5 ms·

> It feels like the board has said, “We don’t care about the company or it’s future, just the price of our stock.” Well since the board is hired to represent t

• falcolas 3y ago
  It has been upheld in court that one of the duties of a company to its shareholders is ensuring the continuation of the company. Of course courts have also upheld the duty to increase stock value too, but still…
  • AmericanChopper 3y ago
    You don’t need any court rulings to understand this. The owners of a company decide how it will be run. The shareholders own the company, they elect a board to represent them. The board hires a CEO and defines their compensation package (along with its performance incentives). The decisions of the shareholders and their board may prove to be unwise in retrospect, but this doesn’t change how the governance structure works. The board (and thus the CEO) can only do what the shareholders want them to do. All of the ruminating over short term thinking is also nonsensical. A company that has no future has very little value. Perhaps the share holders, or the board, or their CEO have a long-term vision that you disagree with. But this isn’t anything close to an objective fact, it’s just your own self-aggrandising opinion that if you were running the 4th largest company in the world, that you’d be doing a better job.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]