4 ms·
I guess it means it's waste of money and they could be more profitable without news division, which is their responsibility to stockholders.
by Markoff 5y ago
I guess it means it's waste of money and they could be more profitable without news division, which is their responsibility to stockholders.
- macintux 5y agoExcept it’s not. Their duty to the stockholders is to be responsible, not to maximize profits. If they feel their news division is important to the company and the community, that’s a perfectly valid reason to maintain it.
- manquer 5y agoActually duty to the shareholder is do as shareholders ask . Those things could be responsible or profit maximizing or not. Legally it is hard to define either as they vague and subjective, obeying the board directions is much easier to define and codify in law. If management does not do as shareholders ask , shareholders can get management replaced by nominating and voting for directors who want the same thing in the next general meeting or call for a emergency one. Management reports to the board and the board reports to the shareholders. It is hard to counter the direct wishes of all shareholders combined. However rarely all shareholders want the same thing. Management themselves own substantial shares and obviously will feel different for example.
- russellbeattie 5y ago"Maximizing shareholder value" has been cause of more evil in the past 100 years than just about any other philosophy on earth, and that includes fascism.