4 ms·
Sorry but this is utter nonsense. 51% of a company is not some magic ticket that allows you to do basically anything (including screwing the other 49%). It jus
by jmyeet 5y ago
Sorry but this is utter nonsense.
51% of a company is not some magic ticket that allows you to do basically anything (including screwing the other 49%). It just doesn't work that way. There are certain thresholds that allow you to do more and more things but if you're in control of a company you still have a fiduciary duty to the other shareholders, even small minority shareholders. This is why minority shareholder lawsuits are a thing. This is what makes the entire corporation system work otherwise the 51% would be constantly screwing over the 49%.
Take your example: if you buy 51% of the shares for $50/share and then try and merge at an effective $25/share. Well, that's illegal because you've failed your fiduciary duty to the 49%. You're effectively trying to steal from them.
Also, you can't just acquire 51% of a company. There are rules about that too. There are thresholds here too. IIRC more than 5% and you have to inform the market of taking a large position. More than (IIRC) 10-20% and you have to launch a formal takeover offer. There are rules about how that works too.
- mabbo 5y agoYou may very well be right. As I said in another reply, I'm mostly quoting a delicious bit of writing Matt Levine published last week. I suspect that none of what I said is easy or even likely- but I do believe the risk of such things is real and that's why the board set up a poison pill, to ensure they got a real deal and not something more aggressive.
- dang 5y ago> Sorry but this is utter nonsense. Can you please make your substantive points without name-calling? There's a site guideline that asks you to do just that. "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jmyeet 5y agoWhat "name-calling" would that be exactly?
- stevespang 5y ago
- quickthrower2 5y agoI see "Sorry but this is utter nonsense" as ad hominem, a put down, with overtones of a dismissive "wiser" person dismissing out of hand what is said. That effect of this psychological slight outweighs the fact that they did back up their argument afterwards and didn't leave it as just an unsubstantial comment. Kind of like a microagression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression, I think... Human language and idioms are hard to create rulesets for. Probably "name-calling" is too specific, but "microagression" may not be understood by all. However it is sad if we need to lawyer the guidelines.
- twayt 5y agoNo calling an argument "utter nonsense" doesn't imply anything about the person making the argument. You may think it is ad hominem but technically it simply isn't since it isn't directed to a person but rather their argument. However, in this context, calling their argument "utter nonsense" is utterly unnecessary and only serves to up the ante.
- dang 5y agoIt isn't just about being personal (though that's particularly bad). It's about not tossing in pejoratives and putdowns. The HN guidelines are clear about this: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." We don't want name-calling (in this sense) because it leads to dumber, nastier internet discussion. It's also particularly easy to avoid. If you take out its first sentence, the GP comment loses nothing but hostility and becomes a far better HN contribution. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- twayt 5y ago
- fennecfoxen 5y agoIf that guideline is meant to cover the words “utter nonsense” it is not intuitive to anyone
- saxonww 5y agoI think the point is that you can strongly disagree with a statement without painting its author as incompetent. Regardless of whether that was the intent, that's certainly how it reads.
- twayt 5y agoGoing one step further, you can strongly disagree with a statement without attaching a value judgement to the other person's argument. In spirit, this rule should hold even if you aren't attacking the author directly but are disparaging the value of their perspective. That is simply unnecessary and you can just refute the point directly.
- dang 5y agoI don't see much daylight between "utter nonsense" and "that is idiotic".
- swat535 5y agoI think you are being too harsh on parent. How is that worse than people literally calling each other's comments bullshit on HN? Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6805295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6805295 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5111959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5111959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6410617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6410617 .. and many more
- dang 5y agoIt isn't worse - it's the same thing.
- diegoholiveira 5y ago51% of valid votes is a magic number that allows you to do basically anything (including screwing the other 49%).
- bpodgursky 5y agoThis is not true! Stock is not a blockchain!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]