upvote

points

by rurp2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby brookst2 hours ago|
[-]
It’s basically a fuck you to the shareholders. Hey we’ve got this dead asset someone will pay for but we won’t sell because they were mean to us.

Any exec who operates that way should be shown the door ASAP as they are likely doing similar emotional management of other aspects of the business.

reply
upvoteby SoftTalker1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If they feel it's damaging to have it public, then it could be argued that selling it would be irresponsible. I'm not arguing it is or it isn't, but reputation has value and management of it is part of what shareholders expect.
reply
upvoteby jfengel1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
ABC's shareholders are Disney. Whatever Nate offered them isn't even a rounding error in Disney's $36 billion dollars in profits last year. The shareholders aren't going to care.
reply
upvoteby hibikir1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's not that a shareholder won't care, but that the modern US company is such a large basket of businesses, it's impossible to put any pressure on a random business unit throwing money away. So, in practice, there's very little pressure to do things right, and a lot of pressure to do what your boss prefers, whether it actually helps the company's profitability or not. There can be negatives if you are doing massive damage to the company's image, but even then, ABC has done more than a little bit of that over the last couple of years to no ill effects. Just ask Kimmel.
reply
upvoteby themafia1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> shareholders are Disney

Who's shareholders are the public.

> The shareholders aren't going to care

This is not a valid defense in court. You can't let "attitude of investors" override "sound financial decisionmaking."

reply
upvoteby slipheen57 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not defending them or this behaviour but it sounds to me like they may think the message/threat this sends to silence future criticism from other people, outweighs the immediate sum.

(Internally I'm sure they could probably phrase it some other less negative way such as chance of people confusing the brand as still owned by them, etc) association

reply
upvoteby lotsofpulp1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Disney's 2025 profit was $12B:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/net-inc...

reply
upvoteby themafia1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So what amount of profits insulates you from lack of fiduciary responsibility?

"It's okay set millions of dollars on fire because we have billions in this pile over here!"

reply
upvoteby singleshot_17 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
No, what insulates them from fiduciary responsibility is the fact that there is no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. I’ll say that again: members and/or managers of an LLC, and officers and directors of a corporation owe no fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to make them money. The fiduciary duties owed under US law are as follows: 1) the duty to be informed; 2) the duty not to usurp corporate opportunities.

As far as I can tell the fiduciary duty to make money for the shareholders is something that Jack Welsh of GE said enough times that people remembered it. However, I’m always interested in additional details concerning the history of this meme, and happy to learn more.

reply
upvoteby singleshot_15 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
(The first person to observe that an LLC has no shareholders gets a lawyer high five).
reply