5 ms·
The problem with allowing an acquisition to proceed just to save the company being acquired from failing is you end up with deals being structured to intentiona
by fooey 3y ago
The problem with allowing an acquisition to proceed just to save the company being acquired from failing is you end up with deals being structured to intentionally to cause harm if the deal collapses
Look at what Kroger is doing with Albertson's for an example. If that merger fails, it's very likely Albertson's will go bankrupt because the shareholders looted the company of all their assets to ensure it can only survive if it's acquired
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/11/03/albertsons-special-dividend-owners/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/11/03/albertson...
- lotsofpulp 3y agoHow do shareholders loot a company? They own the company, which means they get to decide what to do with the company's assets.
- o11c 3y agoBelieve it or not, some people think "the purpose of a business is to produce useful things". Crazy, right?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- johngladtj 3y agoProviding shareholder value is the useful thing they are supposed to produce. Anything else is a side effect
- Phiwise_ 3y agoI agree. It's crazy that someone who didn't put up the skin to acquire the business thinks they should get to run it anyway.
- cortesoft 3y agoYeah, and some people believe the earth is flat. If we wanted a society where the purpose of a business is to produce useful things, then we should not have the rules set up like they are. You can't create an entire system of rules and regulations that set it up so the incentives are all aligned for companies to exist to make money, and then be surprised when those incentives work.
- tylersmith 3y agoIt's not crazy that people are wrong about facts, but then they should keep their opinions to themselves.
- pi-e-sigma 3y agoIt's not exactly true. A company is a separate legal entity and its owner can't do as he pleases with the company's assets.