Quote:
Originally Posted by JurisDictum
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The truth is, as long as you allow free instant trading where your investment is not "locked in" (i.e. you can sell your stock whenever you want), there is a problem of short termism.
All you need to worry about is maximizing your profit quarter to quarter if you can move your money around whenever you want. It does not incentivize long term investment properly. The long term health of the company is completely irrelevant to you.
Some invest the old fashion way (marry what they invest in) but there isn't a lot of compelling logic to it.
This is why games suck. It simply did not matter to Blizzard shareholders that d3 was a flopped in the long run. By then, they could have liquidated their stock and invested in a different company.
Probably a company that just tanked from a recent customer sell-out.
Oh and btw, assuming people aren't going to inside trading all day long is retarded and a fundamentally misunderstanding of how humans work. Especially since we rarely even bother jailing those we catch.
|
True. We're looking at the need for a monumental overhaul to the nature of how corporations are structured. Furthermore, this would necessarily mandate the redefining of privately owned (often sole proprietorship) companies currently operating under the umbrella of "corporation".
Essentially, pay structure would need to be a function of total employees, heirarchy of responsibility, profitability, and shareholder obligations (dividend).
If done properly, stock price would be a function of relating dividend to profitabilty and the stability of future dividends, whilst getting rid of speculative and self fueled equity growth, but at the same time this would severely inhibit corporations operating at a net negative profit margin because they are investing in future earnings (Tesla, NIO) etc. So it makes sense for establish market-mature megacorporations but it is not conducive to innovators.....