• 31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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).

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Control still primarily lies with the CEO

          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.

    • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.