3 ms·

People are entitled to setup a company with any aims that they wish. In Intels case, as with many other businesses, investors have bought the shares in an expe

People are entitled to setup a company with any aims that they wish. In Intels case, as with many other businesses, investors have bought the shares in an expectation of the maximum possible return on investment. Delivering this is also the responsibility of the board as enshrined by law.

latortuga 3y ago
I'll bite, which law enshrines "corporations must deliver maximum return on investment" or whatever roughly equivalent idea?
- benjaminwootton 3y ago
  In US corporate law, a board of directors are elected by the shareholders to represent their interests. The shareholders overriding interest is maximising return on investment.
  - DwnVoteHoneyPot 3y ago
    The folks who are downvoting you need to google "board of directors liability". If the Board doesn't act in the benefit of shareholders, they'll get sued to oblivion.
  - 1propionyl 3y ago
    The extent of US corporate law is that directors have a fiduciary-like duty to maximize shareholder _value_, but also that they must act in the best interests of the company. Statements beyond that are not reflections of law, but of faith. A couple salient points: The "best interests of the company" need not, and often are not, simply maximizing quarterly profits, share price, etc. Indeed, sometimes these things are odds with one another. Moreover, shareholder value includes but is not limited to return on investment. It is simply most convenient _from a managerial perspective_ to simplify diverse shareholder notions of value down to the most legible lowest common denominator.
1propionyl 3y ago
> Delivering [the maximum possible return on investment] is also the responsibility of the board as enshrined by law. This is utterly and completely false. If you don't believe me, here's what Justice Alito (known for his conservative/libertarian bent on the court) had to say in the Hobby Lobby opinion: "Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.
mostly_lurks 3y ago
Let's reductio ad absurdum our way through this, shall we? If what you say is true, then during the run up of Bitcoin, any corporation that didn't lay off all its employees and use the money to buy as much Bitcoin as possible was violating their fiduciary duty to maximize return on investment, right? Or maybe every corporation should turn itself into a casino or pornography producer since those are quite profitable endeavors, right?

latortuga 3y ago

I'll bite, which law enshrines "corporations must deliver maximum return on investment" or whatever roughly equivalent idea?

benjaminwootton 3y ago
In US corporate law, a board of directors are elected by the shareholders to represent their interests. The shareholders overriding interest is maximising return on investment.
- DwnVoteHoneyPot 3y ago
  The folks who are downvoting you need to google "board of directors liability". If the Board doesn't act in the benefit of shareholders, they'll get sued to oblivion.
- 1propionyl 3y ago
  The extent of US corporate law is that directors have a fiduciary-like duty to maximize shareholder _value_, but also that they must act in the best interests of the company. Statements beyond that are not reflections of law, but of faith. A couple salient points: The "best interests of the company" need not, and often are not, simply maximizing quarterly profits, share price, etc. Indeed, sometimes these things are odds with one another. Moreover, shareholder value includes but is not limited to return on investment. It is simply most convenient _from a managerial perspective_ to simplify diverse shareholder notions of value down to the most legible lowest common denominator.

1propionyl 3y ago

> Delivering [the maximum possible return on investment] is also the responsibility of the board as enshrined by law. This is utterly and completely false. If you don't believe me, here's what Justice Alito (known for his conservative/libertarian bent on the court) had to say in the Hobby Lobby opinion: "Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.

mostly_lurks 3y ago

Let's reductio ad absurdum our way through this, shall we? If what you say is true, then during the run up of Bitcoin, any corporation that didn't lay off all its employees and use the money to buy as much Bitcoin as possible was violating their fiduciary duty to maximize return on investment, right? Or maybe every corporation should turn itself into a casino or pornography producer since those are quite profitable endeavors, right?