Superman |
05-23-2011 07:12 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdfifteen
(Post 6038018)
Not exactly. His sole responsibility is not to increase the immediate value of the stock, though that seems to be what a lot of them think. The stock market, which is where the value of the stock is determined, is volatile and irrational. It would be insanity to manage a company by chasing the value of the stock. Executives have a responsibility to manage in the best interest of maintaining the company's fundamental value, and you have to wonder if giving themselves $14 million in compensation is really in the best interest of the company.
|
Not trying to be argumentative here but yes, the CEO's responsibility has a short time horizon.....because investors have short time horizons. His job is to maximize common stock value.....NOW. No, he cannot manipulate the vagaries of the stock market, but he can and must tempt that market to value his stock highly, by making moves that impress that market.
As far as time horizons go......If CEO's were in the business of safeguarding the future of the company then sure, values would be important. But to investors, the future of the company is of no consequence. Investors are diversified, and expect some companies to fail. Others will succeed, and the successes will far outweigh the failures. A diversified portfolio does best when all CEO's try their hardest to maximize stock value immediately. That is indeed the rub between investors' interests and management's interests. Management tends to play it safer than investors prefer, since management's future depends on not running the ship aground. Investors don't care about that, they want all ships to sail at full speed, cutting corners close. Investors don't care about profits seven years from now.....or even two years.
I'd agree this is a systemic problem. Bankruptcies mess with workers' lives. The market does not care. The market prefers it this way.
|