8292 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

...Didn't Sears start down the same path?

Is the Canadian arm of Toys-R-Us as badly managed as Sears Canada was?

[spanky123]

Is the Canadian arm of Toys-R-Us as badly managed as Sears Canada was?

 

Badly managed for who? Some of the Sears investors did really well for themselves as it turned out.

[Nparker]

Badly managed for who? Some of the Sears investors did really well for themselves as it turned out.

If the point of a department store is only to exist for investor profit, then perhaps yes.

[Rob Randall]

^They weren't investing in Sears as much as they were investing in the vampiric hedge fund that bled them dry.

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

From the Onion: Bankrupt Toys 'R' Us Forced to Euthanize Thousands of Hatchimals.

[nagel]

Toys R Us is a POS.  Go on their website, says they have something in stock locally, and you go down there and it isn't.  Even if it was it would take you 15 minutes to check out.  Also it has those torture checkout aisles that are designed to have children melt down while you wait those 15 minutes to buy your "it's amazing it's actually in stock" item that costs more than Amazon.

 

Their bikes are also utter trash.  Will stop working after 6 hours of use.

 

No thanks.  Time to shut it down.

[Mattjvd]

If the point of a department store is only to exist for investor profit, then perhaps yes.

Isn't the primary objective of any publicly traded organization to maximize shareholder wealth?

[Nparker]

Isn't the primary objective of any publicly traded organization to maximize shareholder wealth?

Yeah that sure was a sustainable model for Sears, wasn't it?

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

Isn't the primary objective of any publicly traded organization to maximize shareholder wealth?

 

That may be the objective of the shareholders, but I think the objective of the organization is to provide a particular set of goods and services to consumers.

[jonny]

Isn't the primary objective of any publicly traded organization to maximize shareholder wealth?

 

Well, they have kind of stretched the term now and changed wealth to value, but yeah. 

 

Yeah that sure was a sustainable model for Sears, wasn't it?

 

You may have noticed that many businesses are not successful and fail. Strange, huh? It's almost like operating a business is hard, or something. 

 

 

That may be the objective of the shareholders, but I think the objective of the organization is to provide a particular set of goods and services to consumers.

 

No, the objective is to maximize shareholder value and to enrich the shareholders. People don't own shares in Apple because it feels so good deep down to provide iPhones to people. The organization reports to the shareholders via the Board of Directors. 

[Mattjvd]

That may be the objective of the shareholders, but I think the objective of the organization is to provide a particular set of goods and services to consumers.

Certainly, especially at the medium term and operational levels and within individual projects.

But the shareholders are the owners, they elect the board of governers, who appoint the C level executives to meet their goals.

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

No, the objective is to maximize shareholder value and to enrich the shareholders. People don't own shares in Apple because it feels so good deep down to provide iPhones to people. The organization reports to the shareholders via the Board of Directors. 

 

But Steve Jobs et al didn't start Apple because they wanted to make shareholders rich.

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

Certainly, especially at the medium term and operational levels and within individual projects.

But the shareholders are the owners, they elect the board of governers, who appoint the C level executives to meet their goals.

 

Maybe that's the problem! Maybe we shouldn't be putting the decision-making power in the hands of people whose primary objective is at odds with the interests of the consumers and employees.

[jonny]

But Steve Jobs et al didn't start Apple because they wanted to make shareholders rich.

 

Sure they did. They were the shareholders at that point! 

[Midnightly]

Toys R Us is a POS.  Go on their website, says they have something in stock locally, and you go down there and it isn't.  Even if it was it would take you 15 minutes to check out.  Also it has those torture checkout aisles that are designed to have children melt down while you wait those 15 minutes to buy your "it's amazing it's actually in stock" item that costs more than Amazon.

 

Their bikes are also utter trash.  Will stop working after 6 hours of use.

 

No thanks.  Time to shut it down.

 

 

those tills/lines tend to move ultra slow too..and i swear the heat in that store is turned up just to make people irritated! every time i go in there (thankfully not all that often anymore) i find it warmer then all other stores in the mall i get frustrated, annoyed and just have to leave for my sanity

[spanky123]

Maybe that's the problem! Maybe we shouldn't be putting the decision-making power in the hands of people whose primary objective is at odds with the interests of the consumers and employees.

 

The simple truth is that if it meant an extra 1% annual return a year on their investment portfolio, even the hardest left leaning folks that you know don't really give a crap what happens to employees or customers of the companies that they invest in. 

[spanky123]

But Steve Jobs et al didn't start Apple because they wanted to make shareholders rich.

 

Sorry but I have to disagree. Steve Jobs was the largest shareholder of Apple and he made himself extremely rich. He cared less about others (including his employees) and that was well documented in the biography written about him.

Edited by spanky123, 24 January 2018 - 05:03 PM.

[Rob Randall]

^Yeah, he must have been thinking of Wozniak.

[Mike K.]

But Steve Jobs et al didn't start Apple because they wanted to make shareholders rich.

Definitely not, but they decided to take the company public. And there began their responsibility towards shareholders.

A huge swath of British Columbians’ pensions are dependent on that exact mantra. Money is invested by bcIMC in order to generate the greatest return for their members, ie pensioners and public bodies. bcIMC is of course not a publicly traded company responsible to shareholders but everything they do is to maximize profits for public sector workers and organizations who will be the beneficiaries of their investment practices.

[jonny]

Definitely not

No, they definitely did. Jobs & Co were the shareholders in those early days.