Ask any of these CEOs if it would be cool to hear from there direct reports once a year or once a decade. This is just a whining plea for no accountability from managers. The right to execute a long term vision has to be earned by effective communication and superior execution. Just look at Amazon. No quarterly profits and it is the darling of a Wall Street. You don’t get to flounder around without a clear strategy or results and then complain people want to know every 90 days where things stand.
They're not "exceptional" they've just managed to find productive ways to reinvest their profits.
The reason their stock is valued so much is partly because if he wanted/needed to, Bezos could wake up one day and cut all programs focused on expansion and return the saved costs / new profits as dividends. The reason this doesn't happen is that the money is (thought to be) better spent on increasing the size of the business. There's no reason other companies couldn't do this, although I expect the main limit to this strategy is the extent to which you can productively reinvest capital. This is a function of foresight/luck (e.g. branching into AWS) but also of the market you're in: to what extent do you begin to experience diminishing returns as you spend more money on improving your product? I think that with logistics, as with Amazon and e.g. Walmart, the returns diminish very slowly, or even increase with money spent (economies of scale).
Yeah, I don't think you'd even have to run out of money. There are plenty of companies generating a fair amount of cash flow that hover in the dangerous territory of < $3 a share. It only takes one bad quarter.
Here's an example of a company that generates cash but only recently is in the safe-ish territory:
(Not that I think they are emulating Amazon, mind you, just making the point that you can have a going concern, and still get delisted.)
More broadly, unless you have an amazing business, you probably shouldn't emulate Amazon (or Google, or FB, or any other business that is depending on free cash flow to fund R&D as opposed to generating profits).
Share price doesn't dictate how much money they have. Amazon makes buttloads of money; they just choose to use it rather than give it back as dividends.
The piece doesn't really articulate a problem, if anything the reverse is true more often than not: management chases short term performance numbers to the detriment of the long term success of the company and long term shareholders.
It's more just like "woah we're hip smart tech bros we need to fix the stock market!" even though none of their claims really have any merit.
IPOs are still stupid for a lot of reasons, but stratifying shareholders (why is the answer to everything from the Valley always more stratification?) is neither here nor there.