4 ms·

If you were a shareholder, would you rather want your company to be controlled by a shark, who pursue profits vigourosly at the cost of the occasional PR failur

by nanairo 16y ago

If you were a shareholder, would you rather want your company to be controlled by a shark, who pursue profits vigourosly at the cost of the occasional PR failure (that doesn't really seem to affect them in any real term). Or would you want it to be controlled by two geeks that started their company with the motto: "Don't be evil" and would put (I imagine) ethics before profit?

mcantelon 16y ago
Not all shareholders are eager to sacrifice values and principles to maximize returns.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Sure. But there's enough people who would gladly pay the current price _and_ sacrifice values that I doubt any choice by the "ethical" people would make much of a dent in their share price.
irons 16y ago
It's a mistake (though a common one, and almost an American truism) to equate "being a shareholder" with "fixated on next quarter's earnings above all other factors". There are other standards of behavior, even if you still profess an interest only in money, especially if you still want your company to be thriving in a decade.
- grandalf 16y ago
  True. It's even true from the standpoint that any investment comes with a notion of time frame. If I invest in Google I'm not looking to cash out next quarter, so I'd rather that Google allocate funds toward projects that come to fruition just before my intended cash-out date.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I agree that a shareholder may be interested in the long term, though not many are (what happens in the long term is not a problem if you manage to sell your shares beforehand). At the same time I think most shareholders want to make money from their shares. I am sure that there are a significant amount of ethical shareholders, but not enough that their behaviour would change the shares strongly. They would simply pick a company that is more ethical. But as long as Google makes the earnings it makes, I am sure others would happily take their place. As for the short-term vs. long-term I would agree with you if Google ended up losing business. But I think we (as in the geeky people on this and similar sites) are out of touch if we think they'll lose much. Look at Facebook and the failed boycott. I don't think a few PR gaffes from its CEO would do Google any harm. Look: I am not defending Google. I hate that people (and shareholders) are not more ethical. I hate that shareholders may hold onto their stock for only a few days or months: originally it was meant as a way to fund companies you believe in, not as a bet on the market. I am just trying to justify why I think there's no way that this or many more gaffes like this would force Schmidt to resign (or be fired).
  - barrkel 16y ago
    Expectations of future earnings affect share prices today. And of course if stock markets were perfectly efficient with full information, then stock prices would never change - they would be the net present value of all future earnings. So the question isn't whether or not Google is profitable today. It's rather, is Google going to be as profitable as it could be in the future? If it keeps up with what it's doing, there's a risk it could attract unwelcome attention from regulators, especially in Europe. It doesn't take much pissing off of the public re privacy for politicians to be motivated to meddle. Google would do well to put that off as much as possible and minimize potential ramifications. And that work pays off in today's prices.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      I perfectly agree. It's a risk Google is taking: Schmidt has its pros and cons. The question is not that having a bad reputation may be a risky and one day hurt their revenues. The question is how that would compare to not having done anything, i.e. a Google where Schmidt was not in command. Would we have had Buzz, AdMob, Android and Facebook killers? So it's the benefit of having Schmidt more or less than the disadvantages brought by his gaffes? My feeling is that apart from a people in tech related websites, most people would soon forget about these gaffes. As evidence I pointed out to Google's current share prices, and other companies that have had similar gaffes or actual problems, such as Apple or Facebook.
grandalf 16y ago
Google's business is heavily based on trust, so I think ethics are fairly important. I was very disappointed to see Google trying to innovate by legislation. Why should a company with the best engineering talent resort to such games? Also, don't underestimate the impact of the shifting demographics of internet/privacy awareness. Google succeeded because it had a simple product (search) that just worked, and because its ads just worked. Schmidt has had nothing to do with most of Google's revenue and I think he's more likely to screw things up by approving unwise M&A activity or making ill-conceived public statements than he is to somehow usher in a new era of corporate growth. Also, I question anyone who is too gung-ho about a political candidate; particularly anyone who does it from his/her public corporate podium. It suggests that the person is overly attentive to the sort of base, clannish activities of humans, taking sides, being in the "in crowd". Such behavior often correlates with success in bureaucratic organizations, but that's not the person you want as CEO.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Wow. Apparently I didn't realise such a post would get me downgraded... did i offend someone's sensibility? Was I rude??? Curious... Anyway, back to your point. I agree on what you said. But the problem as I see it is that Google (the company) is not hurt by its CEO's gaffes. Facebook is a lot worse, and it's still going strong (and the boycott was a total failure). Google itself is going strong: it's becoming harder and harder to stop using it. So sure, if Google's business started to suffer because of Schmidt then I would agree. However at the moment it seems that the business has been helped by him not hindered. They may have traded ethics for revenue, but clearly not many shareholders were concerned on that, or the prices would have fallen. Those shareholders would be concerned if Google started to lose business, but that doesn't seem likely to happen at the moment.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    (I didn't mod your comment down fyi). I think it was a legitimate question. I guess it depends on how much credit you give to Schmidt for Google's success. I find it hard to believe that he deserves much... but I could be wrong.
TotlolRon 16y ago
> if you were a shareholder $461.00 will make you one. So what would YOU want?
- nanairo 16y ago
  For a start I wouldn't want to spend 461$ to have a vote. You know, democracy and all that. Edit (after being downvoted): why all the bad votes? What did I say that was so bad? Schmidt compared Google to a government. My point is that only shareholders can vote to oust him, and to be a shareholder I've just been informed that it would cost me 461$. How is democracy (eveyone has a vote), not relevant? If we live in a democracy then surely I should have a say without having to pay 461$.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > If we live in a democracy then surely I should have a say without having to pay 461$. If you live in the US, then you already have a vote without spending $461 that can affect how Google operates. If you wish to change how Google operates from within, it will cost you $461. > How is democracy (eveyone has a vote), not relevant? Democracy is not about everyone having a vote. Their is a large portion of the US population that cannot vote for various reasons. As for the down votes: probably because your comment doesn't really contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      I agree with you on the first point. Google (and similar data hoarders) should be regulated. A set of laws should explain what they can and can't do, for how long they can keep the data or have to publish it, etc... The problem I had was more the idea that the choice it between giving our data to the companies (without regulation) and to the government. And incidentally several government have told Google to stop certain actions, but they keep going... so clearly here there's something to solve. (I hope we agree that corporations are not above the law, no matter how big). As for your second point, that it's exactly what democracy is about. You could say that in practice no country has a perfect democracy. In terms of political philosophy, the state is a construct where each citizen gives up a little bit of its power, to get an organism that will regulate how people should live. However those same citizens can also affect the state by using their vote. Hence why everyone who makes up a country should have a vote. In reality, we negate the vote to people who we consider were not part of the original deal (i.e. they arrived into the country afterwards), or that we don't consider they know enough and understand enough to take their own choices.

by nanairo 16y ago

mcantelon 16y ago

Not all shareholders are eager to sacrifice values and principles to maximize returns.

nanairo 16y ago
Sure. But there's enough people who would gladly pay the current price _and_ sacrifice values that I doubt any choice by the "ethical" people would make much of a dent in their share price.

irons 16y ago

It's a mistake (though a common one, and almost an American truism) to equate "being a shareholder" with "fixated on next quarter's earnings above all other factors". There are other standards of behavior, even if you still profess an interest only in money, especially if you still want your company to be thriving in a decade.

grandalf 16y ago
True. It's even true from the standpoint that any investment comes with a notion of time frame. If I invest in Google I'm not looking to cash out next quarter, so I'd rather that Google allocate funds toward projects that come to fruition just before my intended cash-out date.
nanairo 16y ago
I agree that a shareholder may be interested in the long term, though not many are (what happens in the long term is not a problem if you manage to sell your shares beforehand). At the same time I think most shareholders want to make money from their shares. I am sure that there are a significant amount of ethical shareholders, but not enough that their behaviour would change the shares strongly. They would simply pick a company that is more ethical. But as long as Google makes the earnings it makes, I am sure others would happily take their place. As for the short-term vs. long-term I would agree with you if Google ended up losing business. But I think we (as in the geeky people on this and similar sites) are out of touch if we think they'll lose much. Look at Facebook and the failed boycott. I don't think a few PR gaffes from its CEO would do Google any harm. Look: I am not defending Google. I hate that people (and shareholders) are not more ethical. I hate that shareholders may hold onto their stock for only a few days or months: originally it was meant as a way to fund companies you believe in, not as a bet on the market. I am just trying to justify why I think there's no way that this or many more gaffes like this would force Schmidt to resign (or be fired).
- barrkel 16y ago
  Expectations of future earnings affect share prices today. And of course if stock markets were perfectly efficient with full information, then stock prices would never change - they would be the net present value of all future earnings. So the question isn't whether or not Google is profitable today. It's rather, is Google going to be as profitable as it could be in the future? If it keeps up with what it's doing, there's a risk it could attract unwelcome attention from regulators, especially in Europe. It doesn't take much pissing off of the public re privacy for politicians to be motivated to meddle. Google would do well to put that off as much as possible and minimize potential ramifications. And that work pays off in today's prices.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    I perfectly agree. It's a risk Google is taking: Schmidt has its pros and cons. The question is not that having a bad reputation may be a risky and one day hurt their revenues. The question is how that would compare to not having done anything, i.e. a Google where Schmidt was not in command. Would we have had Buzz, AdMob, Android and Facebook killers? So it's the benefit of having Schmidt more or less than the disadvantages brought by his gaffes? My feeling is that apart from a people in tech related websites, most people would soon forget about these gaffes. As evidence I pointed out to Google's current share prices, and other companies that have had similar gaffes or actual problems, such as Apple or Facebook.

grandalf 16y ago

Google's business is heavily based on trust, so I think ethics are fairly important. I was very disappointed to see Google trying to innovate by legislation. Why should a company with the best engineering talent resort to such games? Also, don't underestimate the impact of the shifting demographics of internet/privacy awareness. Google succeeded because it had a simple product (search) that just worked, and because its ads just worked. Schmidt has had nothing to do with most of Google's revenue and I think he's more likely to screw things up by approving unwise M&A activity or making ill-conceived public statements than he is to somehow usher in a new era of corporate growth. Also, I question anyone who is too gung-ho about a political candidate; particularly anyone who does it from his/her public corporate podium. It suggests that the person is overly attentive to the sort of base, clannish activities of humans, taking sides, being in the "in crowd". Such behavior often correlates with success in bureaucratic organizations, but that's not the person you want as CEO.

nanairo 16y ago
Wow. Apparently I didn't realise such a post would get me downgraded... did i offend someone's sensibility? Was I rude??? Curious... Anyway, back to your point. I agree on what you said. But the problem as I see it is that Google (the company) is not hurt by its CEO's gaffes. Facebook is a lot worse, and it's still going strong (and the boycott was a total failure). Google itself is going strong: it's becoming harder and harder to stop using it. So sure, if Google's business started to suffer because of Schmidt then I would agree. However at the moment it seems that the business has been helped by him not hindered. They may have traded ethics for revenue, but clearly not many shareholders were concerned on that, or the prices would have fallen. Those shareholders would be concerned if Google started to lose business, but that doesn't seem likely to happen at the moment.
- grandalf 16y ago
  (I didn't mod your comment down fyi). I think it was a legitimate question. I guess it depends on how much credit you give to Schmidt for Google's success. I find it hard to believe that he deserves much... but I could be wrong.

TotlolRon 16y ago

> if you were a shareholder $461.00 will make you one. So what would YOU want?

nanairo 16y ago
For a start I wouldn't want to spend 461$ to have a vote. You know, democracy and all that. Edit (after being downvoted): why all the bad votes? What did I say that was so bad? Schmidt compared Google to a government. My point is that only shareholders can vote to oust him, and to be a shareholder I've just been informed that it would cost me 461$. How is democracy (eveyone has a vote), not relevant? If we live in a democracy then surely I should have a say without having to pay 461$.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > If we live in a democracy then surely I should have a say without having to pay 461$. If you live in the US, then you already have a vote without spending $461 that can affect how Google operates. If you wish to change how Google operates from within, it will cost you $461. > How is democracy (eveyone has a vote), not relevant? Democracy is not about everyone having a vote. Their is a large portion of the US population that cannot vote for various reasons. As for the down votes: probably because your comment doesn't really contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    I agree with you on the first point. Google (and similar data hoarders) should be regulated. A set of laws should explain what they can and can't do, for how long they can keep the data or have to publish it, etc... The problem I had was more the idea that the choice it between giving our data to the companies (without regulation) and to the government. And incidentally several government have told Google to stop certain actions, but they keep going... so clearly here there's something to solve. (I hope we agree that corporations are not above the law, no matter how big). As for your second point, that it's exactly what democracy is about. You could say that in practice no country has a perfect democracy. In terms of political philosophy, the state is a construct where each citizen gives up a little bit of its power, to get an organism that will regulate how people should live. However those same citizens can also affect the state by using their vote. Hence why everyone who makes up a country should have a vote. In reality, we negate the vote to people who we consider were not part of the original deal (i.e. they arrived into the country afterwards), or that we don't consider they know enough and understand enough to take their own choices.