I’ve asked one mefty – I’ll ask once more – back up your posts.

I hope they pick some good causes. 45billion could make a real difference on a global scale to causes that otherwise will never attract enough funding as there is no profit in it and no political will/benefit.

Got to be better than hollowing out a volcano and fitting lasers to sharks?

I’ve asked one mefty – I’ll ask once more – back up your posts.

I rather thought I had, but if that is not good enough for you – here goes again.

the issue is the Companies Act 2006 makes it an offence to knowingly NOT make the maximum allowable profit for the shareholders of said company.
If this means that you did not take advantage of a legal loophole – you can actually be prosecuted by not only your shareholders BUT also Companies House and/or HMRC.

Which I described as complete bollocks, you then posted up S 172 CA 06 as support for this contention. I commented on this illustrating how your analysis – I am being kind – was flawed. You then ask me to back it up. If you want more here goes.

S 172 CA 06 was introduced to codify an obligation on directors of a company to manage a company with a view to the benefit of all stakeholders (i.e. not just shareholders). There is a long discussion about it here. However the basic point is that S172 introduces a much wider objective than just maximisation of profit, which is the opposite of what you maintain, so it is pretty clear to me that what you originally said was complete bollocks.

Am I the only one struggling to understand how Facebook can be valued at $183bn? More than Merck, Fedex, Disney, Intel, Cisco, IBM…companies that actually make or do worthwhile stuff!

How can one or two tiny advertising boxes on a Facebook page that everybody ignores be worth more than that?! Is that the only way they make money? (I assume Whatsapp hemorrhages cash since it’s only £1 a year)

Am I the only one struggling to understand how Facebook can be valued at $183bn?

Nope

Firstly – that is not a discussion. This thread is a discussion – that is nothing more than a paper by a Professor at Leeds Uni.
Secondly – did you read all the way to the end? Section 5. The Conclusion.
It goes on to say the S172 does not in fact do that but remains behest to Shareholder values.

“For the first time the UK, in effect, has embedded in statute the objective of
companies. This objective is set out in s 172(1) of the Act. At first blush s 172(1)
appears to move the UK a significant distance away from the shareholder value
principle and closer to a stakeholder approach, but on more intense scrutiny this is not the case. It is arguable that the legislation does not really change the law, because provided that the action of directors is designed ultimately to foster shareholder benefits, it is not going to be impugned, even if the directors did not, in their decision-making process, consider the interests of other constituents.”

And back to my original post – as a director and as a shareholder – if I fail in my duties as a director to maximise profits, rightly so the shareholders can take action against me in a court of law.
Companies House’s response to that would be to prosecute me for the incorrect filing of the accounts.
HMRC could if they chose to do so prosecute me following CH’s response.
So to counter your “advisor is crap” line – I’ll continue to use him seeing as he has ensured that all of our companies are clean, clear and with the minimum tax paid as per the law with the maximum benefit to the shareholders for the last 12yrs and many of his other clients for over 30yrs.

elaborate chicanery

I might add that to my CV. 🙂

Meanwhile:

hammyuk vs mefty

takisawa2 makes a fair point – although too much hair. I did actually draft a long response but I lost it when getting on with other things. I will therefore restrict myself to just three points on the response:

1. I didn’t describe your adviser as crap, I thought more likely that you have misinterpreted advice you have received. This is illustrated at point 2.

2. Companies House are not going to sue you for not recording something you haven’t done – this only needs to be stated to show how ridiculous it is.

3. I don’t have a major problem with companies managing their tax affairs efficiently, but it is a gross oversimplification to suggest that Company Law imposes an obligation on them to do so.

Finally, in a multinational context, all these issues become much more difficult. When implementing a cross border tax structure, there is often a major tension because the group is asking directors in high tax countries to reduce their profits, some would say artificially, by channelling them to group companies in low tax jurisdiction. Whilst this may be beneficial for the ultimate shareholder, it will often not be for the direct one to whom they have fiduciary duties.

Did you know Facebook have created the world’s largest ever free workforce (i.e every Facebook user) and collects all data entered and sells it to others? This is how they make their money.

Facebook’s phrase ‘It’s Free And It Always Will Be’ should be reworded ‘You Will Work For Us For Free While We Amass Huge Fortunes By Selling Your Data’. But it won’t be.

As Bill Hicks said, if you work in Marketing or Advertising, kill yourselves.

He said that, not me. But I do think marketing and advertising are largely responsible for the dumbing down of society at large. And sadly I can’t see it changing anytime soon. Of course any gift to charity is worthy, but quite frankly Mr Zuckerberg has created far more bad than good.

Mr Zuckerberg has created far more bad than good.

if selling my data saves one starving kid, or provides treatment for one child with HIV or Malaria, or clean water for their family, then I’m all for it.

Sure he may have more money than sense, but if he uses it to do good in the world then I say well done sir.

Given it’s pretty well known in digital marketing circles that ads on Facebook are really not performing well, I wonder how they make 3.8B dollars. They talk about mobile ad revenue but in that case I assume that’s not via facebook but a generic mobile ad platform which uses facebook data to refine how it serves ads.

Anyone know for sure?

Atlaz – As stated they sell all your personal data to advertisers. They don’t make much off the adverts on the screen. And they sell EVERYTHING. They own a diary of your life, if you choose to give it to them. They even scan all your photos, they know what you look like, what stuff you have, where you are. It’s quite scary.

tpbiker – Yes I share your sentiment. But if Mr Zuckerberg charged everyone a few pounds a year for using Facebook, which I am sure most people would gladly pay, then he would still be able to help a sick child and have the revenue stream so he didn’t have to sell your data. And that might be one small step against advertisers and media ruling the world.