Capco Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 You don't seem to see the forest because the trees get in the way. Stockholder welfare doesn't have to mean just money. It might have to do with the health of the corporation or its reputation. Maybe it has to do with research & development or diversification. There are a myriad of things that might fall under fiduciary duties. You've narrowed your interpretation of fiduciary duties to fit your narrative. Of course it doesn't have to mean that. But again, in practice, that is almost always what it boils down to when referring to for-profit corporations. Think of it as the difference between de facto and de jure.
Capco Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Here's a snippet from another article that takes a different view, which some of you may find more palatable than the explanation I am offering: So, where did the mistaken idea that directors must maximize shareholder value come from? The notion is especially popular among economists unburdened by knowledge of corporate law. But it has also been embraced by increasingly powerful activist hedge funds that profit from harassing boards into adopting strategies that raise share price in the short term, and by corporate executives driven by “pay for performance” schemes that tie their compensation to each year’s shareholder returns. In other words, it is activist hedge funds and modern executive compensation practices — not corporate law — that drive so many of today’s public companies to myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation; mistreat their employees, customers and communities; and indulge in reckless, irresponsible and environmentally destructive behaviors. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
GG Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Afaik, there is no specific statute that says this, but that doesn't make it any less true in practice. So in other words, when caught in a falsehood, let's double down on a tangent. Then let's play a game. If you think that for-profit insurance companies are the problem, what the combined profit of the biggest health insurers in the US?
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Afaik, there is no specific statute that says this, but that doesn't make it any less true in practice. "Most large businesses buy their corporate charters from the state of Delaware. And the law of Delaware is clear about corporate purpose. The chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, Leo Strine, put it simply in a recent law review article: “Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end.” In cases where directors have acknowledged sacrificing shareholder interests for other groups, Delaware courts have found those directors violated their fiduciary duties. But is this standard for corporate governance — shareholders over all — good for society?" https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/its-law-but-it-shouldnt-be "Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end." I dunno about you, but I buy stock to make money. Somehow my post got mixed up as a defense of your position. Let me clarify: I don't support this nonsense.
grinreaper Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Here's a snippet from another article that takes a different view, which some of you may find more palatable than the explanation I am offering: So, where did the mistaken idea that directors must maximize shareholder value come from? The notion is especially popular among economists unburdened by knowledge of corporate law. But it has also been embraced by increasingly powerful activist hedge funds that profit from harassing boards into adopting strategies that raise share price in the short term, and by corporate executives driven by “pay for performance” schemes that tie their compensation to each year’s shareholder returns. In other words, it is activist hedge funds and modern executive compensation practices — not corporate law — that drive so many of today’s public companies to myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation; mistreat their employees, customers and communities; and indulge in reckless, irresponsible and environmentally destructive behaviors. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits That's a long way from fiduciary duty.
IDBillzFan Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Let me clarify: I don't support this nonsense. Exactly. You're busy supporting your own.
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 Exactly. You're busy supporting your own. Even then sometimes I don't.
Capco Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 That's a long way from fiduciary duty. Right. The reason I shared that article is because some posters are getting caught up over corporate law in a discussion about healthcare. I mentioned the fiduciary duty of a board of directors as a way to support the notion that large corporations "myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation; mistreat their employees, customers and communities; and indulge in reckless, irresponsible and environmentally destructive behaviors." The last article I posted offers a different explanation for the same corporate behavior, but the fact is that regardless of the source of that behavior, that behavior remains, and it is specifically that behavior which doesn't belong in the discussion of people's healthcare. Some posters are failing to see the forest because the trees are getting in the way I shouldn't have planted that fiduciary tree lol.
grinreaper Posted June 30, 2017 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) Right. The reason I shared that article is because some posters are getting caught up over corporate law in a discussion about healthcare. I mentioned the fiduciary duty of a board of directors as a way to support the notion that large corporations "myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation; mistreat their employees, customers and communities; and indulge in reckless, irresponsible and environmentally destructive behaviors." The last article I posted offers a different explanation for the same corporate behavior, but the fact is that regardless of the source of that behavior, that behavior remains, and it is specifically that behavior which doesn't belong in the discussion of people's healthcare. Some posters are failing to see the forest because the trees are getting in the way I shouldn't have planted that fiduciary tree lol. Yes, but there is no excuse for you fertilizing it with your Bullschit. Edited July 1, 2017 by grinreaper
Capco Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 Yes, but there is no excuse for you fertilizing it with you Bullschit. I'm really digging this tree metaphor. And tbf, bullschit is a good fertilizer
grinreaper Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 I'm really digging this tree metaphor. And tbf, bullschit is a good fertilizer Yes, it is a good fertilizer, but everything doesn't need fertilizer. Take a close look at my avatar. If you're the guy in that picture do you want someone to fertilize that sapling?
B-Man Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 Scenes from the collapse: Another Ohio insurer bails out of ObamaCare State by state, insurers keep bailing out of the ObamaCare exchanges, leaving consumers with no options to satisfy the mandate. Just a few weeks after Anthem announced it would leave 20 counties in Ohio without any access to ACA-compliant individual insurance plans, another Ohio insurer pulled out of the state’s ACA exchanges. Premier’s exit impacts nine Ohio counties, and once again points up the crisis as Congress tries to muddle through to a solution:
ALF Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 (edited) Why So Many Insurers Are Leaving Obamacare Insurers might have been less likely to exit if more states had expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. Before Obamacare, insurers could reject customers they thought would be too sick and too expensive. The Affordable Care Act was written with the idea that states would expand Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor, to cover people earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, or $16,400 for a single adult. But a 2012 Supreme Court case made that expansion optional, and so far 19 states have rejected the expansion. People earning below 100 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $12,000 annually, in those states aren’t eligible for subsidies to buy private insurance on the Obamacare exchanges or, in most cases, for Medicaid. They fall in an insurance no-man’s land, the “coverage gap.” https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/05/why-so-many-insurers-are-leaving-obamacare/526137/ Column What ails the Obamacare insurance exchanges? (It's not what you think.) http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-exchanges-20160805-snap-story.html Edited July 1, 2017 by ALF
Tiberius Posted July 1, 2017 Posted July 1, 2017 "Personal?" So shareholders are making medical decisions for insurance companies. You're retarded. Go away. You should go away. Retard Tom
reddogblitz Posted July 2, 2017 Posted July 2, 2017 ..............Wit has truth in it[/size] REMY: PEOPLE WILL DIE! Is that Mark Kelso driving that car?
B-Man Posted July 2, 2017 Posted July 2, 2017 California Democrats to far-left single payer advocates: Stop bullying and threatening us!“we have become alarmed and disheartened by bullying tactics, threats of violence, and death threats” To the dems..................
Tiberius Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 We can all agree that helping these kids is more important than tax cuts for the wealthy, right? http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/03/medicaid-schools-red-states-240186 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells health care bill is getting failing grades from red-state school leaders even in his home state of Kentucky. Fleming County Schools Superintendent Brian Creasman was taken aback when he discovered the bill would make cuts that could devastate his ability to provide health services to needy and disabled kids. About $4 billion in annual Medicaid spending goes to U.S. schools to pay for school nurses, physical, occupational and speech therapists, and school-based screenings and treatment for children from low-income families, as well as wheelchairs and even buses to transport kids with special needs. The funds make up just 1 percent of Medicaid reimbursements, but school leaders in economically depressed parts of Appalachia, the Rust Belt and elsewhere say they are critical to providing services they are required to provide to special education students. Creasman said hes seen firsthand how mental health services funded by Medicaid have connected families to help at a time when his state is struggling with an opioid addiction crisis.
ALF Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 We can all agree that helping these kids is more important than tax cuts for the wealthy, right? http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/03/medicaid-schools-red-states-240186 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells health care bill is getting failing grades from red-state school leaders even in his home state of Kentucky. Absolutely
Recommended Posts