

Google’s Stock-Split Plan Would Replace Stewardship With Dictatorship - cpeterso
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/04/opinion-wong-google-dividend/

======
sirclueless
While I agree in principle with this article's point that non-voting stock
makes more likely the possibility of an iron-clad grip by irresponsible
dictators, I don't think it is unconscionable or "evil" in Google's case.

Much of the innovation that I appreciate most coming from Google appears
financially irresponsible from the outside looking in. When Google first went
public my concern was that it would lose its ability to have its engineers
working on hundreds of long-shot projects with no projected revenues, and a
management that is open and accepting of innovation in all of its forms. If
the decision-makers at Google were only interested in squeezing the most out
of Google's bottom line, then there would be strong arguments to shut all of
that down, which _I_ think would be unconscionable: a massive waste of
potential, on a scale that only a multi-billion dollar corporation can be
capable of.

------
waqf
Sergey, Larry and Eric already have majority control of the company between
them, so what difference does the stock split make?

I can understand disapproving of the dual-class stock structure on principle,
but I don't see why people are suddenly getting upset now.

~~~
Zombieball
I am quite inexperienced in the world of stocks but out of curiosity is it
possible to see the relative power of current shareholders somewhere (e.g.
Larry owns 10%, Mr. X owns 3%, etc.)?

~~~
jedberg
It's not totally straightforward. You can start here:

<http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ir?s=GOOG+Insider+Roster>

But if you look there you'll see that Sergey currently owns no shares,
probably because they're all in a trust.

------
tptacek
Yet another Wired article optimized for rageviews. Also, someone should
explain to Wong what the word "replace" means. It does not, for instance, mean
"failure to adopt the policy decisions of a Sao Paolo stock exchange, or to
adopt a corporate structure that presages 'current discussions in the UK about
stewardship'". It means "removing what was previously there and putting
something different in its place".

------
sjwright
Google sold non-voting stock. People bought non-voting stock. What the fuck is
the problem?

------
sjwright
Dictatorship is a pretty stupid word to use. You can sell your stock in Google
at any time.

