> This is all irrelevant for SEC filings, since those have to include ALL ins and outs of the business. If a Disney CEO tried to screw investors by artificially

> This is all irrelevant for SEC filings, since those have to include ALL ins and outs of the business. If a Disney CEO tried to screw investors by artificially lowering net income and reducing the investors’ profit, heads would roll. The Disney CEO wouldn't screw investors by lowering net income. Investors aren't (generally) compensated with income. In fact, the opposite is true, Disney can force net income down buy doing a stock buy back which drives the stock prices higher. There's a reason investors, for the most part, ignore net income. In fact, always having a positive net income is generally a sign that the company is not investing and growing, which in and of itself is generally treated as a negative sign from investors. > This is ignoring the basic fact that CEO and other company executives are compensated in shares in the first place, which means they want net income to be high so that the share price goes higher. Net income is barely a predictor for stock prices (especially now-a-days). For example, disney had a 170% increase in net income in their March quarterly report. Did they see a 170% increase in stock price? A 17% increase? Or a slight loss?