GPS interference is estimated from ADS-B data which is broadcast by airplanes so that they can be tracked. The lack of data over Ukraine is because their airspace is closed to civilian flights.
If this is expected to be bad for ETF investors, what's stopping let's say Vanguard or Blackrock from creating their own index that tracks the NASDAQ but without the new inclusion rules, and then changing their ETFs' target indexes to that one. Vanguard is investor-owned so it would be in their best interest wouldn't it?
It's hard to claim ""bad apples"" when the top brass acquits soldiers who get caught on camera sexually abusing a prisoner and instead prosecutes the whistleblower for leaking evidence of the crime.
It definitely is a thing in the eyes of Delaware courts:
In eBay vs Newmark:
>Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are
bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those
standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of
its stockholders. The “Inc.” after the company name has to mean at least that.
Thus, I cannot accept as valid for the purposes of implementing the Rights Plan a
corporate policy that specifically, clearly, and admittedly seeks not to maximize
the economic value of a for-profit Delaware corporation for the benefit of its
stockholders—no matter whether those stockholders are individuals of modest
means or a corporate titan of online commerce.
In the Trados case:
>It is, of course, accepted that a corporation may take steps, such as giving charitable contributions or paying higher wages, that do not maximize profits currently.
They may do so, however, because such activities are rationalized as producing greater
profits over the long-term. Decisions of this nature benefit the corporation as
a whole, and by increasing the value of the corporation, the directors increase the share of
value available for the residual claimants. Judicial opinions therefore often refer to
directors owing fiduciary duties ―to the corporation and its shareholders. This formulation captures the foundational
relationship in which directors owe duties to the corporation for the ultimate benefit of
the entity‘s residual claimants. Nevertheless, ―stockholders‘ best interest must always,
within legal limits, be the end. Other constituencies may be considered only
instrumentally to advance that end.
It depends on your legal jurisdiction but it means COs need to act in the corporation's best interest and not their own. In some places, that requires them to take shareholders' interests into account (especially for mergers or takeovers) but also the employees, consumers or creditors. In the US and notably Delaware, courts generally value shareholder value over anything else.
Considering the vast majority of US corporations are incorporated in Delaware, I think it's accurate to say most US companies only aim to maximize shareholder value.
I actually think it is fitting to read about a government agency weaponized by an unscrupulous billionaire going after journalists working for an unscrupulous billionaire on an unscrupulous trillionaire owned platform.
The tariffs are claimed to be a national security emergency and without the approval or Congress, therefore the composition of Congress won't matter unless the Supreme court judges otherwise.