Live data from Hacker News

The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

forbes.com

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#131
Roger L. Martin, the author of the book hawked in this article, is also a director at RIM. Maximizing shareholder value indeed!

That said, Roger is correct (incidentally or not) in my book to criticize the short-term casino nature of the public equity market buyers and sellers. Too often they forget that as shareholders of a stock they are part-owners in the enterprise; rather they only desire to see the price tag on their stock certificate go up in the next minute so they can sell for a profit. That kind of thinking can poison a company.

The lesson I draw from this is that it matters who your investors are. Once you've sold part of the company, you must take into account the desires of your new partners, even if they are a teeming mass of the investing public. After all, you make the choice of whom you sell to. Some corporate leaders attempt to 'manage' their way out of this by massaging earnings the way Jack Welch did. I personally think the best way to handle this is by open education. Warren Buffett writes an elegant and informative letter each year and answers questions alongside Charlie Munger for four or five hours straight at the Berkshire meeting. If your business is too volatile, too secretive, or too sensitive to be explained to the public, you probably shouldn't be doing an IPO in the first place.

It occurs to me that Roger's best hope is to change the minds of RIM shareholders declaring open season on the board. It is naive of Roger Martin to think that his book and Denning's sensationalist hawking of it will do anything to soften the ire of RIM's shareholders. By the same token, it was naive of RIM's leaders not to take into account the fact that once they sold shares to the public, it became the public's company.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#132
post #81
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorporation is a privilege granted by society; and property rights are never absolute. What you state is extremely individualistic, but it is unrealistic and naive for the same reason. I understand your exhortation, but it does not amount to an argument. For example, most large companies with broad shareholder bases have no owner interests that you can easily point to; the shareholder base has collective action pro…

Perhaps the grandparent isn't making that great of an argument. But at the same time, I don't see you doing anything but arguing. And yet, I have no idea what you're arguing for . I assume that you're making the case that companies need to be more focused on collective action, but I don't really see any alternative vision compared to the grandparent. That said, I don't think collectivism and individuality are mutuall…

In a single term: stakeholder theory. I do think there needs to be some balance; not necessarily along collectivist lines, but rather with some thought applied to the kind of society we want to live in, and the kind of fairness and justice we want to see in our lives and the lives of our children. So I am hostile to absolutist approaches to ownership and the firm, particularly since we are all only here temporarily, and everything we think we own, we are just renting.

In my view, capitalism is justified in so far as it motivates value creation and production that leaves everyone better off, in a just way, rather than as something which follows from underlying principles around ownership and control of capital. That is, capitalism is a means to an end, not an end in itself; and when this means turns out to be unjust, it should be changed and regulated, rather than treated as sacred.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This revisionist view of Rhodes is overly negative. He was an empire builder but his prime motivation was to modernize the world. Rhodesian policy led to the end of the empire, in fact. This is just overly simplistic character assassination. Rhodes was way more complicated than you make him out to be. I remember reading one of his lectures where he was telling the class that now their duty, as wealthy and cultured mo…

> He was an empire builder Rhodes was not an Empire Builder. He was a company builder. His company was the British South African Company ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_South_Africa_Company ). > but his prime motivation was to modernize the world. Rhodesian policy led to the end of the empire, in fact. His motivation was to make money. You know that he tried to start a war? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jameson…

Wtf? Rhodes was known as "The Empire Builder"

Who is teaching you this bullshit history?

Demonizing historical figures instead of studying them in the context of their time is really pathetic.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#134
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really just asserting a tautology: Business owners determine what their businesses should do. Given the current legal status of corporations, the question "What should a company do?" is not ethical in nature ( ought ); it is a matter of fact ( is ): companies can, within the constraints imposed by law, do whatever their owners want them to do. There are certainly salient ethical questions here—"Which laws should…

The people who have executive power in the leadership structure of companies control what companies do. When ownership is diversified, business owners do not determine what their businesses do; your "tautology" is actually false, obviously so with more than a cursory examination of the world as it is. I myself am a part-owner of ARM, for example, but I have zero effective control over them. And the question as to wha…

The people who have executive power in the leadership structure of companies control what companies do.

The leadership structure is determined by the Chief Executive, who is appointed by the Board of Directors, who are elected by the shareholders, i.e., the owners. Q.E.D. (Lest you accuse me again of naïveté, I'm aware that there remains a principal-agent problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem); when an angel becomes available to serve as CEO, I suggest doing your level best to get him the job.)

By your formulation, there is no way to argue that company A is violating ethical norms.

The whole point of my formulation is that it is silent on ethical questions. If you find it unethical that Company A uses child labor, you can buy from their competitors, or organize a boycott, or lobby to make their practice illegal—and I might well join you. Supposing that Company A is a standard joint-stock company, your actions would serve to align their interests (maximize value) with yours (be ethical according to your criteria). There is no conflict between your actions of protest and the statement "The company owners determine its actions"; as categories, is and ought are orthogonal.

should be held ethically responsible

Note the passive voice in this statement: "be held responsible". By whom? When people say that corporations should "be held responsible", what they means is, "We want to hold corporations responsible [is] according to our system of ethics [ought]." In other words, stripped of all camouflage, it is a naked grab for power. It's a generally well-intentioned power grab, of course, and depending on your system of ethics you might consider their achieving power to be a good thing. But Robespierre had good intentions, too, and the road to hell, etc.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#135
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who have executive power in the leadership structure of companies control what companies do. When ownership is diversified, business owners do not determine what their businesses do; your "tautology" is actually false, obviously so with more than a cursory examination of the world as it is. I myself am a part-owner of ARM, for example, but I have zero effective control over them. And the question as to wha…

The people who have executive power in the leadership structure of companies control what companies do. The leadership structure is determined by the Chief Executive, who is appointed by the Board of Directors, who are elected by the shareholders, i.e., the owners. Q.E.D. (Lest you accuse me again of naïveté, I'm aware that there remains a principal-agent problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem…

You acknowledge the principle/agent problem, yet you pretend it doesn't exist in your QED; your demonstrandum was not convincingly demonstrated.

What if company A has a monopoly owing to being cheaper than any possible competition that does not use child labour? Would your argument for introducing a law against it not be an ethical argument governing the permissible actions of companies?

We want to hold corporations responsible [is] according to our system of ethics [ought]." In other words, stripped of all camouflage, it is a naked grab for power

Well yes, I do rather prefer government to anarchy. I'm sorry to say that if you see this as a "naked grab for power", I have little more to add, and am unwilling to continue a conversation with you. This is because, unless I'm mistaken, you are denying the very basis of democratic government ("we", the majority) in defense of something much more dangerous (the oligopoly of wealth and executive power). Someone who would do that is not someone I would trust; it is someone I'd rather shun.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#136
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who have executive power in the leadership structure of companies control what companies do. The leadership structure is determined by the Chief Executive, who is appointed by the Board of Directors, who are elected by the shareholders, i.e., the owners. Q.E.D. (Lest you accuse me again of naïveté, I'm aware that there remains a principal-agent problem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem…

You acknowledge the principle/agent problem, yet you pretend it doesn't exist in your QED; your demonstrandum was not convincingly demonstrated. What if company A has a monopoly owing to being cheaper than any possible competition that does not use child labour? Would your argument for introducing a law against it not be an ethical argument governing the permissible actions of companies? We want to hold corporations…

the very basis of democratic government ("we", the majority)

Come now—you don't even believe this. The majority used to support legal chattel slavery. Did that make slavery right? Killing Native Americans and taking their land was pretty popular, too. And what about the overwhelming popular support for the Anschluss Österreichs that brought Austria under Nazi rule? Und so weiter.

You can believe in ethical government, or you can believe in the ethical principle of "majority rule", but you can't believe in both. Think about that the next time you slam someone for questioning "democracy".

If you shun me, it's not because I'm dangerous or untrustworthy, but rather because you are a Jedi and I am a Sith. (Suffice to say you've been exposed to a lot of anti-Sith propaganda.) Don't worry—I, too, was once a Jedi, and I don't take it personally. Luckily, it's never too late to come over to the Dark Side.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was an empire builder Rhodes was not an Empire Builder. He was a company builder. His company was the British South African Company ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_South_Africa_Company ). > but his prime motivation was to modernize the world. Rhodesian policy led to the end of the empire, in fact. His motivation was to make money. You know that he tried to start a war? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jameson…

Wtf? Rhodes was known as "The Empire Builder" Who is teaching you this bullshit history? Demonizing historical figures instead of studying them in the context of their time is really pathetic.

> Rhodes was known as "The Empire Builder"

Maybe you misunderstood me. You say that he was a selfless Empire Builder - i.e. he had some zeal to build the English Empire for the good of the queen and England. Yet his true aim was making money (through the British South African Company).

> Who is teaching you this bullshit history?

> Demonizing historical figures instead of studying them in the context of their time is really pathetic.

Trying to whitewash history and historical figures is quite sad. Admittedly I learnt history from a different perspective than you (i.e. from the side of the oppressed and not the opressee).

Yet even in western countries, colonialism is now seen as a bad thing by the majority of people (a few nationalists and apologists notwithstanding).

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#138
post #11

There is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer. No. The one valid definition of a business purpose is this: A business should do what the owners want it to do. Otherwise, the notion of ownership loses meaning. If the owners want to create lots of customers, they do that. If they would rather have a smaller number of highly profitable customers, they do that. If they want to create a ni…

"No. The one valid definition of a business purpose is this: A business should do what the owners want it to do. Otherwise, the notion of ownership loses meaning."

This is specious, not all shareholders are equal and most have no practical consequence from their shareholding because they hold too few.

Large shareholders are rarely, if ever, interested in being owners, they want short term tradeable instruments. Maximising shareholder value is pandering to the whims of these people whose goals are never in the interests of the underlying business.

Re: The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

#139
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First I see that you are new here, so welcome. That isn't much of an argument you are presenting though -- you could argue against a person being allowed to do anything based on that. The reason I can't drive a car the way I want is that it represents a clear and present danger to the health of third-parties. On the other hand running my business the way I want doesn't present a clear harm to others, so I can't.

"On the other hand running my business the way I want doesn't present a clear harm to others, so I can't." I beg to differ. How corporations are run harms so many others that it amazes me that you would even say that. What about all the "down-sized" workers whose pensions were gutted and benefits taken away - or the workers who lose their lives because companies care more about the bottom line than they do about safe…

tomjen3 said "the way I want", not "any way I want". There's an important distinction. Just because some companies act like that doesn't mean all business owners - and particularly tomjen3 - do.

See chc's post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3393472

Post reply on HN