Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomc1985 | Hacker News Reader

tomc1985

It's the Shareholder Directive that you want destroyed. Executives in this country have no choice but to maximize value for shareholders. We need to destroy that rule and its surrounding culture if you want to get rid of insatiable growth

View on HN

I’m always surprised to see that myth trotted out here!

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-v...

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...

https://www.marketplace.org/2016/06/09/economy/price-profits...

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe...

Maximizing shareholder value is a canard, not a law, not to mention that fiduciary duty cases against C-levels are so rare as to be irrelevant.

There is a choice.

The board can always fire the C-level, so by virtue of survivor bias alone the ones left are looking out for shareholder interests first. There is a choice: be CEO or not.

The board can always fire the C-level

Do they, though? And for this reason?

Again, you don't ever hear about the candidates who were fired quickly (or in less prestigious positions) or never hired in the first place because...survival bias.

"Fired quickly" for violating fiduciary duty? Less-prestigious people don't have fiduciary duties to stockholders. I think you might be making a category error.

They can and they will. Watched it happen twice at once company; they ended up turning over nearly all senior management about a year or two behind them.

Keep in mind that a Fiduciary Duty of Care violation is a civil tort, not just a reason to fire someone. If they haven't been sued by the company, it's not what I'm talking about.

I've heard this but AFAIK they simply terminated their employment

Look up B Corporations. There is another way. However most founders really want to be rich and few VCs will invest in this structure.

Stopping optimization, evolution, growth?

Go outside and yell out, "Hey world, I'm good! You can stop evolving now, thanks!"

Growth for the sake of growth is how cancer kills you.

Evolution is a good analogy, since you are making the same mistake regarding both evolution and optimization/growth.

These things don't have an inherent direction, they are aimed in a direction. The point being made here is about the direction they are being aimed, not stopping them.

I don't think anyone's advocating that, they're advocating sustainability (not static-ness(?) I'm sure there's a much better word here) over endless growth, there's a pretty distinct difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com