Comment on SpaceX stock drops to a new low and loses $1 trillion in value in a month
GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 4 days agoIs it? That is, if i were to own a public company, the only way i would ever allow anyone else to own a part of it. It is my company, i don’t want fucking shareholders pressure me for more profits and shortsighted decisions. If the vultures want a share of the profits they get just that, not a voice at the table.
That is literally the entire point of shares. You buy a percentage of the company and give them money so they can use that money to expand and develop.
Why would I give a company money if I don’t get a percentage of that company? It’s not a fuckin donation.
You give that money to the Corp to get profits in return. Not a say in how the company is run, at least youre not supposed to for healthy business operations. One of, if not the biggest reason that for example steam continues to win is just they are being not overtly greedy and shortsighted. That is obviously a much healthier business model.
Valve isn’t public. That’s the healthy business model.
If you’re in a position to dictate what shareholders get, you have no real reason to go public. Just keep it privately owned.
You go public to raise funds. The least reasonable thing to do to someone is ask them for money with a pinky promise that they might make a profit. Usually, those people are going to want something in return, like a say in how their money is spent.
Yes. I realize someone else explained it to you but you as the owner would love to sell it that way but others as a buyer would be nuts to buy your shares. Its not crazy to sell shares that way its crazy to buy them.
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 4 days ago
No, by definition it is not, if you sell part of it to the public and make it a public company.
GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
… If i had a company and it were successful, and i decided to go public, i would only issue that kind of voteless share or whatever they are called, so that i would be protected from shareholder pressure to some extent. Was that not clear somehow? Or did you just want to go for the snark
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
No I’m just pointing out that your view on who should morally control the company is wrong from the start.
GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
How so? Shareholders are the worst cancer on the economy, but at the same time hard to eliminate without a revolution.
The proper order should be that people invest in a company they believe will do well, not because they seek to exert control over it. If you do not believe the company is operating in a profitable manner you should not buy, or sell your, shares.
You state this is wrong. Why? In my opinion, if we must have institutionalized gambling, we should seek to keep it from exerting undue influence, even in the shareholders own long term interest. Of course this would not allow the leadership to just do whatever with the money, reporting and oversight should if anything be improved upon.