7 ms·

This criticism seems unnecessarily harsh and focused on income. There are real issues here regarding the role of a CEO in working with or talking to analysts a

This criticism seems unnecessarily harsh and focused on income. There are real issues here regarding the role of a CEO in working with or talking to analysts and investors. You could make an argument that it serves Google's long-term interest to withhold this information from analysts and their shareholders. Or you could argue that Larry Page should answer to people who own part of his company. I'm not saying one is more right than the other, you just aren't contributing to the discussion by trashing someone based on their income. This isn't about Larry Page vs some "loser $100k analysts" it's about the CEO of a major public tech company and their relationship with their investors.

loganfrederick 15y ago
I had to upvote and add to this comment to emphasize your point. I haven't looked through Google's SEC filings for what Larry's actual comments are, but he does need to remember that it's not "his" company anymore and he is partially a billionaire because Google went public (in exchange for getting public money and boosting the value of his own net worth, Google has been able to use that public funding for its continued growth). He likely would've been rich had Google not gone public, but it did and it'd be hard to argue against the positive boost it has given him. He may not owe it to public investors to give bullshit earnings guidance, but he does owe it to them to answer their questions on how he intends on managing the company and transitively the investor's money.
- rudiger 15y ago
  The major shareholders of Google remain inside Google, especially when you consider voting shares.
  - asanwal 15y ago
    Sorry but 81% of Google is owned by mutual funds & institutions. 1% is held by insiders http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG+Major+Holders http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG+Major+Holders This also underscores the fact that this is not Page's company and so while the Street's short-term thinking shouldn't influence him, he should provide shareholders a cogent articulation of his plan/vision.
    - theoneill 15y ago
      Google has two classes of stock.
      - asanwal 15y ago
        That's fine. But let's assume all 81% of institutions hold "less privileged" (likely non-voting) stock, it doesn't matter if they can't vote. They can vote with their checkbooks (allocate investments to other stocks) and that is bad for Google's stock price.
        JanezStupar 15y ago
        Your comment reminds me of how people set out a company to you know build a legacy, make some money, change the world, whatever. But then this MBA financials guy comes around and shows how with some book engineering you can get 5% more out of your company each year (by cutting costs for example) - and you agree with him. A year later you got 7% out and the company still stands. And then one says, this is good - lets keep doing this, final result - the company is gone 5years from now. I'm not saying that cutting costs, trying to not pay the taxes and massage of investors is stupid and worthless. What I'm trying to say is that Entrepreneurs start out to build companies that do stuff. But sometimes they just get so much into intricacies of "little stuff that matters" that they forget the big picture. So for each action (or at least each major action) an executive should ask himself, how does this make this company better at being a company that does stuff people want. And cliche answer - it will help it because shareholders will get more out of it in short term is one of the worst. So can you please explain to me how lower stock price affects google's ability to do what it does?
        arethuza 15y ago
        The only thing I can think of is that with a flat or lowering stock price, employee options aren't going to be as attractive as they were which means that it will be more difficult to attract and retain the best staff.
- erikpukinskis 15y ago
  he does owe it to them to answer their questions on how he intends on managing the company and transitively the investor's money. I disagree. You chose to invest in a company based on your belief that it will grow as an asset. If you want to have guarantees of certain information beyond what the SEC requires, you need to enter into a separate contract with the corporation. Page is a founder and CEO in good standing with the board. He doesn't owe shareholders squat.
  - PakG1 15y ago
    That's all true except your very last sentence. He doesn't owe shareholders squat. That's an unnecessary hyperbolic statement that doesn't accomplish anything good. It's because shareholders buy in that Google's share price doesn't totally collapse. If Page doesn't owe them squat, he's free to act irresponsibly and stupidly. Take all of Google's cash and go spend it buying up professional sports teams. Fortunately, Page isn't that stupid and is working to build something big long-term. If he pulls it off, shareholders will be rewarded. If shareholders don't "get" his strategy right now, and Page thinks "whatever you guys, I'm doing what I need to do", that's no reason to state that Page "owes them squat." Page is still acting in the shareholder's long-term interest, whether shareholders agree with his strategy or not. But let's not say he "owes them squat."

loganfrederick 15y ago

I had to upvote and add to this comment to emphasize your point. I haven't looked through Google's SEC filings for what Larry's actual comments are, but he does need to remember that it's not "his" company anymore and he is partially a billionaire because Google went public (in exchange for getting public money and boosting the value of his own net worth, Google has been able to use that public funding for its continued growth). He likely would've been rich had Google not gone public, but it did and it'd be hard to argue against the positive boost it has given him. He may not owe it to public investors to give bullshit earnings guidance, but he does owe it to them to answer their questions on how he intends on managing the company and transitively the investor's money.

rudiger 15y ago
The major shareholders of Google remain inside Google, especially when you consider voting shares.
- asanwal 15y ago
  Sorry but 81% of Google is owned by mutual funds & institutions. 1% is held by insiders http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG+Major+Holders http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG+Major+Holders This also underscores the fact that this is not Page's company and so while the Street's short-term thinking shouldn't influence him, he should provide shareholders a cogent articulation of his plan/vision.
  - theoneill 15y ago
    Google has two classes of stock.
    - asanwal 15y ago
      That's fine. But let's assume all 81% of institutions hold "less privileged" (likely non-voting) stock, it doesn't matter if they can't vote. They can vote with their checkbooks (allocate investments to other stocks) and that is bad for Google's stock price.
      - JanezStupar 15y ago
        Your comment reminds me of how people set out a company to you know build a legacy, make some money, change the world, whatever. But then this MBA financials guy comes around and shows how with some book engineering you can get 5% more out of your company each year (by cutting costs for example) - and you agree with him. A year later you got 7% out and the company still stands. And then one says, this is good - lets keep doing this, final result - the company is gone 5years from now. I'm not saying that cutting costs, trying to not pay the taxes and massage of investors is stupid and worthless. What I'm trying to say is that Entrepreneurs start out to build companies that do stuff. But sometimes they just get so much into intricacies of "little stuff that matters" that they forget the big picture. So for each action (or at least each major action) an executive should ask himself, how does this make this company better at being a company that does stuff people want. And cliche answer - it will help it because shareholders will get more out of it in short term is one of the worst. So can you please explain to me how lower stock price affects google's ability to do what it does?
        arethuza 15y ago
        The only thing I can think of is that with a flat or lowering stock price, employee options aren't going to be as attractive as they were which means that it will be more difficult to attract and retain the best staff.
erikpukinskis 15y ago
he does owe it to them to answer their questions on how he intends on managing the company and transitively the investor's money. I disagree. You chose to invest in a company based on your belief that it will grow as an asset. If you want to have guarantees of certain information beyond what the SEC requires, you need to enter into a separate contract with the corporation. Page is a founder and CEO in good standing with the board. He doesn't owe shareholders squat.
- PakG1 15y ago
  That's all true except your very last sentence. He doesn't owe shareholders squat. That's an unnecessary hyperbolic statement that doesn't accomplish anything good. It's because shareholders buy in that Google's share price doesn't totally collapse. If Page doesn't owe them squat, he's free to act irresponsibly and stupidly. Take all of Google's cash and go spend it buying up professional sports teams. Fortunately, Page isn't that stupid and is working to build something big long-term. If he pulls it off, shareholders will be rewarded. If shareholders don't "get" his strategy right now, and Page thinks "whatever you guys, I'm doing what I need to do", that's no reason to state that Page "owes them squat." Page is still acting in the shareholder's long-term interest, whether shareholders agree with his strategy or not. But let's not say he "owes them squat."