4 ms·

Facebook does not need to satisfy any shareholder except one. I mean, hacker news likes to freak out about fiduciary duty and "omg, corporations are obligated

Facebook does not need to satisfy any shareholder except one. I mean, hacker news likes to freak out about fiduciary duty and "omg, corporations are obligated to make maximum profit." But realistically, almost no big corps run that way (almost all engage in some charity, many have foundations, etc.), and there is near-zero legal possibility of minority investors forcing them to. This is because investors have almost no say unless it is obvious you are trying to screw them -- normally a subset of them -- or unless there is no plausible way a course of action could make money.

grey-area 13y ago
I've always thought the fiduciary duty argument was silly (and I'm not HN :), so I agree with you there, but that doesn't change the broader point - when you sell a company, it is no longer yours, and the interests and politics of a large corp with public shareholders and revenue targets are not those of a smaller acquisition.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I wasn't trying to challenge the broader point. I was trying to challenge the specific claim that some folks are making that Facebook Must ruin Oculus because balance sheet, which is nonsense. Although on re reading your comment I can see I replied too soon and you are not one of those.
pizza234 13y ago
> But realistically, almost no big corps run that way (almost all engage in some charity, many have foundations, etc.) Engaging in charity and supporting foundations is not related to the "generosity" of the a corporation (who runs it); charity and foundations can be PR and tax-saving strategies. Drug cartels engage in charitable donations; that doesn't make them generous. HSBC (just picked a random one) supports charities. It also launders money for the drug cartels and is generally involved in illegal money transactions. I can pick virtually any big corporation involved in corruption/crime scandals and I'm pretty sure they routinely make charitable acts and/or have their foundations and as well. I certainly don't say that any corporation is corrupt, but the link with foundation/charities and morality of a corporation just doesn't exist.
- brg 13y ago
  Tax write offs do not work like you seem to imply. There is no net financial gain to any charitable donation . Consider a dollar of profit. If kept on the ledger as profit, a corporation pays around fifty cents of that dollar in tax. If donated that dollar of profit is not taxed, but the corporation now had lost a dollar instead of 50 cents.
  - ivanca 13y ago
    See through the cracks: The charity may be owned by a friend of the stockholders or managers. If the donation is reported by some media outlet it may as well recover the money; sometimes is mostly help their own agenda such as... - A real state company that helps an organization that seeks to prevent the construction of new buildings (because it destroys the forest/parks) but in reality they just want to keep the price of their own stock as high as possible. - A clothes company that support anti-fur organisations, only because the rival brand is the target of such protesters. - An alternate reality where Shell supports anti-Exxon campaigns done by Greenpeace.

grey-area 13y ago

I've always thought the fiduciary duty argument was silly (and I'm not HN :), so I agree with you there, but that doesn't change the broader point - when you sell a company, it is no longer yours, and the interests and politics of a large corp with public shareholders and revenue targets are not those of a smaller acquisition.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I wasn't trying to challenge the broader point. I was trying to challenge the specific claim that some folks are making that Facebook Must ruin Oculus because balance sheet, which is nonsense. Although on re reading your comment I can see I replied too soon and you are not one of those.

pizza234 13y ago

> But realistically, almost no big corps run that way (almost all engage in some charity, many have foundations, etc.) Engaging in charity and supporting foundations is not related to the "generosity" of the a corporation (who runs it); charity and foundations can be PR and tax-saving strategies. Drug cartels engage in charitable donations; that doesn't make them generous. HSBC (just picked a random one) supports charities. It also launders money for the drug cartels and is generally involved in illegal money transactions. I can pick virtually any big corporation involved in corruption/crime scandals and I'm pretty sure they routinely make charitable acts and/or have their foundations and as well. I certainly don't say that any corporation is corrupt, but the link with foundation/charities and morality of a corporation just doesn't exist.

brg 13y ago
Tax write offs do not work like you seem to imply. There is no net financial gain to any charitable donation . Consider a dollar of profit. If kept on the ledger as profit, a corporation pays around fifty cents of that dollar in tax. If donated that dollar of profit is not taxed, but the corporation now had lost a dollar instead of 50 cents.
- ivanca 13y ago
  See through the cracks: The charity may be owned by a friend of the stockholders or managers. If the donation is reported by some media outlet it may as well recover the money; sometimes is mostly help their own agenda such as... - A real state company that helps an organization that seeks to prevent the construction of new buildings (because it destroys the forest/parks) but in reality they just want to keep the price of their own stock as high as possible. - A clothes company that support anti-fur organisations, only because the rival brand is the target of such protesters. - An alternate reality where Shell supports anti-Exxon campaigns done by Greenpeace.