Aaron Wyse wrote:
> I never heard anything like that.. I thought that was why the
shareholders
> vote on major decisions.
How "major" are we talking here? My company very rarely held
shareholder votes - normally they're only done for changes in executive
management, selling the company off, etc.
> The best interests of the business are the best
> interests of the shareholders.
Not always. Remember that "shareholder value" is in part market-driven.
So to make the shareholder happy, you have to make the value of the
stock go up, which doesn't necessarily mean the best decisions for
building and strengthening the business. Slash workforce? OK, but now
the company can't complete these 5 projects it needs to get better
products on the street faster, and service those products better. So
now the company will do worse, but shareholders are happy that expenses
(salary) is reduced, so that's fine.
> If management is cuttign the business's
> throat (so to speak) by literally destroying the staff and the remaining
> staffs morale; that makes short term paper look good.. Which of you're a
> shareholder, would only be good if you were getting ready to sell out. If
> the company prospers, the shareholders prosper.
Or, you could have executive management intentionally manage the company
into the ground to the point where the options are to sell for 75% of
book value (and feel lucky that you're getting that much) or fold the
company.
I'm watching this happen from the inside *right now* and it sickens me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 01 2004 - 10:59:13 EDT