[netcan]

I think this this sentiment is a relative of the recurring comment that 'there is a legal/fiduciary duty get investors the highest possible ROI.' I think it's neither true in practice or in theory, taken that literally.

CEOs can't steal from investors or run the company against their interests. But they have a lot of decision making capacity within those bounds. Salaries (and realistically, the more pronounced questions are around executive pay), are within that boundary. So are marketing expenses, R&D expenditure and such. Companies are run using instinct, worldview, eve morals.

It's not like investors can drag CEOs into court over every decision and demand they prove they're in shareholders' interests. If decisions are seriously, provably against investor interests they can, but in practice this means some sort of stealing. Crooked contracts with kickbacks, embezzlement. That sort of stuff. Apart from that it's 'normal' business. If investors don't like how the company is run they can replace him. Otherwise, sell.

[LLWM]

It has nothing to do with that. It's obvious this company is privately owned by him and possibly his brother.