Responsible spending of share holders money was an unknown concept back then .
As there were so many successful companies back then clearly "responsible spending" was very much a known concept.
As for the rest of it Trevor, with all due respect you do talk some...
Most of the so called companie were a single owner with a financial backer .
When a business is new & in the growth stage, people invest in it to make a capital gain.
As the business matures then the capital gains get realized and the original backers are replaced with the rent seekers looking for dividends higher than they can make on the money market.
BSA prospered while the original gunsmiths were the board members
As they resigned they got replaced with the money men who knew nothing about any of the things BSA did apart from make money .
Had ther not been a WW I & WWII BSA would have vanished long before they did .
In theory the entire shareholders own the business & the directors are there to oversee the running of the company on behalf of the shareholdes in general.
However if you look into the histories boards acted as if the company was their own private business .
BSA paid substantially more for Sunbeam, Ariel , Triumph , New Hudson , Daimler , Lanchester and Aeroco than any of them were worth.
The board members when these sales happened all had direct links to the owhers of the companies that BSA was buying.
Old school tie economics
Now days it would be called a conflict of interest but back then it was SOP
