Google's stock split will leave the company with a three tier share structure. High voting shares, voting shares and no voting shares. A basic description of what's going on is here and an interesting discussion of why it may well be a bad business decision here.
But there's a much more important, philosophical, reason why it's a bad idea. That is that having taken the company public, having sold stock off to other people, Google is no longer the management's company. It belongs, by definition, to all of the shareholders and thus all of the shareholders should have a vote, a say, in who runs the company and how.
Yes, I do get what Larry and Sergei are saying: that we're really committed to the long term success and that we need to be able to concentrate on that without anyone being able to question us. But that is, in itself, the basic logical problem that exists. By the very act of selling stock (or issuing it for acquisitions, or through the employee stock plans, whatever) they have accepted that it isn't just their plaything any more. Thus they shouldn't be going around creating a structure where it remains their plaything having sold stock to others.
Yes, I agree, they'll do it and they'll be able to get it through. Further, I can't think of any legal action that would stop them nor would I think it desirable to create one that could. But that isn't my point.
If they wanted to cement themselves as the never to be overturned management of Google then they should have remained a private company. Once they stopped being a private company therefore they shouldn't be able to insist that they stay as inviolable management.
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: Donate to Wikileaks.
No comments:
Post a Comment