More conservative interference in private business

[Indy Texas]

This time it's a conservative think tank that believes Apple spends too much money on sustainability.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would people who believe markets are always self-regulating and self-correcting feel the need to call out Apple? If what they say is true - that Apple's concern for the environment and whatnot is adversely impacting their profits and not maximizing shareholder value - then shareholders will eventually figure that out and put their money elsewhere. Why is it so out of the realm of possibility for the NCPPR that market participants might actually demand things like cleaner air and water and greater action to mitigate climate change? Or that these things might make consumers more likely to buy Apple products?

Between this and elected officials more or less telling Volkswagen that they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to whether or not their own employees can unionize, it seems like America's conservatives are less interested in allowing businesses to run themselves as they choose and more interested in ensuring businesses conform to their own notions of what private businesses ought to do.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Are they going to criticize people who make charitable donations, too? What loons.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Remember when these nuts on FOX News questioned whether it was legal for CVS to decide to stop selling cigarettes?

[SPC]

Why would people who believe markets are always self-regulating and self-correcting feel the need to call out Apple? If what they say is true - that Apple's concern for the environment and whatnot is adversely impacting their profits and not maximizing shareholder value - then shareholders will eventually figure that out and put their money elsewhere.

Given that markets work best when parties have more information, perhaps they are just expediting the process whereby shareholders figure out that the management does not have profit maximization as their primary objective?

[traininthedistance]

I thought that when I saw the thread title it would be about car dealerships' lobbying efforts to further enshrine their rent-seeking monopoly as a way of preventing Tesla from doing business (since, of course, part of Tesla's business model is that they don't use those parasitic middlemen).  Innovation in both technology and business model- great, except when it's something those dirty hippies might like!  Then we need to squash it of course.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think it's pretty clear that the American Right doesn't actually care about being internally consistent.

Speaking of which: Benghazi!!

[AggregateDemand]

If people don't understand the concept of informational efficiency, why do they start threads about informational efficiency?

Cook lost his nerve because he knows the market could punish Apple, if Apple is forced to reveal the extent of their philanthropic/sustainable R&D. Cook argues that his company should not bear disclosure responsibilities to the investors because morality precludes disclosure. If he were smart he would have said the cost of disclosure regulation is much too high, which would have made conservatives shrivel. Instead, he choose the circular reasoning of moral purity.

Strategic blunder.

[bullmoose88]

I think we're getting into the fiduciary duties of a corporation and its management/board.  Does management/board have any duty to ensure sustainable development at the cost of limiting profits and thus potential dividends to shareholders?  50 years ago I think the view on duties was fairly broad, nowadays, it seems that the duty is limited to ensuring profits are maximized to shareholders. 

Regardless of how I feel on the duty question, I'm less certain that this is a case of "conservative interference in private business."  It seems that NCPPR isn't a shareholder (correct me if that's wrong), but for the shareholders themselves to say, hey we're not cool with giving up profits isn't really interference of the sort suggested by the title me thinks.

[MaxQue]

If people don't understand the concept of informational efficiency, why do they start threads about informational efficiency?

Cook lost his nerve because he knows the market could punish Apple, if Apple are forced to reveal the extent of their philanthropic/sustainable R&D. Cook argues that his company should not bear disclosure responsibilities to the investors because morality precludes disclosure. If he were smart he would have said the cost of disclosure regulation is much too high, which would have made conservatives shrivel. Instead, he choose the circular reasoning of moral purity.

Strategic blunder.

If the shareholders are not liking that non-disclosure, they are free to sell their shares, you know.

[AggregateDemand]

If the shareholders are not liking that non-disclosure, they are free to sell their shares, you know.

And I can sue someone for breach of contract even if materiality cannot be determined. What's your point? Two-wrongs will make the market work more efficiently. Good luck with that.

[publicunofficial]

They do this because they don't want stories and Op-Ed's claiming that Apple is proving companies can be green AND successful. Snuff out talking points and intellectual checkmates before they develop.



Whenever conservatives fear something they don't like will work, they'll do everything in their power to make it NOT work and then point at it as a failure.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The American Right Wing is concerned only with the American Right Wing.  There is no ideological basis for their arguments nor principles by which they actually operate.   

[Indy Texas]

If the shareholders are not liking that non-disclosure, they are free to sell their shares, you know.

And I can sue someone for breach of contract even if materiality cannot be determined. What's your point? Two-wrongs will make the market work more efficiently. Good luck with that.

So Apple isn't disclosing as much information as some people would like, and Apple is saying, "Too bad. Tough luck." What do you want to do about it as a blue avatar? Are you willing to call for laws requiring publicly traded companies to disclose investments in operations sustainability?

I seem to recall a lot of other companies withholding pertinent information from shareholders - companies like Enron and Washington Mutual and Goldman Sachs. I take it you wholeheartedly support Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank then?

[AggregateDemand]

So Apple isn't disclosing as much information as some people would like, and Apple is saying, "Too bad. Tough luck." What do you want to do about it as a blue avatar? Are you willing to call for laws requiring publicly traded companies to disclose investments in operations sustainability?

I seem to recall a lot of other companies withholding pertinent information from shareholders - companies like Enron and Washington Mutual and Goldman Sachs. I take it you wholeheartedly support Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank then?

If you're a blue or yellow avatar, you know the market needs informational efficiency to function. It's one of the few circumstances in which regulation is preferable to avoid asymmetry. I'm not sure if this is one of those moments, but by citing moral purity, rather than cost/benefit, Cook has ensured that this issue will probably not go away quietly.

Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank are largely symbolic. SO just shifts liability onto auditors and financial executives. DF requires the creation of "gray-market" banking institutions that are much less attractive to mainstream investors. Many people don't realize, but most of our banking and accounting regulations are controlled by private entities, similar to the federal reserve. Federal Accounting Standards Board is about as federal as the Federal Reserve Bank. GAAP is also determined by AICPA bulletins and, in some cases, the IASB (international).

After the latest meltdown, changes were made to the value recognition principles for various classes of investment assets. Hopefully, those changes will make investors aware of investment impropriety before a minor correction develops into a crisis. Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank have some influence, but not nearly as much as the FASB rulings, and the outcry from international investors to move US GAAP closer to IFRS.