Comments on: Google’s evil stock split http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Cage3432 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-39656 Wed, 30 May 2012 22:02:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-39656 For a great read on GOOG and to understand it properly, visit, vippennys tocksite . com

]]>
By: NoPCZone http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-38052 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:26:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-38052 ‘Do no evil’ has become ‘DO KNOW EVIL’.

]]>
By: Fred32 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-37920 Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:45:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-37920 As a small investor, its pretty obvious to me that my votes have a minimal effect. I know that the smart thing for me to do is to vote with my money, i.e. buy stocks of companies where I believe in the management. The only people whose votes matter are the big Wall Street banks and hedge funds, who are focused on short term results rather than the growth of the company. This kind of short term focus is part of the reason that Yahoo! is doing so poorly. For once I would like their board to talk about making better products rather than “increasing shareholder value”. I’m sure that Larry and Sergey saw what happened to Yahoo! and decided not to go down that road.

]]>
By: Curmudgeonly http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-37887 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:17:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-37887 Sounds like they’re doing this to enable future deals and incentives with non-voting stock. Existing shareholders aren’t diluted. Larry and Sergey and Eric agreed they wouldn’t sell non-voting shares ahead of voting shares (although it will be interesting to see how ironclad that is, if they can use swaps, change the deal down the road etc.). You can’t even say the future recipients of those shares are getting screwed, since they will be entering into any deal willingly and knowing the price of the non-voting shares.

Really, the only argument is that entrenched control with multiple classes/big voting disparities is just a bad idea.

]]>
By: t_parker16 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-37882 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:35:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-37882 I can’t understand the arguments here. Google is going to issue one share of X for each share of GOOG. If the market thinks that X is evil or worthless, it can split the value between X and GOOG as 40::60, or 25::75 or 0::100. How is this evil?

]]>
By: MrRFox http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-37875 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 03:30:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-37875 Entrenched management is not a good idea IMO, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s always wrong or unjust.

These 3 guys created this company from nothing. The 500-shareholder rule forces them to go public, and then other rules serve to compel them to surrender control to people of the ilk Danny Black has a “thing” for – the same people who coined the term “muppet”.

Avoiding that through legal means isn’t something inherently wrong, in my twisted (as per 5thDecade’s assessment) view of justice.

]]>
By: JeromyEvans http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-37873 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 01:33:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-37873 This is a good story Felix and I think management’s intention to entrench themselves is accurate. However if you consider what may be in Google’s long term plan (20yrs), they must intend to become a *mammoth* company. There will be big acquisitions and mergers (acquiring faltering telcos and media companies and photo sharing apps) and dilution of control must be a genuine long term risk to the management team. It seems appropriate to create a non-voting share class and try to push those deals into that class when they can.

]]>
By: pkasting http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-37866 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:51:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-37866 Sechel, this doesn’t dilute existing voting rights. The number of voting shares and the voting power they have is not changed at all by this plan.

]]>
By: mockmyberet http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-37863 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:36:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-37863 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don’t_be_ev il

]]>
By: ahjay http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/13/googles-evil-stock-split/comment-page-1/#comment-37859 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:50:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13198#comment-37859 Politicians tried previously eliminate 500-rule to 2000-rule excluding employee options to accommodate Facebook not go public…

Interesting read below..

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/0 8/ending-the-500-shareholder-rule/

– A jay

]]>