4 ms·
> To be clear, business operators have extremely, extremely broad latitude in how they interpret their fiduciary duty to shareholders. That may be true legally
by danenania 1y ago
> To be clear, business operators have extremely, extremely broad latitude in how they interpret their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
That may be true legally, but practically it's only true if they control the board. Otherwise they will simply be replaced by people who are willing to do what the board wants.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoThe difference between getting fired and getting convicted of a crime is pretty important, actually!
- danenania 1y agoThe annoying tone is unnecessary. Yes, legally speaking operators can go against the board and get replaced, which they certainly should do if they feel they're being asked to do something unethical. But it's not going to change how the company is run.
- marcosdumay 1y agoOn that level, on the quasi-feudal economy that is taking over the world, it's not clear which of those is more impactful.
- gipp 1y agoFor the executive, sure. Not for the impact of the overall incentive structure on the trajectory of the business. Which is what this discussion is about.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoThe discussion literally said "legal obligation." That's what I was responding to.
- lovich 1y agoThe root comment this thread is in reply to had the implication that people are only acting this way because of an inaccurate idea of how strict the legal obligations are, and the other comments are about how that’s obviously not the only force producing the current outcome
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoYeah, obviously that's not "the only force producing this outcome." Nobody claimed it was. But it's important for founders to understand they are not legally obligated to do any specific thing for their shareholders. It is their responsibility to act morally. Yes, there are other incentives and forces at play. "Legal obligation" is not the cop-out excuse that executives claim it is.