3 ms·

All publicity traded companies are the same. The only distinction is the means they use to make money at first. Making money is the only goal, and shareholders

All publicity traded companies are the same. The only distinction is the means they use to make money at first. Making money is the only goal, and shareholders demand growth quarter over quarter. This is why the fate of successful public companies is to become broader in scope while leveraging anti-competitive practices. The possible end results are either that the company is killed off, or that it effectively becomes the government or otherwise forces its host country into in oligarchy.

pcurve 7y ago
"Making money is the only goal, and shareholders demand growth quarter over quarter" I think shareholders of Boeing would also expect stable growth through sound risk management Nickel and diming on safety features and training is playing with fire.
colonwqbang 7y ago
Blaming the share holders for something like this is a bit weak. Share holders of a big, established company want long-term and stable profit. Short-term profit at the cost of increased risk is not something that share holders of a company like Boeing are looking for.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  In theory they should want that, but if the company spends money on preparing for the future and its profits decline as a result, then the share price drops. The incentives aren't there.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    If short term profit drops but the consensus DCF of future activities rises, the share price is likely to go up. (That’s where preparing for the future creates shareholder value.) On the other side, it happens all the time that a company has a single blowout quarter and the shares fall.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Amazon would appear to be a strong counter example. Investors are happy to tolerate low short-term profits as long as management has a credible plan to increase long-term profits.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Shareholders are the strawmen used to justify what passes for modern business philosophy. There’s an almost religious belief in whatever keeps the analysts happy this quarter is the right move. While this is done in the name of the shareholder, it happens to align with the compensation of the managers and directors making that decision. I see Boeing as a defense/aerospace version of HP, GE, or IBM. In the case of Boeing, management went so far as to move a couple of thousand miles from most of the company. All of these firms chose to put themselves on the path to decline, and did so in a way obvious to anyone who looked closely.

pcurve 7y ago

"Making money is the only goal, and shareholders demand growth quarter over quarter" I think shareholders of Boeing would also expect stable growth through sound risk management Nickel and diming on safety features and training is playing with fire.

colonwqbang 7y ago

Blaming the share holders for something like this is a bit weak. Share holders of a big, established company want long-term and stable profit. Short-term profit at the cost of increased risk is not something that share holders of a company like Boeing are looking for.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
In theory they should want that, but if the company spends money on preparing for the future and its profits decline as a result, then the share price drops. The incentives aren't there.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  If short term profit drops but the consensus DCF of future activities rises, the share price is likely to go up. (That’s where preparing for the future creates shareholder value.) On the other side, it happens all the time that a company has a single blowout quarter and the shares fall.
- nradov 7y ago
  Amazon would appear to be a strong counter example. Investors are happy to tolerate low short-term profits as long as management has a credible plan to increase long-term profits.
Spooky23 7y ago
Shareholders are the strawmen used to justify what passes for modern business philosophy. There’s an almost religious belief in whatever keeps the analysts happy this quarter is the right move. While this is done in the name of the shareholder, it happens to align with the compensation of the managers and directors making that decision. I see Boeing as a defense/aerospace version of HP, GE, or IBM. In the case of Boeing, management went so far as to move a couple of thousand miles from most of the company. All of these firms chose to put themselves on the path to decline, and did so in a way obvious to anyone who looked closely.