- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
It’s ghouls all the way down, folks
You must log in or register to comment.
Since it’s worded a little weirdly in tbe title, and equally-weirdly in the article, I believe what they’re saying is…
“UHC didn’t lower their profit goals after Thompson’s murder, even though achieving those goals requires aggressive anti-consumer tactics, and they should have known that they wouldn’t be able to implement those, after the murder highlighted how anti-consumer the company is.”
So, in case it wasn’t clear, no, the plaintiff position doesn’t really give a shit about the anti-consumerism itself.
deleted by creator
Damn who are these shareholders? Is there a list?
Nearly 92% owned by Institutions
Top 10 Institutions Below
Vanguard | 9.35%
Blackrock | 8.16%
State Street | 5.01%
FMR | 3.31%
JP Morgan | 2.68%
Wellington Management | 2.57%
Capital World Investors | 2.36%
Price (T.Rowe) Associates | 2.35%
Morgan Stanley | 2.35%
Geode Capital Management | 2.19%
When you invest in an ETF or mutual fund, you’re basically handing your power in decision making to these large institutions.
There’s a reason companies like BP and Exxon don’t divert to renewables, and one of those reasons is because institutions like these own a majority share in these companies, and get to make the decisions to drill as much as possible for that short term revenue.
It makes sense under a capitalist society because if some old fart has their money tied up into a retirement plan, it’s in their institution’s best interest to appease them. They don’t care about long term profits because they’ll be dead before they can reap the benefits! And if that’s the case they’ll take their money elsewhere.
This very clear representation of the dictatorship of finance capital, most if not all publicly traded companies are structured this way.
These jokers love to pat themselves on the back saying they’re so brave and take risk with stocks, but then they throw temper tantrums like when they don’t get their “guaranteed returns”
Are we tired of winning folks?
Hilarious to even try this. Fiduciary responsibility demands extracting every single cent from every drop of blood or you lose your job as CEO, but we get to sue now if they do it in a way that’s too icky- buddy wait’ll you hear about how all labour is exploitation
My understanding of the language of the suit is that the investors expected either a continuation of the icky business as usual or maybe a reduced profit forecast.
Orphan crushing machine sued by orphan crushing machine shareholders for not crushing enough orphans
My brother in Christ the aggressive anti-consumer tactics is why there is backlash.
Also holy shit can we just stop and think about how fucked up you’d have to be to be one of these shareholders?
Basically everyone who has retirement savings is a shareholder
Who’s sueing them though, the companies that manage people’s 401ks?
I’m pretty sure, yeah. Not just 401k plans, hedge funds and stuff too. But it’s those companies. Vanguard, BlackRock, etc
1000 more
's wouldn’t be enough to cleanse this landBrother, do we have to Luigi everyone?
Shareholders say yes
What do you think
is?
What else can you say except death to amerikkka, death to capitalism, and death to the shareholders?
They are suing because UHC didn’t tell them they weren’t going to make as much money. Seems the bean counters doubted the power of
