Reply to post: Re: "not in the best interests of shareholders"

HP to Xerox: Nope, your $33.5bn bid falls short of our valuation

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: "not in the best interests of shareholders"

It might stink, but it's all connected.

Pension funds are the "owners" of most stocks. So forgetting to make money means grandma has to eat less of a lower grade of cat food.

People do what they're incentivised to do. The current scheme of rewarding the C suite and board members via stock options - because no one wants the optics of eye-watering amounts of cash - is at fault for a lot of the evils here. The system has allowed them to vote on their own pay.

I don't feel anyone should be entitled to a "good paying job in nice conditions" if they don't produce more value than they cost. If you do, that's a different discussion. Marxism only works till you run out of other people's money.

Good luck changing the rules as they are, since the people who enforce them are the ones who benefit. It's "we've let the plebes vote for bread and circuses" again, just at the level of not-plebes who get their way whether anyone else likes it or not.

This is a long winded way of saying "follow the money", of course.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020