Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

While this may be true in a general sense in that most companies have bylaws that does not set out another purpose, and that in theory shareholders could go after a board, and so indirectly a CEO, that does not seek to maximise profit, this is overly simplistic.

The CEO is beholden to the directions of the board. The board has wide latitude to act within the rather wide remit of acting within the best interests of the shareholders (as a group, not individual shareholders). It's generally difficult to go after a board for setting direction that does not outright maximise profit other than by simply voting them out as long as there's some reasoning to justify why it is beneficial to the mission of the company to do something. That might e.g. be to ensure the reputation of the company.

So as long as the CEO acts within what the board wants of them, and as long as the board maintains the trust of a majority of shareholders and aren't outright and blatantly violating the corporate bylaws (which can also specify other priorities than just profit), they can - and often do - decide that other things than profit matters.

As such, blaming the CEO in isolation may not be justified. Maybe the board made him. But the company certainly has principles in the form of its bylaws and the AGM and boards interpretation of them. The just might not be nice ones.



What board? Midjourney has no investors. No shareholders.

He’s only beholden to himself. And proud of it.


Midjourney is an incorporated company. It has a board and at least one shareholder. Whether or not they're all the same person is irrelevant to the point made, which is that this annoying notion people keep bringing up when a CEO makes a choice that they're somehow inherently required to do what maximises profit is false.


> As such, blaming the CEO in isolation may not be justified. Maybe the board made him.

You made a general point. I agree with your general point.

That last statement seemed to me to be about Midjourney specifically.

In which case, because of Midjourney’s peculiar situation for this kind of company, it would have been inaccurate.

And even if said statement wasn’t about Midjourney specifically, considering the subject at hand, pointing out it’s peculiar situation seemed relevant.

But again, I totally agree that no, even though it’s often expected of them, CEOs aren’t inherently required to maximise profit.


It's not inaccurate, though. Midjourney, Inc. is a Delaware registered corporation. It has a board, and at least one shareholder. They can both be the same person as the CEO, but that doesnt change any of what I wrote.

I don't know, maybe you interpreted the last paragraph as making a specific claim about Midjourney, but it did not. It was part of the general point.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: