7 ms·

I thought the share class structuring of Google was such that you can never own Google by buying its publicly traded shares?

by YZF 13y ago

leoc 13y ago
Unless Eric Schmidt is secretly behind this of course. ;)
jusben1369 13y ago
Right. Based on the erroneous theory that every single share of a company is publicly available and in the float.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rgbrenner 13y ago
You're right.. Class A is traded publicly. Class B is what's owned by Sergey and Brin, and it has 10 votes per share (vs 1 vote per share for Class A), and allows them to outvote all Class A shares.
- Spone 13y ago
  Sergey and Brin or Larry and Page? ;)
  - martin_ 13y ago
    Haha. To clarify, It's Sergey Brin AND Larry Page the OP was referring to.
  - rgbrenner 13y ago
    Good catch. Thanks.
- adventured 13y ago
  Schmidt also owns Class B shares. I believe at the time the B shares were issued, between Brin, Page, and Schmidt they held over 50% of voting control (it was something close to 20/20/10 on voting control). edit correction: "Mr. Page, Mr. Brin and Mr. Schmidt collectively already control 66 percent of the vote through special Class B shares." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/stock-split-for-google-that-cements-control-at-the-top/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/stock-split-for-googl...
vesinisa 13y ago
Can someone then explain to a layman, why Google shares even have any value? What good is a share, if it's voting power in controlling the company is practically void? Google has never paid any dividend either. Are all the stock investors just speculating that GOOG will pay dividend in the future? Or is it possible that Class B shares will loose their special voting rights at some point so that Class A become instrumental in controlling the company?
- junto 13y ago
  As long as people perceive value then there is value. I think it is as simple as that. Maybe people are waiting on dividends. Snigger...
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  GOOG shares have value because the company has value. They represent a fraction of that value but not an equivalent fraction of management control. Class B shares will eventually all be class A, Eric has converted a tremendous number of his already (they convert when you sell them, its possible they convert on change of ownership which would change them when they were inherited). So fractional ownership represents the fraction of what someone might have to pay to have full ownership.
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  Well if you take away dividends and voting rights, what remains? I can think of two things: One, money for Google, at least when they were distributed shares (I don't know if they distribute more from time to time). Two, a tradeable product. Price determined by supply and demand, supply / demand generated by people wanting to bet the price goes up and people cashing in. Think Bitcoins.
  - cell303 13y ago
    I just have to ask. If it really is that way, what would prevent the maintainers of open source projects to issue (more or less worthless) "shares" of their projects? Could this be a way to pay open source developers?

I thought the share class structuring of Google was such that you can never own Google by buying its publicly traded shares?

by YZF 13y ago

I thought the share class structuring of Google was such that you can never own Google by buying its publicly traded shares?

leoc 13y ago

Unless Eric Schmidt is secretly behind this of course. ;)

jusben1369 13y ago

Right. Based on the erroneous theory that every single share of a company is publicly available and in the float.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rgbrenner 13y ago

You're right.. Class A is traded publicly. Class B is what's owned by Sergey and Brin, and it has 10 votes per share (vs 1 vote per share for Class A), and allows them to outvote all Class A shares.

Spone 13y ago
Sergey and Brin or Larry and Page? ;)
- martin_ 13y ago
  Haha. To clarify, It's Sergey Brin AND Larry Page the OP was referring to.
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  Good catch. Thanks.
adventured 13y ago
Schmidt also owns Class B shares. I believe at the time the B shares were issued, between Brin, Page, and Schmidt they held over 50% of voting control (it was something close to 20/20/10 on voting control). edit correction: "Mr. Page, Mr. Brin and Mr. Schmidt collectively already control 66 percent of the vote through special Class B shares." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/stock-split-for-google-that-cements-control-at-the-top/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/stock-split-for-googl...

vesinisa 13y ago

Can someone then explain to a layman, why Google shares even have any value? What good is a share, if it's voting power in controlling the company is practically void? Google has never paid any dividend either. Are all the stock investors just speculating that GOOG will pay dividend in the future? Or is it possible that Class B shares will loose their special voting rights at some point so that Class A become instrumental in controlling the company?

junto 13y ago
As long as people perceive value then there is value. I think it is as simple as that. Maybe people are waiting on dividends. Snigger...
ChuckMcM 13y ago
GOOG shares have value because the company has value. They represent a fraction of that value but not an equivalent fraction of management control. Class B shares will eventually all be class A, Eric has converted a tremendous number of his already (they convert when you sell them, its possible they convert on change of ownership which would change them when they were inherited). So fractional ownership represents the fraction of what someone might have to pay to have full ownership.
Cthulhu_ 13y ago
Well if you take away dividends and voting rights, what remains? I can think of two things: One, money for Google, at least when they were distributed shares (I don't know if they distribute more from time to time). Two, a tradeable product. Price determined by supply and demand, supply / demand generated by people wanting to bet the price goes up and people cashing in. Think Bitcoins.
- cell303 13y ago
  I just have to ask. If it really is that way, what would prevent the maintainers of open source projects to issue (more or less worthless) "shares" of their projects? Could this be a way to pay open source developers?