this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
652 points (96.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
1107 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MiDaBa@lemmy.ml 281 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The stock market and publicly traded companies. The idea that a business that is making consistent profits isn't good unless those profits are increased each quarter is asinine. This system of shortsighted hyper focus on short term quarterly growth for the sake of growth is the cause of so much pain and suffering in the world. Even companies with amazing financials will work to push workers compensation down, cut corners and exploit loopholes to make sure their profits are always growing. Consistent large profits aren't good enough.

[–] AssholeDestroyer@lemmy.ml 57 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Instapot. Instapot made too good of a product, most people buy one and its good for years. That's good for consumers but terrible for investors. The company that bought them out and took them public saddled them with a ton of debt from other sectors and now they're bankrupt.

[–] droans@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Diamond Sports is suing Sinclair for doing the same, minus the "good product" part.

Sinclair bought up the Fox RSNs a few years back, renaming the company as Diamond Sports and the channels as Bally Sports. Not too long afterwards, they went bankrupt. Diamond is claiming that Sinclair has saddled them with massive debts and extraordinarily high management fees. Sinclair also kept the funds from the sponsorship agreement with Bally.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-sinclair-broadcast-sued-by-diamond-sports-20230722-ndvdj6btfreovbsyo7gk7eeony-story.html

The lawsuit accuses Sinclair of receiving about $1.5 billion as a result of alleged misconduct, including fraudulent transfers of assets, unlawful distributions and payments, breaches of contracts, unjust enrichment and breaches of fiduciary duties.

“Diamond Sports Group is seeking to vindicate its rights and protect the value of the Diamond bankruptcy estate, including by recovering value from Sinclair Broadcast Group that was improperly transferred from Diamond prior to its filing for bankruptcy in March 2023,” a spokesperson for Diamond said in a statement.

[–] Chapo0114@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Yup. Great article about that and many other failures of capitalism here if anyone wants something to share with a fence sitter in their life.

[–] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google stock is literally worthless and does not represent an actual stake in the company for example

[–] Chapo0114@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Autisticky@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Google's shares are divided into two types, Class A and Class C. Class A shares, traded as GOOGL, confer one vote per share as a typical stock would. Class C shares, traded as GOOG, confers no voting privileges. This dual shares system was done to raise more money selling less useful Class C shares (intended for mutual funds and the like) while keeping control of the company in the hands of those held on to Class A shares (i.e. longtime executives).

[–] Chapo0114@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, thanks for the info. That's actually what I suspect is happening with the new fractional shares thing, but the brokerage is the one retaining control.

[–] h3doublehockeysticks@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's worse than that, because a company bylaw also gives every GOOG stock a set value of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a cent and a binding part of their issuance is the clause that they can demand to buy them back for that price at any time. Google can drop like pocket lint and instantly buy all GOOG stock back.

[–] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This type of thing might be more common than just the famous Google example - apparently lots of valuations reported in media just assume that all shares in a company are equal (fungible, interchangeable) and the actual valuation might be a lot different if it was calculated properly.

[–] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They have 2 (3?) types of shares, and the one most people buy ($GOOG) is a class C share which comes with no voting rights and doesn’t give you a share of the company profits.

While class A shares ($GOOGL) come with voting rights, class B shares which are held by Google’s founders and insiders get 10x voting power and so they still hold the majority vote. Class A also does not pay dividends.