So often it's "buyer beware" when it comes to consumers, it seems like it should likewise be the job of the investor to be smart about what companies they invest in if they want to avoid a CEO who would run a business into the ground just for funsies. The risk of potentially losing your entire investment is something every investor has to accept as being possible with carefully considered and wise investments making it less likely to occur.

> So often it's "buyer beware" when it comes to consumers, it seems like it should likewise be the job of the investor to be smart about what companies they invest in if they want to avoid a CEO who would run a business into the ground just for funsies

It's pretty much like that already, the CEO can run the company into the ground for funsies if they are insane.

But if the investor catches the CEO doing this they have the right to sue to prevent it from happening and the legal system and shareholder primacy are what allow for this. Otherwise, what does the concept of ownership even mean if the owner can't decide what is done with the business?

Even without a right to sue or shareholder primacy shareholders can get a crazed CEO fired, screw with their pay, etc.

Ownership guarantees some legal rights, but it doesn't mean that all value is yours to consume. Employees, partners and customers are all going to fight for the value that is created and will use whatever leverage they have to get it.

Of course owners don't get all of the value. Otherwise, there wouldn't be employees or customers.

Company actions will maximize company value. Employee actions will maximize employee value. Customer actions will maximize customer value.

> Yep, why would anyone own anything that negatively impacts them.

That's a false dichotomy. You can own something (or a share) and the purpose of it need not be "return as much value as possible, via buybacks, in the next quarter".

Uh, so why would I choose to own that?

To earn a return on your investment. Maximizing that return in the next quarter by threatening to take a controlling stake in the company falls into this category of course, but it's silly to think it is the exclusive mode. The point the other poster is trying to make is that it's absurd to pretend the options are 'unilateral control of the company is determined by shares' and 'shareholders are being negatively impacted by their investment'.

Well, people buy both Google and Facebook stock where the founders still have a controlling interest and could theoretically do anything they wanted