-effort comment, however, there is an alarming lack of accountability both in the US and the UK when lives are lost, but not when wealthy, connected, people have had their money lost. See also the Grenfell Tower.

SubiculumCode 7y ago

Or they can jail executives.

perl4ever 7y ago

"In my opinion we need Europe and other countries to begin heavily fining companies skirting their responsibilities" Well, the cliche when stuff like this happens is that the company diverted too much money to stock buybacks, dividends, and so on, leaving their actual business operations starved for resources. So, sounds reasonable, but how then does diverting more money to more external entities cause them to do better? I'm not arguing against it, I just don't understand what the rationale is. I think it's unwise to try to punish an abstract entity without thinking carefully about how it will affect the actual people involved.

mulmen 7y ago
You don’t think there is a difference between a stock buyback and a fine?
- salawat 7y ago
  A stock buyback decreases external liability. It may decrease liquidity for the company, but the asset tied up in that Stock is still retained, and remaining stocks increawe in share value accordingly. This can increase liquidity in the long run, by stimulating demand whilst supply dwindles. It all depends on the Market. The fine, to my understanding, extracts liquidity whilst also leaving all existing liabilities intact. It "sets the company back'. As it were. At least, that's how it works to my meager understanding. If that isn't, could you go into detail about what really happens?
  - mulmen 7y ago
    That is my understanding as well. The GP suggested that fines would be ineffective because resources were “spent” on stock buybacks. I asked for clarification of the GP’s understanding of the difference between buybacks and fines.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I do not care to argue the consequences of stock buybacks, because I was just referring to a commonly held opinion, not endorsing it. If you want to dispute how it works, could you please not frame it as a vague argument with me.
      - salawat 7y ago
        Wasn't framing it in an argumentative manner. What was written seemed to be phrased in a way that indicated the author had an expectation of the existence of a shared context, not in need of articulation. I offered an articulation of what I've come across through research to be the eventual outcome of a stock buyback, and how it differs from a fine, along with some encouragement to share what knowledge you may have that contradicts it. It's not the first time I missed the bus on some common understanding after all, and I don't mind learning something new.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I mean, pretty much everything that you can compare is similar in some respects and different in others. Of course I don't think there is no difference between a stock buyback and a fine; that would be stupid.

dheera 7y ago

We also need to think of ways to invert the incentives. Right now, most of these are public companies, who are incentivized to hide details because (mostly idiotic) shareholders do bad things to the stock price when they reveal any kind of technical issues. If I were a shareholder, I'd actually bid up a stock if they were forthcoming and honest, because I value transparency, scientific rigor, and admitting fault where it is due. I would inherently consider such a company to be more valuable in the long term. Unfortunately 99.99% of investors would do the exact opposite and short the stock; their actions are the exact opposite of an honesty-valuing system.

hyperpallium 7y ago
If you're right, you've made a fortune buying cheap stock of more valuable companies.
9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
The problem is that we all are stockholders, pensions and other complicated instruments tied to these public companies.
zapita 7y ago
You may find LTSE.com interesting. It stands for “Long Term Stock Exchange”. It is an ongoing attempt to create a new stock exchange, with rules meant to discourage short-term minded investors.

kortilla 7y ago

>I can't see the USA ever jailing executives Enron?

sekh60 7y ago
Politically speaking that was very long ago. I doubt any of the recent U.S. administration's would have jailed Enron execs.
philjohn 7y ago
They ripped off rich people ... no evidence Boeing has done that. I realise this is a pretty low-effort comment, however, there is an alarming lack of accountability both in the US and the UK when lives are lost, but not when wealthy, connected, people have had their money lost. See also the Grenfell Tower.