4 ms·

>It sure sounds like their interests are not well-aligned with those of the company owners I don't understand what you mean. Who do you think the owners of Twi

by vba616 5y ago

>It sure sounds like their interests are not well-aligned with those of the company owners I don't understand what you mean. Who do you think the owners of Twitter are? As far as I know, the vast, vast majority of shares are held by "institutions". The top ten funds owning shares in Twitter are index funds that mostly either buy the "total market" or the S&P 500. If Twitter suddenly and completely vaporized tomorrow, these funds would have about a tenth of a percent headwind for that day. Nobody holding them for retirement would notice. Really, I think it would make sense to say that the interests of the company owners are not aligned with Twitter. Which is a good thing if you care about the rest of society and don't, for instance, want to contribute to the destruction of democracy to make a bit more profit.

bigyikes 5y ago
Twitter doesn’t have interests beyond making a profit. The shareholders of Twitter don’t have interests beyond making a profit. The company’s owners are aligned with Twitter insofar as they both seek maximal return on investment. Just because the interest of the company’s owners is small does not mean the interests aren’t aligned. In other words, magnitude != direction. The board of Twitter has maximal power, but minimal interest. The owners of Twitter have minimal power and minimal interest too, relative to their other holdings, but maximal interest relative to the board.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vba616 5y ago
  >The shareholders of Twitter don’t have interests beyond making a profit The shareholders of Twitter generally have 99.9% of their assets in other companies. Therefore their interest in profits doesn't necessarily translate to an interest in Twitter profits. Even with the most abstract theoretical profit-maximizer model, damaging 99.9% of your investments in favor of 0.1% is not how an entity would act. This is generally a good thing, but it's also what people are complaining about with the board of directors. If shareholders and directors are not diversified, then they can make a lot of money through destroying democracy, poisoning rivers, whatever, and then escape to New Zealand or somewhere. You know, "externalities". Monopoly-guy in a top hat. But if they are diversified, then the profits are not worth it to them, because many of the externalities are now internalized.
moralestapia 5y ago
>Who do you think the owners of Twitter are? Its shareholders, come on, that's an easy one :^)
- vba616 5y ago
  Diversified shareholders. People who have much more of an interest in society than Twitter.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    Nope, you could have zero interest in society, hold 51% of Twitter shares and own Twitter. Please, this is Companies 101.
    - vba616 5y ago
      I'm not following you. I didn't take "Companies 101." Nobody has zero interest in society, unless they are a rogue AI that isn't programmed to believe in physical reality at all. Also, nobody owns 51% of Twitter stock.

by vba616 5y ago

bigyikes 5y ago

Twitter doesn’t have interests beyond making a profit. The shareholders of Twitter don’t have interests beyond making a profit. The company’s owners are aligned with Twitter insofar as they both seek maximal return on investment. Just because the interest of the company’s owners is small does not mean the interests aren’t aligned. In other words, magnitude != direction. The board of Twitter has maximal power, but minimal interest. The owners of Twitter have minimal power and minimal interest too, relative to their other holdings, but maximal interest relative to the board.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vba616 5y ago
>The shareholders of Twitter don’t have interests beyond making a profit The shareholders of Twitter generally have 99.9% of their assets in other companies. Therefore their interest in profits doesn't necessarily translate to an interest in Twitter profits. Even with the most abstract theoretical profit-maximizer model, damaging 99.9% of your investments in favor of 0.1% is not how an entity would act. This is generally a good thing, but it's also what people are complaining about with the board of directors. If shareholders and directors are not diversified, then they can make a lot of money through destroying democracy, poisoning rivers, whatever, and then escape to New Zealand or somewhere. You know, "externalities". Monopoly-guy in a top hat. But if they are diversified, then the profits are not worth it to them, because many of the externalities are now internalized.

moralestapia 5y ago

>Who do you think the owners of Twitter are? Its shareholders, come on, that's an easy one :^)

vba616 5y ago
Diversified shareholders. People who have much more of an interest in society than Twitter.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  Nope, you could have zero interest in society, hold 51% of Twitter shares and own Twitter. Please, this is Companies 101.
  - vba616 5y ago
    I'm not following you. I didn't take "Companies 101." Nobody has zero interest in society, unless they are a rogue AI that isn't programmed to believe in physical reality at all. Also, nobody owns 51% of Twitter stock.