Hacker News Reader

Comment by bandyaboot | Hacker News Reader

Would a person selling shares of themselves owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders? That could get a little awkward if someone were to come along and offer to buy for more than the current market cap. You'd kind of be obligated to sell. I think there's a word for that.

View on HN

Imagine getting sued because you posted an Instagram chilling in the middle of the week. Shareholders expect total commitment to shareholder value, slacking off is clearly an issue.

Depends on whether or not the post got enough organic reach. Bots can complicate this. Influencer struggle is real.

So ignore instagram, how’s cash flow looking? Probably need to make that public if there’s shares involved.

No, no, this wasn’t the right choice. Flamethrowers, quickly.

This could be framed as taking care of your mental health. Long term investors would still be in I imagine...

> Be you

> Load up on Puts on yourself

> Intentionally be extremely lazy

Infinite profit glitch?

Surely that's insider trading...

Very soon the traders will write a program that will warn them of things that look like the well-known "go long yourself then make lazy yourself" strategy, and afterward it'll have negative expected value.

You would need to distribute the returns from your puts to your shareholders, which would have the inverse effect.

Markets are always efficient ;)

Seems Like A Very Extreme Risk, Yes?

Could ordinarily never see ulterior motives easily.

Is this a cryptic crossword clue for "slaves"? I know the parent comment spells slaves.

Sorry, meant to say Slaver.

Obviously beer exists, yes?

ftio's comment spells out "slavery". catchnear4321's comment spells out "consume".

I'm not sure why your shareholders would want you to consume. The more time you spend consuming the less time you spend producing value for your shareholders.

Someone needs to buy a second monitor.

If you're going to use the monitor for producing, I would call that investing, not consuming.

Make it a third. Keep buying monitors until productivity peaks.

Then add one more. For YouTube.

Your shareholders aren't going to be happy about that last one.

You think my shareholders aren’t market makers that also hold shares of Alphabet, whatever it may be called at that point? That’s the bright future I was envisioning.

If I’m watching YouTube while producing, my shareholders get paid twice. I may even get a “most valuable me” award from them. Nobody else comes close to me at being me.

Shoot, if I worked for YouTube and was watching YouTube, that’s three times.

By the way, America needs to understand that there is a huge risk of my me being superseded by some foreign me, which is bad for America. So if Congress could find it in their hearts to think of the country and throw a little IRS scratch my way… I’ll double down on me, maybe even clone another me in America rather than overseas. Definitely not for dividends. I promise. Pinky swear. (Nancy pick up the phone.)

How much profit does Alphabet gain from you watching YouTube more on your additional monitor? How much productivity is lost due to you watching YouTube more on your additional monitor?

I would assume the productivity hit would outweigh whatever gain Alphabet gets. And this is assuming the ownership percentages are the same. If the shareholders hold 50% of you but only 1% of Alphabet, then their preference for your productivity would be 50x greater.

You’re thinking small time. What if people combined their efforts, and sold shares of that?

There could be a whole commune or collective of people who blend their shares into a composite, and guarantee they are watching YouTube.

Sure, the amount generated by an individual would be small. But think about at scale. Whole cities full of people watching YouTube.

There are some of those contracts active in the USA right now, and the people who sell part of their future income do not have a fiduciary duty. I predict that this will not change in our lifetimes.

The exception is alimony for the divorced. They have a legal obligation to try to maintain income and are jailed if they fail to do so.

If you make 200k as a swe and owe 50%,you are legally obligated to maintain that. You can not decide to become a poor artist for example

How is that not a form of slavery?

Slavery is explicitely legal in the US

Imagine you've been getting 1M/year (bull market, and overall a very successful swe), then recession comes, your income drops to 200k/year and you're jailed for lowering the standard of life for your alimony beneficiaries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com