3 ms·
> rules like the idea that corporate officers have a fiduciary requirement to investors What makes it a fake rule? Why should it be any other way within bound
by cscurmudgeon 2y ago
> rules like the idea that corporate officers have a fiduciary requirement to investors
What makes it a fake rule? Why should it be any other way within bounds of the law?
> It’s not any more complicated than short term rent seeking from investors
Any evidence?
Doesn't "short term rent seeking" contradict "top priority for the lifecycle of the firm"?
Would love a reference or two that investors force this. I know activist investors exist, but only for a fraction of companies.
Do customers flock to companies that treat employees much better?
- AndrewKemendo 2y agoIt’s a fake rule because it applies a logical construct to a set of groups that it doesn’t apply to A fiduciary in the finance sense is specifically intentionally hired by somebody to manage their money that is not the case for a CEO in a corporation You don’t need more than one activist investor for all of your other investors to go along with it so the whole point is, as the lead that you bring in other investors with people who only care about market cap and that’s the whole point of managing a board Beyond that you’re starting to get a whole crop of CEOs and that’s how they believe they believe they are the investor class and they’re gonna do everything in the act like the investor class including fucking over every employee they can If you see a CEO with 90% of a company, you know for a fact, they’re trying to be Potemkin dictator