6 ms·

This is part of Schwab's merger with TD Ameritrade. Relevant bits from Schwab's FAQ [1]: Q: Where will the combined company be headquartered? A: As part of th

This is part of Schwab's merger with TD Ameritrade. Relevant bits from Schwab's FAQ [1]: Q: Where will the combined company be headquartered? A: As part of the integration process, the corporate headquarters of the combined companies will eventually relocate to Schwab’s new campus in Westlake, Texas. Both companies have a sizable presence in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. This will allow the firm to take advantage of the central location of Schwab’s new campus as the hub of a network of Schwab branches and operations centers that span the entire U.S., and beyond. Q: What does the headquarters move mean for the future of Schwab’s presence in San Francisco? A: Schwab was founded in San Francisco and has maintained a longstanding commitment to the Bay Area, which will continue. A small percentage of roles may move to Westlake over time, either through relocation or attrition. The vast majority of San Francisco-based roles, however, are not anticipated to be impacted by this decision. Schwab expects to continue hiring in San Francisco and retain a sizable corporate footprint in the city. Any additional real estate decisions will be made as part of the integration process, over time. [1] https://www.aboutschwab.com/announcement https://www.aboutschwab.com/announcement

hkmurakami 7y ago
TD Ameritrade is headquartered in Omaha. The HQ location choice is not driven by existing Ameritrafe footprint, or by the merger itself. The FAQ is simply addressing what will be, not starting that there was a cause and effect because of the proposed merger. Also, Schwab was already reducing SF headcount for years. Also, afaik the merger is still in the prices of regulatory review. All this being said, the merger likely gives a tactical opportunity to move HQ out of state without triggering a governmental review of some kind by pairing it with the merger event.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Why would the government review a headquarters move?
  - hailwren 7y ago
    States and cities often give large corporations preferential treatment to maintain a footprint there. I'm not sure if this is the case for Schwab/SF, but if they are getting a break then announcing a move might be a time for SF/California to start clawing back benefits.
  - jdavis703 7y ago
    It sounds like they'll be keeping a sizable amount of staff in SF still. SF has a gross receipts tax on certain companies with HQ's in the city. As such auditors will want to ensure this isn't just a tax avoidance gimmick. By pairing this move with an acquisition Charles Schwab has a stronger defense against such an accusation.
    - blackflame 7y ago
      When will the people of SF learn you cannot tax yourself to prosperity
      - godzillabrennus 7y ago
        When they move to Texas.
        cjsplat 7y ago
        Where they will learn that Texas government pays for itself with oil and gas extraction taxes, which don't exist in California.
        _-david-_ 7y ago
        The Bay Area pays for itself with the tech industry.
        blackflame 7y ago
        No, the Bay Area rides on the coattails of tech. Severs can be anywhere and the second they decide Nevada (Cough Oracle) is cheaper, good by to all the money financing the impractical public policy. Humans are naturally selfish and greedy. That is fundamentally incompatible with any socialization of sufficient size
- rsj_hn 7y ago
  There is nothing wrong with moving to a better tax jurisdiction because you want lower taxes. It is perfectly legal, happens all the time, and is not something subject to a 'government review', because firms are expected to optimize their behavior in order to avoid taxes as much as possible, and even legally required to do so if they are to meet their obligations to maximize shareholder value. The whole idea that people change their behavior to avoid taxes is the basis of sin taxes - this is how things are supposed to work.
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    > and even legally required to do so if they are to meet their obligations to maximize shareholder value. This is a solid comment overall, but I really wish this particular widespread canard would die already. It's flatly untrue, the kind of myth that lives on because there are so many people who aren't capable of processing the benefits and costs of corporations and treat them as one-dimensional boogeymen out of a children's bedtime story. (to be clear, that doesn't appear to be the case for you).
    - rsj_hn 7y ago
      It is not a canard. The purpose of a corporation is going to be specified in the corporate charter, and while some corporations are non-profits or have explicit charitable requirements, most have a charter that focuses on maximizing shareholder earnings. Almost no company has a charter that focuses on maximizing taxes paid. That charter is a binding contract that governs the behavior of the officers of the company and shareholders, when they buy shares of a company, do so with their rights and the obligations of officers encoded in that charter. They are not buying blind -- they are buying into that charter. That is a contract that they expect to be followed. The idea that a corporation can do whatever it wants and ignore shareholders is a fashionable myth in some lefty circles and has absolutely no basis in reality or corporate law. If you want to found a corporation whose charter is to help the poor, or to provide high paying secure jobs to workers, you can certainly do that, but then it goes in the charter and if a corporate officer were to start turning the company into a for profit venture she could get sued by the shareholders just as an officer turning a for profit company into a non-profit can get sued. In addition to the legal obligation of abiding by the charter (in the sense that it is a contract and you can get sued for breaching it), most corporate charters are structured in such a way as to allow shareholders certain operational control: to replace board members who they don't believe are acting in their (the shareholder) interest, require shareholder approval for major things like executive pay, issuance of corporate debt, issuance of more stock, etc. This is another way that corporate officers are bound to serve shareholder interests and again these rights are all promised to the shareholder in the charter before they purchase stock, so that a shareholder knows what they are buying and what rights they have. In addition to the daily operational controls that shareholders exercise, the charter also specifies what is necessary to change it -- usually a shareholder majority of some kind. This means if you displease the shareholders, they will sell your stock, lowering your stock price, allowing a hostile shareholder to buy up the company and throw management out and also rewrite the charter. Maybe even take the company private so they become the sole owner of the entire company. All of that is hanging, like a Damocles sword, over management, forcing management to cater to shareholder preferences. If you don't like the current shareholder focus -- and there is a case to be made that we are too focused on the shareholder -- then you can go company by company and propose a vote to amend the current charter, assuming you can get the shareholders to agree -- but what you can't do is pretend that the vast majority of corporate charters aren't structured in such a way as to force corporate officers to maximize shareholder value. They are.
- tootie 7y ago
  Ameritrade has always been based in Omaha, but the T in TD stands for Toronto. So headquarters locations is a pretty malleable designation.
  - scurvy 7y ago
    Yep, and after this the new company will have nothing to do with Canada. Toronto Dominion shares in TD Ameritrade will be cashed out. Though it will be interesting to see if they still get their back end cut like they do now.
  - hkmurakami 7y ago
    TD Ameritrade is a subsidiary of TD Bank. Subsidiaries have separate HQs from their owners. See BRKA for other examples.
viburnum 7y ago
Companies locate their headquarters solely on where their CEO wants to live.
txcwpalpha 7y ago
This move was almost certainly planned long before the merger. They announced construction of a massive, headquarters-sized campus in Westlake several years ago, and they're already almost done building 3 of the huge office buildings (with 2-3 more to come). My guess is that the move is an entirely separate decision but was combined with this announcement for convenience sake.

hkmurakami 7y ago

TD Ameritrade is headquartered in Omaha. The HQ location choice is not driven by existing Ameritrafe footprint, or by the merger itself. The FAQ is simply addressing what will be, not starting that there was a cause and effect because of the proposed merger. Also, Schwab was already reducing SF headcount for years. Also, afaik the merger is still in the prices of regulatory review. All this being said, the merger likely gives a tactical opportunity to move HQ out of state without triggering a governmental review of some kind by pairing it with the merger event.

cortesoft 7y ago
Why would the government review a headquarters move?
- hailwren 7y ago
  States and cities often give large corporations preferential treatment to maintain a footprint there. I'm not sure if this is the case for Schwab/SF, but if they are getting a break then announcing a move might be a time for SF/California to start clawing back benefits.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  It sounds like they'll be keeping a sizable amount of staff in SF still. SF has a gross receipts tax on certain companies with HQ's in the city. As such auditors will want to ensure this isn't just a tax avoidance gimmick. By pairing this move with an acquisition Charles Schwab has a stronger defense against such an accusation.
  - blackflame 7y ago
    When will the people of SF learn you cannot tax yourself to prosperity
    - godzillabrennus 7y ago
      When they move to Texas.
      - cjsplat 7y ago
        Where they will learn that Texas government pays for itself with oil and gas extraction taxes, which don't exist in California.
        _-david-_ 7y ago
        The Bay Area pays for itself with the tech industry.
        blackflame 7y ago
        No, the Bay Area rides on the coattails of tech. Severs can be anywhere and the second they decide Nevada (Cough Oracle) is cheaper, good by to all the money financing the impractical public policy. Humans are naturally selfish and greedy. That is fundamentally incompatible with any socialization of sufficient size
rsj_hn 7y ago
There is nothing wrong with moving to a better tax jurisdiction because you want lower taxes. It is perfectly legal, happens all the time, and is not something subject to a 'government review', because firms are expected to optimize their behavior in order to avoid taxes as much as possible, and even legally required to do so if they are to meet their obligations to maximize shareholder value. The whole idea that people change their behavior to avoid taxes is the basis of sin taxes - this is how things are supposed to work.
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  > and even legally required to do so if they are to meet their obligations to maximize shareholder value. This is a solid comment overall, but I really wish this particular widespread canard would die already. It's flatly untrue, the kind of myth that lives on because there are so many people who aren't capable of processing the benefits and costs of corporations and treat them as one-dimensional boogeymen out of a children's bedtime story. (to be clear, that doesn't appear to be the case for you).
  - rsj_hn 7y ago
    It is not a canard. The purpose of a corporation is going to be specified in the corporate charter, and while some corporations are non-profits or have explicit charitable requirements, most have a charter that focuses on maximizing shareholder earnings. Almost no company has a charter that focuses on maximizing taxes paid. That charter is a binding contract that governs the behavior of the officers of the company and shareholders, when they buy shares of a company, do so with their rights and the obligations of officers encoded in that charter. They are not buying blind -- they are buying into that charter. That is a contract that they expect to be followed. The idea that a corporation can do whatever it wants and ignore shareholders is a fashionable myth in some lefty circles and has absolutely no basis in reality or corporate law. If you want to found a corporation whose charter is to help the poor, or to provide high paying secure jobs to workers, you can certainly do that, but then it goes in the charter and if a corporate officer were to start turning the company into a for profit venture she could get sued by the shareholders just as an officer turning a for profit company into a non-profit can get sued. In addition to the legal obligation of abiding by the charter (in the sense that it is a contract and you can get sued for breaching it), most corporate charters are structured in such a way as to allow shareholders certain operational control: to replace board members who they don't believe are acting in their (the shareholder) interest, require shareholder approval for major things like executive pay, issuance of corporate debt, issuance of more stock, etc. This is another way that corporate officers are bound to serve shareholder interests and again these rights are all promised to the shareholder in the charter before they purchase stock, so that a shareholder knows what they are buying and what rights they have. In addition to the daily operational controls that shareholders exercise, the charter also specifies what is necessary to change it -- usually a shareholder majority of some kind. This means if you displease the shareholders, they will sell your stock, lowering your stock price, allowing a hostile shareholder to buy up the company and throw management out and also rewrite the charter. Maybe even take the company private so they become the sole owner of the entire company. All of that is hanging, like a Damocles sword, over management, forcing management to cater to shareholder preferences. If you don't like the current shareholder focus -- and there is a case to be made that we are too focused on the shareholder -- then you can go company by company and propose a vote to amend the current charter, assuming you can get the shareholders to agree -- but what you can't do is pretend that the vast majority of corporate charters aren't structured in such a way as to force corporate officers to maximize shareholder value. They are.
tootie 7y ago
Ameritrade has always been based in Omaha, but the T in TD stands for Toronto. So headquarters locations is a pretty malleable designation.
- scurvy 7y ago
  Yep, and after this the new company will have nothing to do with Canada. Toronto Dominion shares in TD Ameritrade will be cashed out. Though it will be interesting to see if they still get their back end cut like they do now.
- hkmurakami 7y ago
  TD Ameritrade is a subsidiary of TD Bank. Subsidiaries have separate HQs from their owners. See BRKA for other examples.

viburnum 7y ago

Companies locate their headquarters solely on where their CEO wants to live.

txcwpalpha 7y ago

This move was almost certainly planned long before the merger. They announced construction of a massive, headquarters-sized campus in Westlake several years ago, and they're already almost done building 3 of the huge office buildings (with 2-3 more to come). My guess is that the move is an entirely separate decision but was combined with this announcement for convenience sake.