Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Dan Hulton (danhulton@hachyderm.io)'s status on Saturday, 03-Feb-2024 04:23:36 JST Dan Hulton

   I wanna surface this to my main timeline because it's kinda important to say out loud from time to time:

   Businesses do NOT "have to" focus exclusively on their return to shareholders. Not legally, not morally.

   That is the misguided OPINION of a 1970 essay by Milton Friedman, and the fact that everyone seemed to just hop on board that opinion is a significant reason why we switched gears into hyper-hell-capitaliam since then.

   Push back on this every time you see it.

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Saturday, 03-Feb-2024 04:23:34 JST feld

     in reply to

     • SlicerDicer
     @SlicerDicer @danhulton "the interests of [literally anyone] ... may be pursued only to the extent doing so results in a related benefit to stockholders"
     
     wow weird sounds to me like every decision they make has to benefit the stockholders in some way or they're in breach of their fiduciary duty
   • Embed this notice
     SlicerDicer (slicerdicer@bikeshed.party)'s status on Saturday, 03-Feb-2024 04:23:35 JST SlicerDicer

     in reply to
     @danhulton
     
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%26_Forbes_Holdings,_Inc.
     
     Pantry Pride raised its offer to $58 per share. Simultaneously, it filed a claim in the Court of Chancery, seeking interim injunctive relief to nullify the asset option, the no-shop, the termination fee and the Rights. It argued that the board had breached its fiduciary duty by foreclosing Revlon stockholders from accepting its higher cash offer.
     
     Bruh this is not 1970, this is supreme court of Delaware. Do you just ignore the caselaw?
     
     In all events, the Court observed, the interests of noteholders, or any corporate constituency other than stockholders for that matter, are not the proper beneficiaries of a directors fiduciary responsibilities, and may be pursued only to the extent doing so results in a related benefit to stockholders, the only constituency to which such fiduciary responsibilities run under Delaware law. Here, the Court held, the effect of the board's effort to benefit noteholders was contrary to the interests of stockholders in that it resulted in the destruction of an active auction process that promised upon conclusion greater value for stockholders than that secured.
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Sunday, 04-Feb-2024 02:38:12 JST feld

     in reply to

     • CassandraZeroCovid
     • PhDog 🇮🇪
     • Marty Fouts
     @CassandraZeroCovid @dogfox @MartyFouts @danhulton if it improves the public perception of the brand it does benefit the shareholders
   • Embed this notice
     CassandraZeroCovid (cassandrazerocovid@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 04-Feb-2024 02:38:13 JST CassandraZeroCovid

     in reply to

     • PhDog 🇮🇪
     • Marty Fouts

     @dogfox @MartyFouts @danhulton

     And good/harm to the surrounding community.

     Making "shareholder value" the sole focus literally means corporate charitable contributions are a violation of fiduciary duty. (Obviously absurd.)

   • Embed this notice
     PhDog 🇮🇪 (dogfox@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 04-Feb-2024 02:38:14 JST PhDog 🇮🇪

     in reply to

     • Marty Fouts

     @MartyFouts @danhulton

     That's a good point. And the argument that the only common interest of shareholders is maximizing profits falls down in the face of something like climate change.

   • Embed this notice
     PhDog 🇮🇪 (dogfox@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 04-Feb-2024 02:38:15 JST PhDog 🇮🇪

     in reply to

     @danhulton

     I thought they had a legal, fiduciary responsablity to their shareholders, no?

   • Embed this notice
     Marty Fouts (martyfouts@mastodon.online)'s status on Sunday, 04-Feb-2024 02:38:15 JST Marty Fouts

     in reply to

     • PhDog 🇮🇪

     @dogfox @danhulton “fiduciary responsibility” is a term of art in law that does not mean “maximize profit”. It means putting the owners interests before your own interests when you make a decision for the company. Friedman’s argument that the owner’s interest was only to make a profit is not legitimate.