3 ms·

Not even a major/primary/only shareholder can just do whatever they want. There definitely is a strong separation between Zuckerberg and the company. Even if he

Not even a major/primary/only shareholder can just do whatever they want. There definitely is a strong separation between Zuckerberg and the company. Even if he had 100% the company still would have to act fiscally responsibly for itself. Read the law.

toss1 4y ago
>>Not even a major/primary/only shareholder can just do whatever they want. Of course not. I did not say or imply that they could. I was merely clarifying that there is no abstract "company" with a will of its own, and that the major players, WITHIN the constraints of the law and the other players, can and often do exploit power for their own purposes rather than an abstract ideal. >>There definitely is a strong separation between Zuckerberg and the company. Even if he had 100% the company still would have to act fiscally responsibly for itself. Yes, people can have multiple hats, and there are laws about fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. There are often lawsuits over failures to uphold such responsibilities. >>Read the law. Yes, I do read the law. I do not make the silly assumption, as you apparently do, that just because there is a law, it fully covers all possible wrongdoing and people always follow it. There are nearly unlimited actions that can be legitimately dual-purpose, benefiting the corporation and the individual executive/board member, whoever. and that does not even begin to account for the actions that are only arguably beneficial to the corporation but really extract value for the wrongdoer. I've literally heard an executive state "There's 1000 ways to screw minority shareholders", and watched them do it. There's a practice that screws creditors that is so common there's a name for it - a "cram-down". I could go on endlessly. If you really think that the fact that laws define responsibility of corporate players, and therefore there is no wrongdoing, I'd like to talk to you about an opportunity for some great oceanfront property in Kansas. Sheesh.

toss1 4y ago

>>Not even a major/primary/only shareholder can just do whatever they want. Of course not. I did not say or imply that they could. I was merely clarifying that there is no abstract "company" with a will of its own, and that the major players, WITHIN the constraints of the law and the other players, can and often do exploit power for their own purposes rather than an abstract ideal. >>There definitely is a strong separation between Zuckerberg and the company. Even if he had 100% the company still would have to act fiscally responsibly for itself. Yes, people can have multiple hats, and there are laws about fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. There are often lawsuits over failures to uphold such responsibilities. >>Read the law. Yes, I do read the law. I do not make the silly assumption, as you apparently do, that just because there is a law, it fully covers all possible wrongdoing and people always follow it. There are nearly unlimited actions that can be legitimately dual-purpose, benefiting the corporation and the individual executive/board member, whoever. and that does not even begin to account for the actions that are only arguably beneficial to the corporation but really extract value for the wrongdoer. I've literally heard an executive state "There's 1000 ways to screw minority shareholders", and watched them do it. There's a practice that screws creditors that is so common there's a name for it - a "cram-down". I could go on endlessly. If you really think that the fact that laws define responsibility of corporate players, and therefore there is no wrongdoing, I'd like to talk to you about an opportunity for some great oceanfront property in Kansas. Sheesh.