3 ms·
Honestly I agree, I think "fiduciary responsibility to shareholders" is kind of a funny phrase to be honest. I don't really believe most CEOs at an individual l
by extr 4y ago
Honestly I agree, I think "fiduciary responsibility to shareholders" is kind of a funny phrase to be honest. I don't really believe most CEOs at an individual level think of shareholders much except that stock price up means good, and stock price down means bad, and sometimes they complain and we have to justify our actions and respond politely for reasons.
To me the phrase almost is a moral shorthand for capitalism. A corporation has no inherent right to life or survival instinct the way a person does, and the phrasing and pretense of "duty to shareholders" is used to give it one by proxy. Does that make sense? So rephrasing my original post, it would be something like "We all agree it's moral to seek profit, since that's the economic system that seems to work, and his actions can be seen as in line with that, so therefore if you agree capitalism makes sense, his actions are justifiable and moral".
- khazhoux 4y agoI don't think it's even that, per se. Even putting aside profit (which possibly the CEO of Facebook can never do), it still seems like this is a straightforward case of "We think we have too many people." Profit notwithstanding, what do you do if you realize a giant chunk of your workforce is not needed?
- zarzavat 4y ago> what do you do if you realize a giant chunk of your workforce is not needed? It’s not like the workforce just appeared out of nowhere. They were hired by the same management who is now firing them. Ultimately society has to choose where it wants to be on the spectrum between difficult to hire and difficult to fire, and easy to hire and easy to fire (workers can also unionize to push things further towards the “difficult” end).
- khazhoux 4y agoAnd what's your opinion then? Teams and individual were hired for projects and roles that management doesn't now think will work. Keep everyone on-board indefinitely? Doing... what, exactly?
- HyperSane 4y ago1 year's severance should be mandatory. And 1 year of identical healthcare coverage for free.
- mrkstu 4y agoIt's a failure of management in any case. Just like returning cash via excessive dividends, it's an admission that the current management doesn't have the imagination required to use the assets at hand in a profitable way. So many of the large companies today are one trick ponies trying to milk their singular profit center to the nth degree instead of diversifying into new niches. Meta failed spectacularly in the direction they did try- but ultimately, like Google, even that (VR) was a way to expand their advertising business, rather than truly expand their footprint. Apple seems the singular Silicon Valley company truly able to find new niches and expand their competencies. I do wish they'd stuck with Jobs original obstinate insistence of not paying dividends- it was a forcing function to keep them actively investing that cash into new ventures.
- eru 4y agoFiduciary duty to shareholders doesn't mean you have to make a profit. You have to do whatever your shareholders want, and they don't have to want profit.
- lliamander 4y agoShareholders are the people who own the company. The company is collectively their property. The officers of a company (CEO, etc) are caretakers of that property on behalf of the shareholders. If you own a Pizza Hut, and you hire someone to manage and run the store, their job is to make sure the store (and thus you) make a profit. The CEO has the same obligation to shareholders.