5 ms·
It's not "my analysis" and I explicitly made clear it wasn't (see: "even if you don't agree"). I told you what the rage hook was. I don't know enough to have an
by garbagecoder 3y ago
It's not "my analysis" and I explicitly made clear it wasn't (see: "even if you don't agree"). I told you what the rage hook was. I don't know enough to have an opinion about whether this is in balance on not, but no one reading will care they reduced their dividend, but you had to deboooooonk it because ackshually it was a lower dividend.
That's not the point.
Also, this mythology of the corporation as a shareholder profit maximizer is just dead 70s orthodoxy. It isn't the case in most other developed economies and you and Marty Lipton and can keep Delaware.
- dcow 3y agoI very carefully didn't fart out maximize shareholder value anywhere in my comment because I don't believe that myth either. I wasn't debunking anything. I was responding to the sentiment that "companies should only pay dividends when their quarterly earnings are positive", which is the rage hook as you said, and also a myth. I understand you were just calling out the porn in front of you... "you know it when you see it" style. But you also phrased it in a diminutive way towards the person you were responding to. What you failed to catch is that I am using the royal you in my comment. I'm not calling you out specifically, I'm telling the reader that if you actually buy into the porn, then you lack sophistication.