Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Destroying a profitable, growing or mature company in pursuit of greater second derivatives isn't pro-shareholder -- it's pro a particular kind of investment strategy which views returns through a particular lens. I believe it's deeply myopic.

It's a Wall St myth that quarterly returns are the best thing to optimize for generating shareholder value or that executives are obligated to do so.

It's the kind of capitalism that tells you the most efficient way to heat your house is to set it on fire.




If that profitable growing company constantly takes millions of dollars out of it's accounts and sets them afire, stopping it from doing so isn't going "destroy it".

And it's not a wall street myth that quarterly returns are the best thing, more a CNN/Stock Trader myth. There are a huge number of investors like Warren Buffett who know that is entirely wrong.

But it's a common misconception that cutting spending is bad for business. In this case they are cutting a deluded CEO who had his own personality cult and a massive team of paid cheerleaders. Overpaying employees isn't "investing", paying closer to market isn't going to hurt the business. On the contrary, it can focus it and unleash greater growth.

When Steve Jobs came back to Apple he cut the Newton, dozens of Mac hardware projects, and almost all advanced R&D. He focused the Mac team on four market segments and only four computers. He focused remaining research on areas that could lead to products they understood, mainly touchpads. It took them nearly 10 years of careful iteration, (they designed the iPad first and Steve refused to launch it) before they built the iPhone.

But if Steve hadn't focused on getting Apple's quarterly burn down, they never would have made it. If he hadn't focused their efforts, they likely never would have made great products. If he had thrown money at every half baked idea, they would have died.


The strategy indeed may not have been adding external shareholder value. In fact that is probably not the point of most IPOs (the point is usually to raise money to grow the business and/or increase wealth of the owners). I doubt the intent was to destroy the company, because that results in people losing money.

I certainly agree that the boost-short-term-profit-to-get-rich-then-bail is deeply unethical (and sometimes illegal).

However, "doing it right", and using the added wealth to grow the business in the long term will benefit everyone (founders, shareholders, consumers, and the economy), and is one of the BEST parts of capitalism.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: