5 ms·

Yep, why would anyone own anything that negatively impacts them. If you had 100 dollars would you invest it into a company where the CEO could just take the en

Yep, why would anyone own anything that negatively impacts them. If you had 100 dollars would you invest it into a company where the CEO could just take the entire company hostage and potentially make you lose your entire investment?

campbel 3y ago
Ownership guarantees some legal rights, but it doesn't mean that all value is yours to consume. Employees, partners and customers are all going to fight for the value that is created and will use whatever leverage they have to get it.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Of course owners don't get all of the value. Otherwise, there wouldn't be employees or customers. Everyone shares. Company actions maximize company value. Employee actions maximize employee value. Customer actions maximize customer value.
jonny_eh 3y ago
> Yep, why would anyone own anything that negatively impacts them. That's a false dichotomy. You can own something (or a share) and the purpose of it need not be "return as much value as possible, via buybacks, in the next quarter".
- brigadier132 3y ago
  Uh, so why would I choose to own that?
  - feetsoup 3y ago
    To earn a return on your investment. Maximizing that return in the next quarter by threatening to take a controlling stake in the company falls into this category of course, but it's silly to think it is the exclusive mode. The point the other poster is trying to make is that it's absurd to pretend the options are 'unilateral control of the company is determined by shares' and 'shareholders are being negatively impacted by their investment'.
autoexec 3y ago
So often it's "buyer beware" when it comes to consumers, it seems like it should likewise be the job of the investor to be smart about what companies they invest in if they want to avoid a CEO who would run a business into the ground just for funsies. The risk of potentially losing your entire investment is something every investor has to accept as being possible with carefully considered and wise investments making it less likely to occur.
- brigadier132 3y ago
  > So often it's "buyer beware" when it comes to consumers, it seems like it should likewise be the job of the investor to be smart about what companies they invest in if they want to avoid a CEO who would run a business into the ground just for funsies It's pretty much like that already, the CEO can run the company into the ground for funsies if they are insane. But if the investor catches the CEO doing this they have the right to sue to prevent it from happening and the legal system and shareholder primacy are what allow for this. Otherwise, what does the concept of ownership even mean if the owner can't decide what is done with the business?
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Even without a right to sue or shareholder primacy shareholders can get a crazed CEO fired, screw with their pay, etc.
scarface_74 3y ago
Well, people buy both Google and Facebook stock where the founders still have a controlling interest and could theoretically do anything they wanted

campbel 3y ago

Ownership guarantees some legal rights, but it doesn't mean that all value is yours to consume. Employees, partners and customers are all going to fight for the value that is created and will use whatever leverage they have to get it.

paulddraper 3y ago
Of course owners don't get all of the value. Otherwise, there wouldn't be employees or customers. Everyone shares. Company actions maximize company value. Employee actions maximize employee value. Customer actions maximize customer value.

jonny_eh 3y ago

> Yep, why would anyone own anything that negatively impacts them. That's a false dichotomy. You can own something (or a share) and the purpose of it need not be "return as much value as possible, via buybacks, in the next quarter".

brigadier132 3y ago
Uh, so why would I choose to own that?
- feetsoup 3y ago
  To earn a return on your investment. Maximizing that return in the next quarter by threatening to take a controlling stake in the company falls into this category of course, but it's silly to think it is the exclusive mode. The point the other poster is trying to make is that it's absurd to pretend the options are 'unilateral control of the company is determined by shares' and 'shareholders are being negatively impacted by their investment'.

autoexec 3y ago

So often it's "buyer beware" when it comes to consumers, it seems like it should likewise be the job of the investor to be smart about what companies they invest in if they want to avoid a CEO who would run a business into the ground just for funsies. The risk of potentially losing your entire investment is something every investor has to accept as being possible with carefully considered and wise investments making it less likely to occur.

brigadier132 3y ago
> So often it's "buyer beware" when it comes to consumers, it seems like it should likewise be the job of the investor to be smart about what companies they invest in if they want to avoid a CEO who would run a business into the ground just for funsies It's pretty much like that already, the CEO can run the company into the ground for funsies if they are insane. But if the investor catches the CEO doing this they have the right to sue to prevent it from happening and the legal system and shareholder primacy are what allow for this. Otherwise, what does the concept of ownership even mean if the owner can't decide what is done with the business?
- autoexec 3y ago
  Even without a right to sue or shareholder primacy shareholders can get a crazed CEO fired, screw with their pay, etc.

scarface_74 3y ago

Well, people buy both Google and Facebook stock where the founders still have a controlling interest and could theoretically do anything they wanted