4 ms·

Investors love the monetization model and they get to decide what is just right and moral in our system of economics. The “fiduciary duty” to investors means so

Investors love the monetization model and they get to decide what is just right and moral in our system of economics. The “fiduciary duty” to investors means sociopathy is the only way that businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. If you can make money, you MUST make it. Someday I hope we find some way as a society to give value to other things. Its not really working out.

michaelmrose 4y ago
> sociopathy is the only way that businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. It would be great if we could stop spreading this misunderstanding. Fiduciary duty is a duty not to deliberately destroy shareholder value. Basically you can't set it on fire or loot it. It is not and has never been a duty to do absolutely anything anyone can possibly conceive of that will enrich the shareholders. Leaders are free morally and legally free to consider intangible factors that bear on the long term health and viability of the company and indeed do so every day.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kybernetyk 4y ago
  > It is not and has never been a duty to do absolutely anything anyone can possibly conceive of that will enrich the shareholders. This. Otherwise Apple and Disney would be forced to sell porn. But they don't because of their moral (one could argue prude) stance which makes less money for the investor.
  - KingMachiavelli 4y ago
    Both companies target demographics that would oppose that. Also the PR storm of such a reversal would significantly damage their stock prices. More importantly, stockholders suing either company to force them to reverse the policy would be an even bigger story. It's not a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as possible, it's to maximize value for shareholders which means stock price rivals revenue.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > PR storm of such a reversal would significantly damage their stock prices. Like the PR storm from searching the customer's device for evidence of illegal material they could pass on to the police? > stockholders suing either company What would be the basis for the lawsuit, prudishness is not codified in law.
- taurath 4y ago
  So then they exploit workers and customers because they choose to rather than being forced to, which sorta makes it worse.
  - felipelemos 4y ago
    They do because they enrich themselves, but not because of any 'duty' whatsoever.
    - taurath 4y ago
      End result is you still have a society run by sociopaths then.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Ye but you dont need to make up excuses for why poor sociopaths have no choice.
  - doctor_eval 4y ago
    Yep, definitely this.
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  Correct. Actually, the directors and shareholders are both bound by the company constitution or charter, as well as the various agreements between them. None of these documents ever say “make money at any cost”, and I suspect this whole fiduciary duty nonsense was pushed down from Wall Street, who of course stand to profit from the concept. You just got to look at a company like Boeing and how it changed over the years. The fiduciary duty of the directors didn’t change; but the directors certainly did.
tyrfing 4y ago
> The “fiduciary duty” to investors means sociopathy is the only way that businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. Larry Fink disagrees, and companies like Exxon have learned that not only is it not the only option, it's not an option at all. In fact, it's to the point that politicians like Mike Pence are talking about the big bad shareholders terrorizing companies. > If you can make money, you MUST make it. This is a common sentiment at all levels. Who wants to do good if they can make 3 times as much helping big tech sell ads?
- humbleMouse 4y ago
diffeomorphism 4y ago
> you MUST... Common myth but utterly false: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
- 7sidedmarble 4y ago
  There's a difference between what the law says they can and can't do, and what the forces of capital are set up to encourage them to do. The law may say you can't avoid costly waste disposal by dumping it into the rainforest, but the incentive (ie the profit motive) is there to skirt as close to breaking the law, and often blowing right past it. I mean I don't think I even need to give examples of corporations breaking the law because they thought they could get away with it. Corporations, like any group of people, can fail to see the big picture. Short term profits for the risk of a big slap on the wrist is a gamble a lot of companies take.

michaelmrose 4y ago

> sociopathy is the only way that businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. It would be great if we could stop spreading this misunderstanding. Fiduciary duty is a duty not to deliberately destroy shareholder value. Basically you can't set it on fire or loot it. It is not and has never been a duty to do absolutely anything anyone can possibly conceive of that will enrich the shareholders. Leaders are free morally and legally free to consider intangible factors that bear on the long term health and viability of the company and indeed do so every day.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kybernetyk 4y ago
> It is not and has never been a duty to do absolutely anything anyone can possibly conceive of that will enrich the shareholders. This. Otherwise Apple and Disney would be forced to sell porn. But they don't because of their moral (one could argue prude) stance which makes less money for the investor.
- KingMachiavelli 4y ago
  Both companies target demographics that would oppose that. Also the PR storm of such a reversal would significantly damage their stock prices. More importantly, stockholders suing either company to force them to reverse the policy would be an even bigger story. It's not a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as possible, it's to maximize value for shareholders which means stock price rivals revenue.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > PR storm of such a reversal would significantly damage their stock prices. Like the PR storm from searching the customer's device for evidence of illegal material they could pass on to the police? > stockholders suing either company What would be the basis for the lawsuit, prudishness is not codified in law.
taurath 4y ago
So then they exploit workers and customers because they choose to rather than being forced to, which sorta makes it worse.
- felipelemos 4y ago
  They do because they enrich themselves, but not because of any 'duty' whatsoever.
  - taurath 4y ago
    End result is you still have a society run by sociopaths then.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Ye but you dont need to make up excuses for why poor sociopaths have no choice.
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  Yep, definitely this.
doctor_eval 4y ago
Correct. Actually, the directors and shareholders are both bound by the company constitution or charter, as well as the various agreements between them. None of these documents ever say “make money at any cost”, and I suspect this whole fiduciary duty nonsense was pushed down from Wall Street, who of course stand to profit from the concept. You just got to look at a company like Boeing and how it changed over the years. The fiduciary duty of the directors didn’t change; but the directors certainly did.

tyrfing 4y ago

> The “fiduciary duty” to investors means sociopathy is the only way that businesses are allowed to conduct themselves. Larry Fink disagrees, and companies like Exxon have learned that not only is it not the only option, it's not an option at all. In fact, it's to the point that politicians like Mike Pence are talking about the big bad shareholders terrorizing companies. > If you can make money, you MUST make it. This is a common sentiment at all levels. Who wants to do good if they can make 3 times as much helping big tech sell ads?

humbleMouse 4y ago

diffeomorphism 4y ago

> you MUST... Common myth but utterly false: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

7sidedmarble 4y ago
There's a difference between what the law says they can and can't do, and what the forces of capital are set up to encourage them to do. The law may say you can't avoid costly waste disposal by dumping it into the rainforest, but the incentive (ie the profit motive) is there to skirt as close to breaking the law, and often blowing right past it. I mean I don't think I even need to give examples of corporations breaking the law because they thought they could get away with it. Corporations, like any group of people, can fail to see the big picture. Short term profits for the risk of a big slap on the wrist is a gamble a lot of companies take.