3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoUh, so why would I choose to own that?
- feetsoup 3y agoTo 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'.