I'm not well-versed in this matter but isn't there some sort of penalty (legal?) for a company making choices that are severely contrary to their shareholders' pockbooks? Explain this like I'm 5
(media.greatawakening.win)
WOKE-BROKE SUDDENLY 🕳️
Isn't it all due to people making money on "shorting" the stocks? If I remember correctly (from the GME thing), one aspect of Big Finance bets that Budweiser stock is going to go down in price. Another aspect of Big Finance advises the company to do something incredibly stupid (Budweiser - "How about putting a tranny in your ads?"). People stop buying the products, the stock price tanks and the people who shorted the stock pick up all their winnings.
Then they find another company to loot and repeat the process. At some further point, other Financial Parasites swoop in and buy up what's left of the company for pennies on the dollar and either try to make a go of it or just sell off the buildings/machinery/land for more $$$.
Shareholder suits breach of fiduciary duty 2 shareholders
WHO is still investing in these company,s? We cannot enforce company,s to make the RIGHT decisions. We have to keep them accountable. VOTE with our money.
Opposite take my dude. You get your whole town to boycott target, the target closes, now you don't have a target in your town. Now you need to order your shit off amazon, because all the start ups closed three years ago when the government shut them down, and made it impossible to start a rival business.
The investor's had already bet against target, so they made their money, and you're left with squat.
Each one of these companies is owned by a bigger fish up the river, which also owns MANY, MANY other fish, and the bigger fish is owned still. Don't get me wrong, boycotts can work and we've seen the results but these numbers are a drop in the bucket compared to the totals the parent --> parent companies pull in. For example Bezos was just fined like 20 million or something, which sounds like a lot, but when he is making over 137 million a day it doesn't have quite the same sting.
By changing "Shareholders" to "Stakeholders" they magically absolve themselves of all responsibility and liability for financially detrimental decisions.
Ah the joy of legalese
Dodge v Ford comes to mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
u/winn, the SEC is corrupt. The Securities and Exchange Commission is in charge of regulating corporate behavior.
Corrupt means you break laws, you lie, you do the opposite of what you say you will.
Remember when Suzy stole your candy and she said she was just borrowing it? Then she went and ate it all, blamed someone else, and then said she never took your candy in the first place when you saw her take it all and eat it all?
That's corrupt.
My sister's name is Susan and she Did steal my candy
She's corrupt! LOL 🤣
I was three she was five
Old wounds can last a lifetime, especially when someone steals candy. Hopefully, you two have patched things up. If not, let today be the day you bury the hatchet once and for all. 😁
Kek
Now do Nike
forgot the et. Damn. No alien for you
Stakeholders matter more to them than shareholders. Companies like Blackrock invest in all the beer companies, as an example, so they don't care if one does better than the other. It is all a wash. Even if Budweiser had to pay legal penalties, Blackrock makes out fine when the stock drops. They own all the game pieces.
Dick's stopped selling guns completely? I didn't realize, I stopped going in there when they stopped selling regular AR mags.
They also quit selling all hunting supplies. My local dicks went out of buisness, I consider that a big win.
And lesbians don't like Dick's either :)
u/#kek
Their opinion of household investors is very close to zero. They answer to entities like BlackRock.
someone has to file a suit first
Lawsuits, LawSUITS, and LAWSUITS. That's what all of this spells.
Penalties are not for commie liberals. Haven't you been paying attention?
Newsmax is on AT&T