[dragonwriter]

Borrowing money and turning it over to shareholders via buybacks and the destroying the debt with bankruptcy is obviously better serving the shareholder's interests.

Not sure what standard for “proper” you are using, or how you expect it to be a norm in a basically-capitalist economy.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> standard for “proper”

The board is fiscally responsible to the company and its future, not shareholders. It should not have approved a buyback program funded with debt because it is not in the best interest of the company. It was in the best interest of current shareholders.

[xwolfi]

The board represents the shareholders, the management represents the company.

The board absolutely has to care about shareholders or shares would be entirely worthless... and therefore not a good avenue to finance the company at a lower cost than bonds.

It's a delicate balance but you cant blame a board for saving their shareholders, that's why we pay them as owners of the business.

[Panzer04]

I don't see the distinction. What sbest for shareholders may well not be best for the employees of the company... but that's just how it is. Companies are run to benefit the capital that funded them, employees are just an expense.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Read up on “fiduciary responsibility”. It has nothing to do with “employees of the company” or “to the benefit of the capital that funded them.”

Fiduciary responsibility is every board member’s responsibility and is legally binding (documents are signed stating as such when one becomes a board member). There are probably law suits pending against board members because they broke this responsibility.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Fiduciary responsibility is every board member’s responsibility and is legally binding

Fiduciaries are entrusted by a third party. The third party, for corporate boards, is the shareholders.

Boards aren't obligated to maximize profits; that's a myth. But they do have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. It's their company.