Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by TylerE | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

TylerE

They are, in most cases, legally required to place shareholder value over all else.

View on HN

No they aren't. Time to put that misconception to bed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-m...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizi...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/why-the-maximizing-sh...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/myth-maximizing-share...

True, they aren't obligated. Another thing to note is that most executives get paid with equity more than cash. So it is in their self interest to have the stock stay steady or go up and not take a nose dive.

So it is in their self interest to have the stock stay steady or go up

Until they are ready to cash out, which might be as soon as a year away. It needs to be redesigned with long-term incentives in mind.

That's a myth. There's no legal requirement to "place shareholder value over all else". There are situations where one has to prefer value over other considerations, but that applies to acquisitions and such, not daily business conduct. E.g. see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-m... and many other places.

True, but not as meaningful as it sounds. As long as you are taking actions with good intentions, you're on solid ground. And you can justify almost any actions under employee satisfaction (which reduces hiring expenses) or goodwill (which reduces advertising expenses.)

They aren't (as explained by others), but while it's a myth the fact itself isn't that significant - the corporations don't have to maximize shareholder value and yet they mostly tend to. How this happens? bduerst explained it nicely upthread.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8993907

Focusing on the first two elements I mentioned is the best way to accomplish that. Shareholders should be saying 'please ignore us and focus on the other stuff'.

I'm pretty sure that's a myth. Which specific law requires that? What are the penalties for not following it?

It's in most corporation's charters, and I believe that it's contract law that requires them to follow the charter -- and the alternative is to face shareholder lawsuits, especially if it's a sudden and controversial deviation that they don't have a really solid explanation for.

How does that jive with stuff like this? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-sharehol... https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism

Because it seems that generally isn't correct as viewed by the law (i'm not a lawyer blah blah...).

legally required?

No that is a myth told by all investors to the people they invest in.

However, good luck when the shareholders sue you to try to recover their loses. That's the real meaning of that threat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com