3 ms·

> will soon surpass Apple ($65b; which has barely grown its operating income in four years and has weak prospects for income growth) At what point does a compa

> will soon surpass Apple ($65b; which has barely grown its operating income in four years and has weak prospects for income growth) At what point does a company get to say "hey, we probably don't need to grow income much more"? At $65b Apple would qualify as the 72nd highest GDP in the world if it were a country[1], my understanding is even now they have more income than they can feasibly spend. It just doesn't make sense to me that they're getting penalised for not growing their income at this point. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

vmception 6y ago
They can say that at any time. Executives and the board negotiate stretch goals of stock based compensation for themselves based on marketcap or revenue targets. It is inconsequential for them to create and sell these shares as the market keeps absorbing it at any marketcap. The rest of the shareholders like the idea of capital returned back to them no matter what price they bought in at. And finally the legal system will support private litigation regarding the CEO being expected to do things that make the most returns for shareholders. So if you have a whole marketplace of people trying to navigate this incentive structure, there is a selective evolution towards a few that create this growth machine successfully. And when they dont share prices will fall thats it.