Hacker News Reader

> If you or your retirement is a shareholder in one of these companies, you'd rather they return $100 billion to you with boring buybacks or dividends than put it in an exciting AI investment that returns $1-$10 billion. Even though it didn't end up completely worthless, it's still a bad investment.

As a shareholder I'd rather them take the $100bn and invest it in growing the business further and generating $200bn. That's the more likely outcome anyway.

View on HN

I think it's important to remember that we are biased in ways that aren't obvious to us, but will be obvious in retrospect.

Most shareholders in Time Warner, for example, regretted giving 50%+ of the company to AOL shareholders, even if everyone was correct that 'winning the Internet' was the key to growing the business.

Sure but that’s besides the point. I’m not suggesting one can’t make bad decisions. I’m suggesting that framing the investments in a negative light has no meaning precisely because of this hindsight. Is everyone who said Tesla would crash (I have no direct ownership) happy they sold their shares? Don’t invest in what you want to happen. That’s a fool’s game and that’s the one that is being played here by suggesting the outcome of these investments will be bad instead of good. Nobody knows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com