It's worth remembering that the expression "maximize shareholder value" is composed of three words, each of which represents a highly elastic variable. In combi

It's worth remembering that the expression "maximize shareholder value" is composed of three words, each of which represents a highly elastic variable. In combination, this set of terms can be defined (and redefined!) in a manner that will justify virtually anything. Take "maximize" - depending on your timeframe, this can mean a range of very different things. And if you cleverly avoid specifying any timeframe at all, you've effectively said nothing whatsoever. Now take "shareholder," which can refer to everyone from mutual funds that may buy and hold for decades to bots on high-frequency trading platforms that measure their holds in nanoseconds. There is virtually nothing that these extremes have in common. Given a hoplessly conflicted set of interests, how does management decide whose benefit they're going to privilege? More to the point, if they DON'T make a clear choice, how can they claim that the generic word has any legally-binding meaning? Same goes for "value" - not only can this mean different things to different investors, those meanings can be diametrically opposed. For instance, does "value" mean providing a return big enough to outweigh very substantial exposure to risk? Or does "value" mean bunker-grade protection from risk, even at the cost of a low return? It's yet another very elastic term that can mean a lot of different things - or nothing at all, if the appropriate frame of reference is withheld. The takeaway is simple: if anyone tells you they're "maximizing shareholder value" without carefully defining ALL THREE words, they're probably lying, which is ironic, because they're also implying that they're living up to their fiduciary responsibility. In reality, chances are good that they're doing the opposite.