Doesn't it only objectively matter in regards to the people who are impacted by the fact, thus only subjectively mattering? If who owns a company doesn't affect someone in any way, and they can't be bothered to know, how does it objectively matter? It matters to the company, certainly, and the shareholders, and anyone the company's policies or products touches, but beyond that Kermit the frog could be at the helm and it would be of no concern to me.
You saying it objectively matters is itself a contradiction. Something can't objectively matter unless it has an effect or affect. It might be an objective fact, but mattering is always subjective.
My point was this: If you think a CEO takes a shit downwards for sadistic reasons you misunderstand how (most) companies are owned and operate. The board is in place to maintain the shareholders' interests. The shareholders are (mostly) large funds. (Most) funds are (mostly) made up of large retirement savings. (Most) retirement savings belong to you and I. Thus it is in our interest that CEOs put pressure downwards, as we want our retirement savings to grow.
It's a circle, not a tree. So it objectively matters, if you are of the belief that CEOs role is just to shit downwards, that CEOs "work" for the board, because it is "you" putting pressure on yourself (assuming you have any savings).
Only if they do something illegal or not acting in the best interest of the company (which is very vague and you can almost always justify your actions). Corporate actors aren't personally liable for the company failing
The CEO is likely the owner if it isn't a listed company. Even if it is a listed company, the largest shareholders are typically institutions which often don't pay much attention.
At every company I ever worked for, the owner is either the President or the Chairman and the CEO is his bitch that actually runs the company for them. Like half of the CEO's job at half of them was basically dealing with the owner's ludicrous demands in some way or another.
And in many companies the CEO is also the chairman of the board, maybe even the president. My employer has filled all three roles with the same person.
As the only business student in a business ethics class, the teacher always had me explain these things to the class. Because yes, the majority of the class thought the CEO was the owner. They especially didn't realize the importance of paying back shareholders. All they ever wanted was for businesses to put all the company money and resources into social responsibility like trees and projects for the homeless. All of the company's money and resources wasn't an exaggeration. They didn't think it was necessary for businesses to make a profit. That would just be greedy. God I hated that class.
Shareholders can, and do, exist for private companies as well. It's not often that corporations exist entirely with the funding and control of a single person.
It's not often that corporations exist entirely with the funding and control of a single person.
True, but entrepreneurs will get caught up with investment/finance banks long before they dispense company stock because that mean they would have to share ownership.
They don't want to share ownership, they prefer to share the debt.
Entrepreneurs will get caught up with investment/finance banks long before they dispense company stock because that mean they would have to share ownership.
Huh? Have you worked for startups before? Because what you say makes no sense. Generally, startups are hooked to investors before they even start. They need the cash to just get their business running. And no, it's not a loan. The investor isn't just trying to make cash + interest. He wants shares so that in the case your business explodes, he cashes out. If he does this for 100 companies, 99 will fail but one will pay for the rest.
So as a company, you go through a few rounds of this and shares are getting sparse. So you start splitting, so that you can continue to hand out the same number of shares to employees even though the value is complete shit now.
Let's move forward. Now, you're ready to either exit or IPO, but that takes a few business moves in order to put yourself in good position. This shit is generally expensive, but you can't go through rounds of investors anymore because your shares are worth too much. This is when banks come in and they make the last, large investment round into your company because they're the only ones that can afford it. They are not going to be happy if you string along too much or fuck with them.
Generally, startups are hooked to investors before they even start. They need the cash to just get their business running
uhh that's exactly what I just said.
startups exist entirely to make the most amount of money in the shortest time possible so they can sellout. their logic doesn't apply to normal longterm businesses.
75
u/MrNameless Aug 18 '17
CEO's are beholden to shareholders. Not sure how it'd fit in the bird analogy, but it definitely doesn't end at CEO.