4 ms·

The same as Patagonia's Chouinard: > The details of how Green will give away his company are unclear, but in an interview with Fox & Friends Weekend last week,

The same as Patagonia's Chouinard: > The details of how Green will give away his company are unclear, but in an interview with Fox & Friends Weekend last week, Green said that 100% of the company’s voting stock has been moved to a trust. Legally they're both giving up possession of their companies, but in reality I suspect they will both continue to exercise control over them and receive one kind of monetary compensation or another.

sschueller 4y ago
Instead of a trust, if they really wanted to give it away they would create a co-op and given it to the employees and customers. But like other comments have stated, this is all for tax evation and sounding good in public when in reality they retain control of the trust that now owns the company.
- RhysU 4y ago
  He likely cannot give away more than $17K per employee per year without incurring gift taxes. Rough 43K employees (in 2020 per Wikipedia) at $17K each is a maximum tax-free gift of $731M to some hypothetical co-op. In 2022 Hobby Lobby had $7.7B in revenue suggesting that it is worth quite a bit more than $731M. The difference would be subject to gift taxes at a rate of 40% if transferred into employee hands. He frankly could not have given it materially to the employees at once without liquidating a serious portion of his holdings to pay the gift taxes. Though, it could be transferred as compensation and taxed at income rates. But then the employees would be dumping shares to pay the taxes. (Someone please correct me if I am off here with my numbers/understanding.)
- tony_cannistra 4y ago
  I'd say a move toward a co-op would be too risky of a step for a billion-dollar company. The whole intent behind the Patagonia decision was to dethrone shareholder primacy while still maintaining some control / centralized governance.
  - sschueller 4y ago
    With all the brilliant minds out there finding all these tax constructs I am sure one could have found something that works if one really cared.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

sschueller 4y ago

Instead of a trust, if they really wanted to give it away they would create a co-op and given it to the employees and customers. But like other comments have stated, this is all for tax evation and sounding good in public when in reality they retain control of the trust that now owns the company.

RhysU 4y ago
He likely cannot give away more than $17K per employee per year without incurring gift taxes. Rough 43K employees (in 2020 per Wikipedia) at $17K each is a maximum tax-free gift of $731M to some hypothetical co-op. In 2022 Hobby Lobby had $7.7B in revenue suggesting that it is worth quite a bit more than $731M. The difference would be subject to gift taxes at a rate of 40% if transferred into employee hands. He frankly could not have given it materially to the employees at once without liquidating a serious portion of his holdings to pay the gift taxes. Though, it could be transferred as compensation and taxed at income rates. But then the employees would be dumping shares to pay the taxes. (Someone please correct me if I am off here with my numbers/understanding.)
tony_cannistra 4y ago
I'd say a move toward a co-op would be too risky of a step for a billion-dollar company. The whole intent behind the Patagonia decision was to dethrone shareholder primacy while still maintaining some control / centralized governance.
- sschueller 4y ago
  With all the brilliant minds out there finding all these tax constructs I am sure one could have found something that works if one really cared.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]