4 ms·

TCI was taking advantage of the layoffs as a way to try to fool people into thinking they have sway with Google leadership. They don't. They own 0.5% which is

TCI was taking advantage of the layoffs as a way to try to fool people into thinking they have sway with Google leadership. They don't. They own 0.5% which is nothing compared to other investors. The lion share are still owned by Brin and Page. I'm sure Google leadership humored their call with TCI but it means nothing to them. He didn't even meet with Sundar as far as I heard, but he makes it seems like he did.

adam_arthur 4y ago
Corporate activism isn’t about having the biggest stake, its about rallying other shareholders around your cause. All else equal a bigger stake gives you more leverage, but its still possible to influence company decision making with a smaller stake by getting other shareholders on your side
- nostromo 4y ago
  Well, they're going to need to sway two big investors named Page and Brin, who still own 51% of voting rights. They designed it this way to prevent activist shareholders who tend to be very focused on the short-term.
  - voakbasda 4y ago
    Instead, they hired managers and executives that focused on short-term ad revenue. Who needs activism when you can self-sabotage.
    - vuln 4y ago
      It would take so long Google to bleed itself dry through self sabotage. I'd imagine they're both checked out, they have enough money to be really comfy for the rest of their lives.
    - ryloric 4y ago
      It sucks but still better than having pieces of them spin-off and sold by some private equity people.
      - voakbasda 4y ago
        Is it better, really? Maybe some of their products would have survived by being spun off, rather than contributing to the running joke that is Google’s project graveyard. They have ruined and abandoned a great many projects, likely at the direct expense of their shareholders.
- loeg 4y ago
  Sure. Is there any evidence this investor has done so?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
benatkin 4y ago
0.5% sounds like a huge chunk of Google to me! Does anyone have anything describing the levels of influence of a large company that come with a % stake? For example, this is what you get with 0.1%, this is what you get with 0.5%, 2%, 10%, and so on?
- silisili 4y ago
  In raw dollar terms, it's a lot of money. In this odd 'I call the shots' stance they took, they have nothing. Brin and Page could trace their middle finger, send it back as an official response, and the stock wouldn't move appreciably.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
somethoughts 4y ago
I think a big component of this sort of activism (where the ability for actual shareholder control is minimal) is driven by the desire for visibility of the Fund itself as well as for personal visibility of the fund manager. Here we are discussing TCI and last week we were discussing Ross Gerber calling for board seats on Tesla - who was trolling to get free advertising for the Gerber-Kawaski fund. It is basically brand hacking/building 101 - Social Media/Legacy Media Engine Optimization. Pick a Goliath and start attacking and assume that Goliath's brand name will drive tweets and news articles and increase engagement for your David brand. The "any press is good press" approach has been used to win political elections. Rinse repeat enough times and maybe it could be a way to win the presidential election.
- pas 4y ago
  does it work though? it doesn't give off the thoughtful investor vibe. maybe it's good if you are looking for something crazy as a hedge?
hourago 4y ago
> They own 0.5% which is nothing compared to other investors But it is still a signal to manipulate the job market. If many tech companies agree openly to fire employees that will have consequences, if many tech companies just happen to get the same signals from some investors about firing people then is not that just a happy coincidence that may depress the market and lower salary without any manipulation to be blamed for?

adam_arthur 4y ago

Corporate activism isn’t about having the biggest stake, its about rallying other shareholders around your cause. All else equal a bigger stake gives you more leverage, but its still possible to influence company decision making with a smaller stake by getting other shareholders on your side

nostromo 4y ago
Well, they're going to need to sway two big investors named Page and Brin, who still own 51% of voting rights. They designed it this way to prevent activist shareholders who tend to be very focused on the short-term.
- voakbasda 4y ago
  Instead, they hired managers and executives that focused on short-term ad revenue. Who needs activism when you can self-sabotage.
  - vuln 4y ago
    It would take so long Google to bleed itself dry through self sabotage. I'd imagine they're both checked out, they have enough money to be really comfy for the rest of their lives.
  - ryloric 4y ago
    It sucks but still better than having pieces of them spin-off and sold by some private equity people.
    - voakbasda 4y ago
      Is it better, really? Maybe some of their products would have survived by being spun off, rather than contributing to the running joke that is Google’s project graveyard. They have ruined and abandoned a great many projects, likely at the direct expense of their shareholders.
loeg 4y ago
Sure. Is there any evidence this investor has done so?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

benatkin 4y ago

0.5% sounds like a huge chunk of Google to me! Does anyone have anything describing the levels of influence of a large company that come with a % stake? For example, this is what you get with 0.1%, this is what you get with 0.5%, 2%, 10%, and so on?

silisili 4y ago
In raw dollar terms, it's a lot of money. In this odd 'I call the shots' stance they took, they have nothing. Brin and Page could trace their middle finger, send it back as an official response, and the stock wouldn't move appreciably.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

somethoughts 4y ago

I think a big component of this sort of activism (where the ability for actual shareholder control is minimal) is driven by the desire for visibility of the Fund itself as well as for personal visibility of the fund manager. Here we are discussing TCI and last week we were discussing Ross Gerber calling for board seats on Tesla - who was trolling to get free advertising for the Gerber-Kawaski fund. It is basically brand hacking/building 101 - Social Media/Legacy Media Engine Optimization. Pick a Goliath and start attacking and assume that Goliath's brand name will drive tweets and news articles and increase engagement for your David brand. The "any press is good press" approach has been used to win political elections. Rinse repeat enough times and maybe it could be a way to win the presidential election.

pas 4y ago
does it work though? it doesn't give off the thoughtful investor vibe. maybe it's good if you are looking for something crazy as a hedge?

hourago 4y ago

> They own 0.5% which is nothing compared to other investors But it is still a signal to manipulate the job market. If many tech companies agree openly to fire employees that will have consequences, if many tech companies just happen to get the same signals from some investors about firing people then is not that just a happy coincidence that may depress the market and lower salary without any manipulation to be blamed for?