antitrust law can be a great tool if the government actually uses it for enforcement, which it hasn’t been because it causes parties to lose elections.

Not having the money to buy a new computer often means not having the money to put where ones mouth is.

Can't afford thing? Gamble on stock market instead.

Ridiculous argument that already rich people make.

No?

Shorting doesn’t only require you to be right. It requires perfectly timing when the market will realize you’re right.

Google (which is diversified more and whose performance is less likely to track AI outcomes closely) aside, the two other members of the AI Big 3 are non-public, so, no, you really can’t.

Can I? Neither OpenAI nor Anthropic are publicly traded.

You can make a lot of money with shorts if you are correct about when the market will move. If you think that the market is overestimating the real value you have not even half of the puzzle.

With non-public companies?

nVidia earning is way above zero by a healthy margin. This was also true 4 years ago. How much their shares should cost is debatable but still, nVidia is obviously a profitable business.

Anthropic net loss in 2025 was $42 bln, OpenAI $38.5 bln. Both are spending enormous amounts with no obvious path to profitability.

The market can remain irrational far longer than you can stay solvent.

As far as I am aware, the answer to your question is ‘no’[0].

> Contrary to what many believe, U.S. corporate law does not impose any enforceable legal duty on corporate directors or executives of public corporations to maximize profits or share price. The economic case for shareholder-value maximization similarly rests on incorrect factual claims about the structure of corporations, including the mistaken claims that shareholders “own” corporations, that they have the only residual claim on the firm’s profits, and that they are principals who hire and control directors to act as their agents.

[0] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-v...

>Isn't it the case that public companies owe a primary legal/fiduciary duty to shareholders

The shareholders own the company. It is their property. They paid for it, they own it, and likewise they can do whatever they want with it.

It would be crazy if I proposed you let me drive your car to work everyday. Why? Because you own your car, it's your property, and it works for your own interest. Basically every human agrees with this logic, but somehow "the company is just focused on pleasing shareholders" escapes this.

This is like asking how many times can a politician can break his word before people vote for the other guy.

It's more like voting for public officials. Shareholders can vote to fire a CEO if they feel he's not acting in their best interests no mattter if that's the case or not.

No, and I don't know who keeps teaching you that nonsense.

And what does that mean?

Raid your own assets, cut costs manically so you can have a few splendid quarters with stock buyback bonanza or focus on long term value creation, which a lot of times involves giving at least a passing tought to other stakeholders such as client and employees?

The getting was great for some time for HP shareholders under Fiorina, or GE shareholders under Welch. Lots of them left the sinking ships at the right moment, but I bet that lot of the others left holding the bag, would have preferred having bought AAPL.

fiduciary duty doesn't mean you always have to do what makes the maximum profit

avoiding the destruction of good faith with consumers is a legitimate business interest