#958 in Business & money books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public

Sentiment score: 3
Reddit mentions: 4

We found 4 Reddit mentions of The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public. Here are the top ones.

The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
Specs:
ColorCream
Height8.56 Inches
Length5.56 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateMay 2012
Weight0.00220462262 Pounds
Width0.4 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 4 comments on The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public:

u/twiifm · 6 pointsr/stocks

This is wrong. Shareholder maximization as legal obligation is a myth. Lynn Stout who is an academic legal professor wrote about this. The corporation is under no legal obligation to do such a thing

http://www.amazon.com/Shareholder-Value-Myth-Shareholders-Corporations/dp/1605098132/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1421299436&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Shareholder+myth

u/kemitchell · 3 pointsr/TrueReddit

The article largely parrots Lynn Stout's mass-market book.

Professor Stout's view is not universally shared by lawyers or legal academics. In my experience of the legal academy and the bar, it's a small minority view, more in the nature of activism than revisionism. I still recommend the book, just because the reflex to oppose it requires checking one's rigor closer to the primary sources.

State legislatures are running long-overdue and very promising experiments in public benefit corporations. Many of those business forms are still too fresh and untested to recommend to clients, but the same was true of LLCs not so long ago.

There is certainly a lot of interest. Lay clients are asking about the structure. That and crowd funding :-)

Edit: Word choice

u/tsqr · 3 pointsr/Foodforthought

> companies ultimately exist to serve their owners (stockholders)

Do they? Says who? We as a society allow companies to have limited liability. Shouldn't we get a social benefit in return?

Even if your narrow view is true, are the practices in this article the best way, much less the only way, to serve shareholders? My clients are often large, institutional investors, with massive holdings in a wide range of companies, including Apple. I would wager that most of them disagree that the practices in this article are clearly in their best interest, especially in the long run.

For an argument against your view, see [this book] (https://www.amazon.com/Shareholder-Value-Myth-Shareholders-Corporations/dp/1605098132).

u/buttmannnnnnnnn · 1 pointr/news

STOP! The shareholder value myth is FALSE.

The shareholder value myth is a zombie that has taken dozens of shotgun blasts to the head, but refuses to die and needs to be put back into the ground from whence it came.

CEOs and boards act on behalf of shareholders and have some obligations, but not much more than any other employee has to their boss. Corporate chiefs are largely free to steer the business in the direction they want, so long as they are not committing blatant fraud and enriching themselves at the expense of shareholders. If shareholders don't like it, well, that's what at-will employment is for.

The myth of a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value arose as part of the financialization of the economy in the go-go, greed-is-good 80's. Ivy League business schools pushed this obligation so hard that it started to be taken as an absolute.

Here are some eye-opening resources on this topic:

Lynn Stout: The Shareholder Value Myth [book]

Lynn Stout article in the New York Times