3 ms·

What do shareholders have to do with it? Why are they so different from shareholders of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook...? Do you really think they are happ

What do shareholders have to do with it? Why are they so different from shareholders of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook...? Do you really think they are happy now? No-damn-body would trade enormous future profits from one of the biggest opportunities of the future for some measly one-time millions today, in today's dollars. Space industry is going to produce many trillionaires.

tjpnz 2y ago
This is the company which famously asked its engineers to put the shareholders at top of mind when making all of their decisions.
- throw4950sh06 2y ago
  So what? That doesn't mean anything. The shareholders didn't say this, the management of the company did.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    The shareholders are supposed to fire management when they are being stupid.
    - throw4950sh06 2y ago
      It's not that easy with such a big company. Look at Tesla and Musk. A management-aligned board can put a stop to many things the shareholders would like to do.
      - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        Since the shareholders elect the board, I guess there might be a lesson for democracy in here too.
    - renegade-otter 2y ago
      I think the problem is that the shareholders do not care about long-term profits either. They keep the management because the management prioritizes the shareholders and not the company or its customers. We live in the stupid times. After watching others get rich off of Bitcoin, GameStop, and companies with fantastical valuations, everyone wants it to go the Moon ASAP.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Thinking about shareholders in one broad stroke isn't useful. There are shareholders who care explicitly about long-term (at least 20~30+ years) profits. These are investors who are investing for retirement. The problem here is most of them hold index funds or have the money managed by a third-party, so they are indirect shareholders who may or may not have voting rights themselves and may not care to vote in the first place. Bogleheading is explicitly about not giving a damn, after all. The shareholders who hold stocks directly may or may not care about long-term profits. Investors holding for retirement do, though whether they would vote is anyone's guess. Traders don't care who or what the stock is, all they care about is whether they turn a profit in the next second. Investors holding for income today (read: dividends) care about short-term profits, though again whether they vote is anyone's guess. Shareholders who hold for biased reasons ("I love <company>!") will probably vote, but whether they care about profits at all is anyone's guess. Anecdata: I hold Boeing stock (BA) through SWPPX which is an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Most of my interest is returns in about 20 to 30 years' time when I reach retirement age. I do not have voting rights as far as I am aware, and frankly I can't be arsed to care about voting.
        throw4950sh06 2y ago
        Retail is very insignificant holder of this kind of stock. Less than 10-30% total in most cases of S&P stocks. It's mostly the pension funds, and big investors.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        If we're talking institutional investors, logic suggests most of their votes would favour intermediate-term policies overall since their various interests encompass the whole breadth of short-, mid-, and long-term.
- renegade-otter 2y ago
  And moved its headquarters 2,000 miles away to not be close to those annoying "engineers".
GolfPopper 2y ago
Any member of management, at any company, whose focus is more on their next-quarter or end-of-year payout (which seems to be most of them), will cheerfully trade enormous future profits for other people for a short-term profit for themselves.
- throw4950sh06 2y ago
  That's my whole point. It's the management/possibly board, not the shareholders.
  - GolfPopper 2y ago
    Sadly I expect the vast majority of shareholders would individually trade the future health and profits of the company for their own immediate benefit as well, were they in a position to make the same choice. You're right that since they collectively don't benefit from such short-sighted focus, they wouldn't make the same choice. It's outside my bailiwick and I'm not quite sure how it happened, but it seems to me that over the course of a few decades (70s to 00s?) we went from a model of corporate management where the various mechanisms of "cripple the company for the short-term benefit of upper management (plus a few well connected others)" were neither sophisticated nor, well, thinkable, or at least not acceptable, to one where both the ability and the practice of doing so are near-ubiquitous.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

tjpnz 2y ago

This is the company which famously asked its engineers to put the shareholders at top of mind when making all of their decisions.

throw4950sh06 2y ago
So what? That doesn't mean anything. The shareholders didn't say this, the management of the company did.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  The shareholders are supposed to fire management when they are being stupid.
  - throw4950sh06 2y ago
    It's not that easy with such a big company. Look at Tesla and Musk. A management-aligned board can put a stop to many things the shareholders would like to do.
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      Since the shareholders elect the board, I guess there might be a lesson for democracy in here too.
  - renegade-otter 2y ago
    I think the problem is that the shareholders do not care about long-term profits either. They keep the management because the management prioritizes the shareholders and not the company or its customers. We live in the stupid times. After watching others get rich off of Bitcoin, GameStop, and companies with fantastical valuations, everyone wants it to go the Moon ASAP.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Thinking about shareholders in one broad stroke isn't useful. There are shareholders who care explicitly about long-term (at least 20~30+ years) profits. These are investors who are investing for retirement. The problem here is most of them hold index funds or have the money managed by a third-party, so they are indirect shareholders who may or may not have voting rights themselves and may not care to vote in the first place. Bogleheading is explicitly about not giving a damn, after all. The shareholders who hold stocks directly may or may not care about long-term profits. Investors holding for retirement do, though whether they would vote is anyone's guess. Traders don't care who or what the stock is, all they care about is whether they turn a profit in the next second. Investors holding for income today (read: dividends) care about short-term profits, though again whether they vote is anyone's guess. Shareholders who hold for biased reasons ("I love <company>!") will probably vote, but whether they care about profits at all is anyone's guess. Anecdata: I hold Boeing stock (BA) through SWPPX which is an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Most of my interest is returns in about 20 to 30 years' time when I reach retirement age. I do not have voting rights as far as I am aware, and frankly I can't be arsed to care about voting.
      - throw4950sh06 2y ago
        Retail is very insignificant holder of this kind of stock. Less than 10-30% total in most cases of S&P stocks. It's mostly the pension funds, and big investors.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        If we're talking institutional investors, logic suggests most of their votes would favour intermediate-term policies overall since their various interests encompass the whole breadth of short-, mid-, and long-term.
renegade-otter 2y ago
And moved its headquarters 2,000 miles away to not be close to those annoying "engineers".

GolfPopper 2y ago

Any member of management, at any company, whose focus is more on their next-quarter or end-of-year payout (which seems to be most of them), will cheerfully trade enormous future profits for other people for a short-term profit for themselves.

throw4950sh06 2y ago
That's my whole point. It's the management/possibly board, not the shareholders.
- GolfPopper 2y ago
  Sadly I expect the vast majority of shareholders would individually trade the future health and profits of the company for their own immediate benefit as well, were they in a position to make the same choice. You're right that since they collectively don't benefit from such short-sighted focus, they wouldn't make the same choice. It's outside my bailiwick and I'm not quite sure how it happened, but it seems to me that over the course of a few decades (70s to 00s?) we went from a model of corporate management where the various mechanisms of "cripple the company for the short-term benefit of upper management (plus a few well connected others)" were neither sophisticated nor, well, thinkable, or at least not acceptable, to one where both the ability and the practice of doing so are near-ubiquitous.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]