Changing laws regarding investors and companies (US)

[Nobody]

@Bricker

This is not a correct set of statements.

It’s true that the officers and directors of a company owe a fiduciary duty to the investors, the stockholders. But that’s not the same thing as saying they must “…do everything they can to give you maximum return on your investment.” It means they must not act against your financial interests. But a company can decide, for example, to contribute to charity, in the interests of making the world a better place, being a good corporate citizen, or whatever other altruistic goal moves the board of directors, and not breach their fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

In fact, a moment’s thought would make this clear: you know, or should know, that right now many companies donate to charity or sponsor charitable causes. If it were true that they could be sued for not doing “…everything they can to give you maximum return on your investment…” then how do you imagine such corporate charity could exist?

I’m thinking about things like, in this thread posted a couple of years ago about Microsoft trying to buy out Yahoo and Yahoo saying no.
Although the official reason was that Yahoo wanted $37 a share and Microsoft was only offering $33, some other good reasons were given why it might be a bad idea, and yet as this post puts it:

@Dewey_Finn

Realistically, though, whether the Yahoo managers and executives want Microsoft to take over their baby is irrelevant. Their first responsibility is to get the most money for the shareholders.

It doesn’t matter what would happen to Yahoo after a buyout. If it would increase shareholder value then it must be done. Microsoft could buy it and things could go great. Or Yahoo could be like all the other companies Microsoft buys up and then puts out of business, but it seems like the fate of the employees doesn’t matter as long as the shareholders are happy. At least that’s the way it appears to me.