Hacker News Reader

Comment by jncfhnb | Hacker News Reader

Stock being up doesn’t mean they’re not allowed to voice dissatisfaction

Dissatisfaction to what?

The reply I answered mentioned the fiduciary duty to all shareholders, but, in my limited understanding of the term, based on how I see the term used, this means the company has an obligation to make moneis for the shareholders. Which Meta does, quite well.

Obviously, people can be dissatisfied about anything, but I'm not sure Meta is failing the "fiduciary duty" aspect.

“The stock is up, but it would be up more” - investors

You can't tell your investors that you are going to make money building a farm, and then instead take their money and build houses with it. Even if the end result is you made more money building houses than you ever would have building a farm, you can't lie about your plans for the money. Consider an investor might already be heavily invested in building houses, and they want to diversify their portfolio by by investing in something that builds farms.

You are getting down voted because all the promises FB/META made to investors are available online and they never lied about how they are going to make moneys.

I never said they did, I was just telling OP how "we made money don't complain how" isn't adequate

Suppose meta stock price went up 10% despite the fact that Zuckerberg burned $1B in cash just for shits and giggles in a literal bonfire.

Are you saying you perspective is that investors have to suck it simply because the stock is up?

Breach of fiduciary duty is already extremely hard to prove when share prices are down. Mark has the added benefit of the doubt that arises from the fact that his incentives are fundamentally aligned with the company's incentives, given how much of his wealth is tied up in those shares.

Being allowed to voice something doesn't make the something valid.

Hence the legal work, yes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com