how would you reply to this post?

The Dodge vs. Ford case is very interesting and a very popular case. Ford wanted to hold back on part of the companys capital earnings for reinvestment which denied dividends to be paid to Dodge. Dodge believed that the reason for them holding back their dividends was because they wanted to reinvest in the company and bring down the price of buying a car. This is a very tricky case because both of these parties are somewhat correct in my eyes. I think that Ford had a vision for the company and the fact that he was looking into reinvesting in the company means that he was looking at the bigger picture here. He had certain goals for Ford and by doing this he would be able to achieve those goals. I do believe that managers should have a say when it comes to returning money to shareholders. This way, there is potential for the company to become bigger than it already is and that makes the shareholders even more money in the long run. I do think that the company should work for the maximum benefit of the shareholders as well. In business, doing things for the long term should be the goal. If the company is only trying to achieve things in the short run, then it probably isnt going to last. Letting managers have a say and trying to get the shareholders the maximum benefit can put them in a good position to be on a continuous uphill of cash flow. That way the shareholders are happier at the end and so is everyone else in the company. I do believe that Ford should have spoken about withholding dividends with shareholders first before making any decisions and letting them see his side of it all. That way, there is no confusion and they could have come to a proper agreement as to what would be paid and what would be withheld.