This is repeated everywhere but not true. The company officers are to act in the best interests of the shareholders. That may or may not be profit.

This old canard.

No. They have to act kb the interests of shareholders, whatever interest that is.

And what exactly is the interest of the shareholders, rather than maximasing share value / dividend payout?

This is a good article with much more detail: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

>> Serving shareholders’ “best interests” is not the same thing as either maximizing profits, or maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder value," for one thing, is a vague objective: No single “shareholder value” can exist, because different shareholders have different values. Some are long-term investors planning to hold stock for years or decades; others are short-term speculators.

Sure, but all of those are still focused on the profits, revenues and growth of the company; rather than any externalities it might bring about.

Did you read the article?

>> Also, most investors care not only about their portfolios, but also about their jobs, their tax burdens, the products they buy and the air they breathe. Which is to say, companies that maximize profits by firing employees, avoiding taxes, selling shoddy products or polluting the environment can harm their shareholders more than helping them.

>Going public does mean that your company is obliged to maximise shareholder profit, rather than achieve whatever goals the founders envisioned.

and

> And what exactly is the interest of the shareholders, rather than maximising share value / dividend payout?

Wait. By your own logic why would anyone invest in anything that wasn't public if you were just throwing money at some dude that wanted to do something that wasn't in your interest? Your logic makes no sense. It sounds like you're saying, it's sad that founders don't get to spend money anyway they want without carrying about the wishes of who gave them the money.

> By your own logic why would anyone invest in anything that wasn't public if you were just throwing money at some dude that wanted to do something that wasn't in your interest?

Because usually you get preferred stock, that means that all the 'crazy' non-profit-oriented things that the founders might be doing are still done with their money, rather than yours.

There's just a difference in both incentives and philosophy, isn't there? If the company is controlled by a private person, they're not obliged to make decisions that are 'best for the company'; and anyone choosing to go along for the ride is expressing trust into that persons ideas and goals. (And any contractual terms they set in their shareholder agreement; but the owners can refuse terms that misalign with their vision)

>It sounds like you're saying, it's sad that founders don't get to spend money anyway they want without carrying about the wishes of who gave them the money.

No; I'm saying that if as a founder you want to be able to spend money any way you want, you do not want to go public.