See definition here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary

In what ways DOES this word apply within Mormonism. In what ways SHOULD it apply?

JAR

justarelative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See definition here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary
>
> In what ways DOES this word apply within
> Mormonism. In what ways SHOULD it apply?
>
> JAR

Sorry, JAR...I don't have standing to speak to any of the Mormon aspects of this.

:(

So hijack the thread and talk about whatever you want.

I don't have any thoughts on its relationship to Mormonism, but...

Here’s my problem with fiduciary duty as it applies to corporate investment.

A pharma company has a pill that is approved and is in use for treating symptom X. It causes some liver damage, but that is considered an acceptable trade off due to the good achieved for its use for treating symptom X.

The pharma company also makes and sells a pill that helps people with damaged liver function.

One day, it’s discovered that there is a way to produce the original drug for symptom X so that it doesn’t damage the liver. However, producing this version would adversely affect the bottom line, because they are also selling a pill to treat liver dysfunction, such as (among other things) damage that can be caused by the other drug. So, by law, the company can’t reduce the damage to people’s livers by developing the ‘better’ version of the drug, because that would open the door to being sued by the shareholders for making a decision that reduced profit and growth. The choice is made by whatever produces the most profits, not by what does the most good (now that the initial drug is already out there and in use anyway.) No one even finds out their liver didn’t have to be damaged.

Too cynical? Don’t think that happens all the time? Fiduciary duty is like a headless monster sometimes. It’s a strange animal.

How this dysfunction would apply in Mormonism, I'm not sure.

So, I'm not entirely clear where the fiduciary duty lies in the example you've given. Do you mean the decision makers within the company have a duty to the shareholders and not to the final customers?

The first thing that comes to mind in the specific scenario you give is that Company A may try to avoid putting out medicine X, but Company B which is not in the same bind puts out medicine X. This now frees Company A to put out medicine X as well.

But that's playing checkers. Business takes place in the realm of chess, looking multiple moves ahead. So Company A puts out medicine X and if the shareholders have any questions about it Company A explains that Company B would have done this anyway so why wait. And that would actually be good business as well as good works.

Plus, your scenario leaves out the possibility of customer lawsuits over side effects that they discover could have been avoided. Shareholders would not be happy about that either.

Or something along those lines. I don't actually want to dicker over the details of scenarios. I'm sure there's one out there that makes your point more effectively.

- - - - -

As for Fiduciary duty -- the obligation to act on behalf of a vulnerable person IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, usually in regard to handling someone else's money, but not always -- if religious leaders (not all, but key leaders -- bishop yes, deacon no) had such an obligation, how would this change things?

Of course, defining BEST INTEREST is the real problem isn't it? My Mormon relatives tied up my DIL in court for two years trying to accomplish what they thought was in the best interest of her child: let them raise him as a Mormon. But, of course, they couldn't tell the court what they were up to, they had to use the court's definition of best interest, and couldn't quite pull that off.

As things stand, it's buyer beware.

JAR

>> a duty to the shareholders and not to the final customers? <<

Yes, that was my point. Bound by law, actually, not duty. It's their fiduciary duty, legally, to the share holders to not do anything to harm growth. And it's not like the public ever finds out about what alternatives they are aware of to any large degree.

But, I'll let others steer this into a more Mormon related direction. I have to cook dinner for the kids now. :)

I would say the mormon church definitely fails the "no profit rule" of being a fiduciary. They profit greatly from followers giving their money, time, and control.

Handing your power and money to someone/some organization that claims they will use it to your benefit is never a good idea.