[magduf]

>The shareholders do mind, because these actions may violate the CEO's fiduciary duty to act in their best interest. They can sue him for violating said duty.

Yeah, and how well is that going to work out for them? They should have known better than to invest in this company in the first place; companies like that are cults of personality. It's like investing in Sears under Eddie Lampert; you have to be a moron to put your money into Sears stock when it's obvious the guy is solely working to drain as much money out of Sears and into his own bank account as possible. And a lawsuit, even if you win, isn't going to net you much money.

[_m96l]

> Yeah, and how well is that going to work out for them? They should have known better than to invest in this company in the first place; companies like that are cults of personality.

So you are saying the investors (who are the current shareholders) stupidly bought into Neumann personality cult.

So now they are paying for their idiocy.

This isn't some failure of capitalism: it's the failure of large, wealthy, sophisticated investors to properly assess their own investment.

[magduf]

Exactly, yes. It's the investors' job to research their investments, and company stock investments have no guarantees (unlike a CD or savings bond, for instance). Personality cult companies can actually be good investments; it just depends on the personality. Investing in Apple while Jobs was running it before he died was generally a very good and profitable investment, for instance. This company doesn't appear to be that way, and I'm saying that as someone who hasn't researched it, I'm just going on what a few negative news articles I've seen about them and their leader. The signs appear to all be there that this company is not a good long-term investment like Apple or Oracle (another company basically run by one guy), it's more like investing in Theranos.