[supergauntlet]

Sure, I just meant the fiduciary responsibility doesn't necessarily always mean "short term profits at all costs."

Why does it seem to always be that way, though? Most every company I see appears very shortsighted with no thought to the long game.

[rmah]

It doesn't always appear that way -- it's really a glass half full/half empty thing. If I may be so bold, you are see what you want to see. Generally speaking, public companies do not prioritize the next quarter above all else. Why not? Because they are, generally speaking, not run by idiots. Of course, some do in certain situations. Because it makes sense in those situations.

Owners (shareholders) and boards are not full of idiots either. They realize the temptation of short term pumps. Thus, executive compensation is typically shaped to encourage longer-term thinking (e.g. stock that does not fully vest for years, bonuses based on future company performance years out, etc). And if they do reward short-term metrics, it's for a specific reason.

That said, japanese companies tend to have longer time horizons than american companies (decades vs years) and perhaps that's better. But then again, the further out you go, the less your planning will work out. So who knows for sure?

[mindcrime]

Sure, I just meant the fiduciary responsibility doesn't necessarily always mean "short term profits at all costs."

Yep. Arguably an over-fixation on "short term profits at all costs" would be a gross violation of one's fiduciary duty if it puts the long-term viability of the enterprise at risk.

[bumby]

My current personal theory is that it's related to a cognitive bias. People tend to be biased towards the short-term. I.e. the short-term pain on my doorstep seems much worse than the (potentially larger) pain on the horizon.