Buying stock is a risk. If you don't know what you're buying, don't be surprised when it fails.
I'm exhausted with investors thinking they aren't subject to risk. Fuck em all.
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
79 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
34906 readers
337 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Risks are normally outside the reasonable control of the company. For example, sales not hitting the target. They can’t just press a button and up goes the sales.
This was entirely within the company’s control. That risk shouldn’t ever be there at all. They could’ve avoided the entire situation if they chose not to ship the faulty software.
Brilliant. Simply write software without bugs. You should certainly be in charge.
Or just test the damn thing before shipping it to customers. That’s standard practice in the software industry.
If they had just installed it on one of their own Windows machines, none of this would’ve happened.
Testing? You expect this person to consider testing?
That's an extra step that will realistically lead to more work! That's outrageous, can't have that. Just won't do.
If you own shares of a company, you literally own part of that company. To be able to sell shares of your company, you have legal obligations. By putting your shareholders capital at risk by unsafe practices, you fail to deliver on your obligations and can be held liable. Shareholders of large companies are not exclusively greedy investors. Retirement funds can also be backed by capital that is bound in stocks. If your fund holds shares that lost value due to incompetence of the company executives, it is similarly your legal obligation to take legal action in the interest of the people who paid into your fund.
By suing themselves, they are losing out. Like, if you don't like the leadership, then get rid of them, that's why you have a board of directors. These lawsuits from shareholders is stupid.
By its own shareholders?
Are they just trying to get some money out before class actions from its customers decimate the company?
Fun fact: Decimation is originally a Roman practice. It’s a form of punishment where every tenth man in a group was executed by members of his cohort.
The bastard Jack Welch implemented this as a business practice with a sanitized name: rank your team, fire the worst 10%, even if the team did great.
Shareholders cheered at this practice. They bought shares in droves when businesses literally decimated themselves. Shareholders are mostly glorified gamblers with a boner for hardship. Making employees suffer is just dandy, as long as it can be sold as an improvement.
My point is that shareholders usually don’t know wtf they’re doing. This doesn’t surprise me.
How does that make any sense? They’re suing themselves….
Shareholders are invested by their money only. If they can sue and win while also selling off their shares they're going to do it.
CrowdStrike (CRWD.O), has been sued by shareholders who said the cybersecurity company defrauded them by concealing how its inadequate software testing could cause the July 19 global outage that crashed more than 8 million computers.
In a proposed class action filed on Tuesday night in the Austin, Texas federal court, shareholders said they learned that CrowdStrike's assurances about its technology were materially false and misleading when a flawed software update disrupted airlines, banks, hospitals and emergency lines around the world.
Basically, the company advertised itself as being one way to the shareholders, they bought in on that basis, and then it turned out they were misrepresenting themselves. Presumably they're suing the company and not the executives personally because that's where the money is.
Note that simply owning the shares doesn't mean that it's already "their money." If I buy a share in a company I can't walk up to it and demand that they give me a portion of the cash from the register. It's more complicated than that and lawsuits like this are part of that complexity.
Let them fight lul
Good make them pay
While I'm all for holding CS accountable for what happened, thisis not the way how to do it and to whom they should be accountable. If there's any lawsuit, it should come from the customers who have been affected by the outage, not some fucking investors and shareholders that probably kept pressuring CS for the last several years to reduce costs and increase revenue, that are now scrambling to avoid consequences of their endless greed ruining companies they don't care about by forcing endless growth at all costs and doing as much as they can to prevent internal investments, because that's not what makes the line go up.
Fuck them. I hope they loose and have to eat their losses + expensive lawsuit. If CS would be able to actually invest their revenue internally, instead of it feeding pockets of greedy investors who give literaly zero fucks about the product or the service, this may not have happened.
I saw that happen at the cybersecurity company I was working at, when we got acquired by investors. Several milion of profit after costs suddenly wasn't enough, and we had to reduce already non-existent internal projects or investments, that we have already been lacking to be able to do our job properly.
I think upon closer inspection you might find that CS'es primary duty is upholding the interests of its shareholders, not the customers.
I'm sure there's a lot of CS employees that would disagree with that, unfortunately there's probably not much they can do about it.
I was just a few days ago giving my two weeks notice exactly for that reason. I'm getting so fed up with capitalism and companies working for the vultures who give zero fucks about what you do or whether you do it well or not, prioritizing profits over actually doing your job well. I don't care about money, I worked in cybersec out of principle, to help people with their security. I don't really care about money, as long as there's job to be done for someone, I don't really care if the project I'm working on is super profitable for me, as long as it at least breaks even. But no, we had to cut corners, basically scam our customers by selling products we had no qualified people for who barely scraped by enough results for the customer to not notice it. Non-existent R&D or training, because several milions of anuall profit are not enough. Fuck all of them, if I'm ever going to work again in cybersec, it will be a non-profit.
This OP's article infuriates me, the nerves they have to demand more money for what's entirely their failure, which they also directly cause in every company they touch. I'm sure that the fact that the failure was so devastating for most companies is also by large margin fault of their investors, some of which are probably also part of this lawsuit, that blocked investment into disaster recovery plans or backups, because their millions of profit per year felt low.
I feel like I'm getting pretty radicalized recently, ugh.
I feel like I'm getting pretty radicalized recently, ugh.
Joking aside, this place is actually pretty central, politically. It's the rest of the world that went on a capitalist assholes spree.
(Edit: and honestly, I suspect we will learn there's a lot of billionaire-funded bots making us feel like the world's opinions changed.)
"Let's just accept each other's pronouns while holding billionaires accountable for their actions" shouldn't be considered radical ideas, at all.
And yeah, fuck all of these investors. They're effectively suing the real workers who were left holding the bag after the investors "line go up forever" bullshit came to roost.
I have no objections to your view for how things should be. It's definitely not how they are and I think it's important for people to realize what the reality is for any change to happen.
not some fucking investors and shareholders that probably kept pressuring CS for the last several years to reduce costs and increase revenue,
This is presumably part of what would be at issue in court. The shareholders are claiming they were lied to. We'll see how that holds up.
I really hope that CS will come up with recipes and emails where the board specificly "strongly recommended" that they reduce operation costs or denied internal investments. It probably won't happen, because such pressure from investors is usually pretty vague, i.e they don't literally tell you to cut corners, but they strongly suggest that if you won't somehow increase revenue, you (the management) will have problems. Of course, it's up to you how you do it, but to meet their often unrealistic demands, just doing a better job while also investing into internal failsafes is often simply not possible. It's a loss-loss situation for CS, but I really hope they won't loose this legal battle.