Well, that's certainly an article title isn't it. But I mean it. Microsoft, don't you dare touch Valve. You're fat enough already and too big as it is.
Large “activist” shareholders (usually fund managers, I believe) often step-in and make demands when the stock isn’t performing as they would like. Gabe could be CEO, but shareholders could threaten to dump stock to get the company to act in a certain way. I believe that was behind all the tech layoffs. My conspiracy-biased mind believes these shareholders sometimes push for things that aren’t exactly in the company’s best interest, but are in the investor’s best interest. E.g. if the fund management company is also heavily in commercial real-estate, they may try to get other companies they are invested in to institute return-to-office mandates. My guess is these big players do all kinds of shady shit (use their influence to control media narratives, politicians, etc).
Just because a company is public, doesn’t mean control suddenly is with some Capital company.
Microsoft as an example was absolutely controlled by the founders for decades, before they left the company and handed control over. There is NOTHING different about that, compared to a private company, that can also be traded.
My point was that Valve could only be what it is without being a publicly traded company. Yes, it also requires Gabe or the business owner to direct the company properly, but there are a range of things that publicly traded companies are legally prohibited from doing.
Just because a company is public, doesn’t mean control suddenly is with some Capital company.
Control still primarily lies with the CEO, but the CEO of a publicly traded company is legally obligated to pursue profits above all else.
No control lies with the owners, a public company can easily have a single or a small group of owners that control the company. Your entire premise is simply false.
Yes you’re right, the control lies with the owner. The owner is quite often also the CEO with a private company, but the distinction is worth clarifying.
Strictly speaking, the same is true of publicly traded companies. However with publicly traded companies there is also law that obligates the CEO to act on behalf of the shareholders. The shareholders are the owner, just like with private companies. However a private CEO would just be in breach of their employment contract, a public CEO would be in breach of the law.
Ultimately the reality of publicly traded companies means that “the CEO works for the owner” in all practical purposes is “the CEO pursues profit above all else”. While it would technically be possible for all the shareholders to vote that the company do something else, in reality that almost never happens - there are too many ways for shareholders to buy into the company and say “no I want money”. Thus, privately owned businesses have the opportunity, under direction from the owner/CEO of behaving differently to publicly traded companies. That doesn’t mean they will, because many private business owners want to make money just the same as public shareholders, but the possibility is much higher.
Your entire premise is simply false.
No it isn’t, and the things I’m explaining to you are widely understood.
That the shareholders push for things in their interest over that of the company doesn’t exactly strike me as conspiratorial thinking. Nearly everyone in an organization will push for what’s best for them.
Maintaining a healthy organization is in nearly everyone’s best interest, but if you have a small group of decision makers who are not invested in the health of the organization, they’ll be willing to make decisions at the expense of the organization.
Large “activist” shareholders (usually fund managers, I believe) often step-in and make demands when the stock isn’t performing as they would like. Gabe could be CEO, but shareholders could threaten to dump stock to get the company to act in a certain way. I believe that was behind all the tech layoffs. My conspiracy-biased mind believes these shareholders sometimes push for things that aren’t exactly in the company’s best interest, but are in the investor’s best interest. E.g. if the fund management company is also heavily in commercial real-estate, they may try to get other companies they are invested in to institute return-to-office mandates. My guess is these big players do all kinds of shady shit (use their influence to control media narratives, politicians, etc).
Just because a company is public, doesn’t mean control suddenly is with some Capital company.
Microsoft as an example was absolutely controlled by the founders for decades, before they left the company and handed control over. There is NOTHING different about that, compared to a private company, that can also be traded.
My point was that Valve could only be what it is without being a publicly traded company. Yes, it also requires Gabe or the business owner to direct the company properly, but there are a range of things that publicly traded companies are legally prohibited from doing.
Control still primarily lies with the CEO, but the CEO of a publicly traded company is legally obligated to pursue profits above all else.
No control lies with the owners, a public company can easily have a single or a small group of owners that control the company. Your entire premise is simply false.
Yes you’re right, the control lies with the owner. The owner is quite often also the CEO with a private company, but the distinction is worth clarifying.
Strictly speaking, the same is true of publicly traded companies. However with publicly traded companies there is also law that obligates the CEO to act on behalf of the shareholders. The shareholders are the owner, just like with private companies. However a private CEO would just be in breach of their employment contract, a public CEO would be in breach of the law.
Ultimately the reality of publicly traded companies means that “the CEO works for the owner” in all practical purposes is “the CEO pursues profit above all else”. While it would technically be possible for all the shareholders to vote that the company do something else, in reality that almost never happens - there are too many ways for shareholders to buy into the company and say “no I want money”. Thus, privately owned businesses have the opportunity, under direction from the owner/CEO of behaving differently to publicly traded companies. That doesn’t mean they will, because many private business owners want to make money just the same as public shareholders, but the possibility is much higher.
No it isn’t, and the things I’m explaining to you are widely understood.
That the shareholders push for things in their interest over that of the company doesn’t exactly strike me as conspiratorial thinking. Nearly everyone in an organization will push for what’s best for them.
Maintaining a healthy organization is in nearly everyone’s best interest, but if you have a small group of decision makers who are not invested in the health of the organization, they’ll be willing to make decisions at the expense of the organization.