How would you reply to this post?

The Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company provides a very interesting court case with both sides having reasonable statements for their actions. On one hand, Ford wanted to put more revenue into the company. On the other, the Dodge brothers wanted a bigger dividend payout as that payout could go towards their own business. (Roe, 2021, para. 1) I find both reasons to be valid. However, if I were to choose a side, I would go with Fords position as he is the man in charge. Perhaps, he has a larger vision that shareholders cannot see, and putting that extra revenue into the business makes his vision a reality much quicker. I understand that business is dealt with the shareholders interests in mind, but investing in the company more will only help to make the company bigger. Or perhaps, the business is not in a good state right now and things may have to cut down a little for the time being, as may have been the case for Fords monopoly. (Roe, 2021, para. 7) For these reasons, I think managers should have a say in the distribution ratio between revenue back into the company and shareholders dividends.

The corporation should work for the maximum benefit for shareholders in the immediately apparent future. After all, the long run does not mean much if the company cannot perform well in the short run, especially if it is to the point where the company is on the brink of bankruptcy. That being said, some emphasis should also be put on the long run or the company will become stagnant. I believe this is what Ford was trying to achieve.

However, I would like to offer a compromise. Instead of one side getting what they want, how about both sides, the business executives and the shareholders, talk to each other and come to an understanding about the ratio between revenue put back into the company and revenue put into the shareholders dividends. For example, since the corporation acts mainly in the interests of the shareholders, the ratio between the companys interest and shareholders interest could be 1:3 (25% to the company and 75% to the shareholders). Now, if the business executives are planning something big for one year and need additional revenue put back into the company, they could consult the shareholders and have the ratio change. For example, the ratio could change from 25%:75% to 35%:65%. Now, the executives would have to provide solid reasons that the shareholders can understand and support or it probably would not go well with the executives. This is probably where Ford failed and that cost him in the court case. The system is not perfect, but at least the company and its shareholders are cooperating and understanding each other rather than there being a power struggle where both sides are only acting in their own self-interest.