“Presidents are not kings,” wrote Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia this week, in a 120-page decision in the ongoing fight between President Trump and the House Democrats over whether current and former senior White House officials must comply with congressional subpoenas in the impeachment inquiry.
“They do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control,” Ms. Jackson wrote.
For that kind of power, Mr. Trump would have to turn the United States government into a major tech company. He’d love that, since it would be just like the Trump Organization, except actually profitable.
In tech today, chief executive-founders are often emperors of everything, with complete dominion over shareholders, employees, boards and their users across the planet.
And, unlike golf-course kingdoms with questionable profitability, tech companies have all the real power these days: as data monarchs, nabobs of news, sovereigns of communications and lords of information.
No substantive laws govern tech. Most important, many leaders of these powerhouse companies are in effect unfireable: in order to get the boot, they essentially have to fire themselves. And guess how often that happens?
Welcome to the world of perpetual dual-class stock, an old finance trick that has been used — and now abused — with great enthusiasm by the tech giants.
The car-sharing firm Lyft has it. Dropbox has it. Snap has it. Google’s parent company Alphabet has it. WeWork’s co-founder and chief executive had so much control of the company that investors were forced to pay him a king’s ransom to go away in preparation of an I.P.O. (which was later abandoned). And, perhaps most important of all, Facebook has it.
In a dual-class stock structure, a company issues shares to some shareholders that give them more voting rights, and sometimes other powers. Most simply, the general public gets shares with less voting power, and sometimes with none at all (Snap made this famous). With perpetual dual-class stock, founders and their families, and perhaps other key executives, get shares with voting power that gives them control over a company forever.
Various versions of dual-class stocks have been around for a long time. The founders of the Ford Motor Company used them to protect their long-term vision against investor short-termism. It’s also been employed by family-owned media giants, like The New York Times Company, Viacom and News Corp, which arguably have mission-driven businesses.
But tech has taken the use of the dual-class stock organization to new heights. More than 50 percent of tech companies use it, and often from their very beginning as start-ups.
Founders have always been the golden children of Silicon Valley, despite their occasional tantrums. Protecting them has been a paramount concern, even if most venture capitalists say off the record that they hate giving total control over to them. But accepting dual-class structure is often the price of getting in on the next big thing.
It’s easy to see the wisdom in this arrangement. Ideas need time to germinate and grow at the start of an innovative enterprise. And unpopular decisions by chief executives, made with the long term in mind, may need to be protected from interference from activist shareholders, who may be too focused on short-term performance.
Some academic research touts the benefits of dual-class stocks — although just as many studies show the drawbacks over time. Those include lower stock returns, higher executive compensation, more kooky acquisitions and, of course, management that never pays the price for bad calls or behavior.
Here’s the problem with tech companies using dual-class stock schemes: They can work well until they do not.
I’m not alone. Some experts have been calling for imposing new legislation to improve the system. One way to do that is mandatory sunsetting of dual-class stocks (which some companies do voluntarily): After a period of time, the shares automatically convert to single class.
But how to be flexible about the time period — since some companies mature more quickly than others?
“The question is how long should it be before the C.E.O. is held accountable?” said Robert Jackson, a Securities and Exchange commissioner, in a recent interview. Mr. Jackson thinks we should start by saying “not forever.”
“We’re creating a class of royalty that controls our national dialogue,” he said. “Not only can you not fire Mark Zuckerberg, you can’t fire his kids or his kid’s kids.”
Mark Zuckerberg’s kid’s kids? While that scenario seems unlikely, it is why dual-class stock that never ends has been increasingly under attack — and sometimes from powerful investor groups.
The Investor Stewardship Group and The Council of Institutional Investors, with billions in assets, have been calling for the limiting of dual-class stock after seven years. C.I.I. and other big investors filed a petition to do just that a year ago to the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ.
“The petition’s over a year old. What do you think’s happened so far?,” said Mr. Jackson. “Nothing.”
In other words, long live the kings.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
"how" - Google News
November 27, 2019 at 10:59PM
https://ift.tt/2KZzLZ3
How Tech Kings Keep Their Power - The New York Times
"how" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2MfXd3I
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "How Tech Kings Keep Their Power - The New York Times"
Post a Comment