[candiddevmike]

> The owners of big companies include lots of pension plans, index funds, etc. Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions, is probably not what we want.

I mean... Shareholders are ultimately responsible for the company, they elect the board etc. If shareholders were impacted by this, maybe it would make more folks think twice about "passive investing"?

[beart]

I don't see this doing much unless everyone stops at about the same time. The largest shareholders have a disproportionate amount of power to influence the direction of most companies.

[dchftcs]

For much of SP500, the largest shareholders are the passive investors. It's common that an activist hedge fund can influence decisions with a mere 3% or so stake because the likes of BlackRock and Vanguard support them or abstain.

[anticensor]

Is abstention even allowed in corporate board of directors?

[tempfile]

If you properly punish the shareholders, then it doesn't matter if they stop or don't. If they stop, the bad behaviour stops; if they continue, the onerous penalties continue. Anybody who wants to sponsor bad behaviour with their AUM can pay the appropriate fee.

[gustavus]

I love when people bring this up. I passively invest by which I mean I take a couple of bucks every couple of paychecks and throw them into an index fund or buy one or two shares of stock of a company. Not to mention my 401k. How about we hold the people making the decisions accountable all the way up and down the chain instead of letting the go with the whole "following orders" defence.

[zo1]

How about we don't let companies control their dividends. Excess profit that's not reasonably ear-marked for growth, should be mandated to be distributed as dividends. And that's probably just one item we can start doing to make the stock-market less of a gamble and hedge against inflation, and more of just "people owning portions of profit-making entities".