how is it weakness to show that your company has longevity as well as profits as their goals? It just doesnt make sense to me. It has nothing to do with slowing the gains but putting more in reserve and not earmarked as profit to be distributed, this would lower the payout for investors and bonuses for whoever is tied to profits but if used as a long term plan that is implemented properly the loss would be marginal when spread out over the life of a company. then they would be able to ride out any bubble burst or even full on depression while still being viable.
I understand it completely from an individuals perspective, the company gives zero fucks about the guys actually doing the work and wouldnt skip a beat to screw the little guys over. So, naturally if theres no level of actual loyalty going both ways then people are going to get what they want without regard to the company as a whole. But, this is something that falls onto the shoulders of the higher-ups that allowed those things to go through without giving a damn. nobody thinks long term about anything now, people are only concerned with the here and now which results in all kinds of skewed and odd speculations.
It's weakness because the #1 goal of EVERY CEO is to "maximize shareholder value". If you are making money with a product, the worst thing you can do is tell someone that you might not make as much on that product tomorrow. Look at Apple, the moment someone says, "they might not sell 80324023 iphones in Mongolia next year", novice stock traders lose their fucking minds. Short term stock gain is your sole goal in why you get hired. You aren't hired to create a long term, sustainable company, but rather maximize stock share in the shortest time possible. The shareholders don't want 5, 10, or 20 year returns, they want immediate, 15-20% EVERY YEAR. Then they get out.
Trust me, i get the whole reason people do this, but the fault lies with whoever owns/has controlling votes in the company. People keep allowing this to happen because they just want more more more then wonder why all of a sudden a company that was worth 50 billion is bankrupt and the stocks are worthless. the whole greater good argument isnt even really a good one. not doing stuff like that, or investing in companies that run like that is not so much about the greater good, it about the personal individual good of longevity and reliability. I'd much rather take a slightly lower payout knowing that the company has a solid plan and reserve that ensures that I will have a strong investment over the next 20 years than getting a little more and always wondering if this quarter is going to be the last.
Whoever it is that hires the CEO's, VP's, etc. are the ones to blame for things continuing on that path. and i know that they are doing it for the same reason that the guy on the lowest level does it: to get as much as they can as fast as they can. nothing will be learned until complete collapse happens though, but even then people will always buy into the I can make you rich quick schemes.
The board of directors vote on a new CEO. The board has stock shares. The CEO is hired to drive the shares up. The CEO then drives shares up, the board of directors takes profits, CEO retires. Look at every big company. Hell, look at Boeing. When the mindset is, "hey, i'm rich and cashed out, screw the next guy", there will always be a problem. But the only people who can fix the problems are the ones that actually profit from the problem!!!
Look, I get it, it's a shitty deal for Average Joe. That's why I always stressed to my investors, "follow the big money. the hedge fund guys. buy what they buy. sell when they sell".
We're all along for the ride. The sooner you accept that fact, the easier life gets.