Very long! Nevertheless, IMO confused. Amazon, for instance, was able to not take profit for a VERY long time, and benefited from a long term overall strategy to get into and capture many markets, as did consumers, who could now actually order stuff online and use AWS.
The claim about corporate law is extremely confused. The shareholders own and represent wealth invested in the firm, and as such should get returns from the firm. Thus, the law requires boards and firms to act in the interests of shareholders - should the board be able to siphon off money for its own pleasure, or shutter the company and trash the capital and investments? No. However - the law gives the board and executives very wide latitude to determine what is in the best interests of the shareholders, as the case of Amazon and many others shows is necessary - what is in the interest of the firm is very complex and hard to know, and giving them the ability to challenge day to day or even strategic decisions in court would be stifling and clog up business and court alike. Thus the claimed problem neither is the wound in corporate management, nor is it even a harm in all.
Many critiques of corporate governance or financial what’s er are much more pointed and deep than this, and succeed. This one does not, sadly.
The article is very much lacking in examples and details, whether laws, lawsuits, corporations, executives, and decisions. It flirts with high level ideas and vague pronouncements while not doing the important work of relating and implementing.
1 comment
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 11.2 ms ] threadThe claim about corporate law is extremely confused. The shareholders own and represent wealth invested in the firm, and as such should get returns from the firm. Thus, the law requires boards and firms to act in the interests of shareholders - should the board be able to siphon off money for its own pleasure, or shutter the company and trash the capital and investments? No. However - the law gives the board and executives very wide latitude to determine what is in the best interests of the shareholders, as the case of Amazon and many others shows is necessary - what is in the interest of the firm is very complex and hard to know, and giving them the ability to challenge day to day or even strategic decisions in court would be stifling and clog up business and court alike. Thus the claimed problem neither is the wound in corporate management, nor is it even a harm in all.
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ref...
Many critiques of corporate governance or financial what’s er are much more pointed and deep than this, and succeed. This one does not, sadly.
The article is very much lacking in examples and details, whether laws, lawsuits, corporations, executives, and decisions. It flirts with high level ideas and vague pronouncements while not doing the important work of relating and implementing.