[btmiller]

That'd be a good start.

One thing, however, that bothers me lately is the pursuit shareholder value above all else. The commentary always arrives at that end (shareholder value) in order to justify the means every time a company's direction might not translate so nicely for customers: YouTube ads, Uber rate increases, Boeing cutting corners, etc.

Being a profitable company is one thing, but I can't help but watch and think, I don't feel any sense of compassion for shareholders losing a few bucks because they were impatient or made a bad investment. Of course Boeing's shareholders want <insert new Boeing thing> delivered yesterday, but the "bloody ROI"[1] can't be what drives Boeing development.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim...

[TheOtherHobbes]

This should be easy to change. Make shareholders culpable for management failures. Balance this with an oversight structure that gives shareholders a direct influence on corporate ethics, with the power to investigate and terminate management malpractice and systemic abuse.

Of course the whole point of public share ownership is profit without responsibility. The distancing of benefit from external consequences is considered sacrosanct. So this suggestion is the the worst kind of heresy.

But why should share ownership somehow magically excuse consequences that would be considered criminal in other contexts? If management has to justify its actions to people who share the risk and the blame, it's going to pay a lot more attention to consequences.

[neffy]

Two additional datapoints - shares are used as part of the incentive structure for senior management, and can dwarf salary. Share gains are also taxed less.

It's a simple feedback loop. It gets pretty silly when you look at the share buyback plans many companies operate, huge sums are "invested" in the company's shares for a relatively small - a few million - return to individual management.