[HN Gopher] Major investor calls on Google owner to 'aggressivel...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Major investor calls on Google owner to 'aggressively' cut staff
       and pay
        
       Author : account-5
       Score  : 23 points
       Date   : 2022-11-15 21:44 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
        
       | usednet wrote:
       | > Guy with an MBA tells company to do the only advice guys with
       | MBAs know
       | 
       | Its already been talked about endlessly here but time and time
       | again we see that when MBAs come in, pay decreases but profits
       | don't increase.
       | 
       | https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29874/w298...
        
       | jmoak3 wrote:
       | They also unabashedly call to increase the buybacks in the face
       | of imminent recession.
        
       | clpm4j wrote:
       | Ah of course, billionaire Sir Christopher Hohn wants hundreds of
       | people/families to lose their incomes so that he can potentially
       | juice a few more percentage points of fund returns.
        
       | newaccount2021 wrote:
        
       | Jyaif wrote:
       | News at 11, shareholder wants to:
       | 
       | * reduce compensation
       | 
       | * reduce R&D
       | 
       | * increase share repurchase program
        
         | adam_arthur wrote:
         | Well it's a fair point to ask why Google's median comp is far
         | higher than Microsoft.
         | 
         | Can it be justified with better results?
        
           | yakak wrote:
           | I'm not sure why that matters. For a very long time I was
           | impressed with the low number of employees and the income per
           | employee at Google. I think their raise in employees should
           | ideally be because they finally have a new product with
           | similar income per employee potential, less ideally they
           | could be releasing a new product branching into Microsoft or
           | IBMs territory and need many somewhat lower paid employees.
        
             | adam_arthur wrote:
             | It matters because inefficient business are bad for
             | society.
             | 
             | The reason economic prosperity has raised so many out of
             | poverty is because systems and businesses get more
             | efficient over time.
             | 
             | Because when markets are competitive, cost to consumer
             | declines to cost of production (with perfect competition)
             | 
             | That's the philosophical answer. If Google had more direct
             | competition market forces would push wages down on their
             | own.
             | 
             | Make no mistake though, it's not altruistic whatsoever to
             | defend a system that functions inefficiently. It's a value
             | transfer from broader society to the above market wages of
             | whichever company. Maybe that adheres to your priorities,
             | maybe not, but broader society does best in aggregate when
             | competition drives efficiencies
        
       | lotsofpulp wrote:
       | Who is the Google owner?
        
         | PeterCorless wrote:
         | Alphabet owns Google. Alphabet's Top 10 major shareholders, who
         | collectively hold 28% of total shares outstanding, can be found
         | on this page:
         | 
         | https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?s...
        
         | adam_arthur wrote:
         | Alphabet.
         | 
         | I guess they figure many don't know that the company is
         | technically called Alphabet
        
           | lesuorac wrote:
           | Don't agree.
           | 
           | I think it's poor writing on the articles part. The letter is
           | addressed explicitly to Sundar Pichai not Alphabet.
        
             | adam_arthur wrote:
             | The heading at the start of the letter says Alphabet
        
               | lesuorac wrote:
               | No the letter's heading says "TCI Fund Management
               | Limited". Right under that says "Sundar Pichai".
               | 
               | https://www.tcifund.com/files/corporateengageement/alphab
               | et/...
        
               | adam_arthur wrote:
        
       | PeterCorless wrote:
       | While I can understand he wants compensation to be in in line
       | with other peer tech companies in regard to non-technical roles
       | at the same time Google isn't facing a fiscal cliff like the
       | other companies were.
       | 
       | After viewing what happened at Twitter, nobody should be taking
       | _any_ activist investor advice seriously any more. If he doesn 't
       | like how Google is run, guess what? He can SELL HIS SHARES.
       | 
       | Google stock value is $1.28 TRILLION. This guy has a $6 billion
       | investment. That's ~0.46% of the total value of the company.
       | 
       | He's trying to pad _his_ pocket by having the line workers empty
       | theirs. He can kick rocks.
        
       | lesuorac wrote:
       | I might've missed it but I don't think the article actually links
       | to the letter. I thought it was interesting that they called to
       | reduce the pay of non-engineers rather explicitly.
       | 
       | https://www.tcifund.com/files/corporateengageement/alphabet/...
        
         | sschueller wrote:
         | Well I for one call on Google to cut any stock buy backs and
         | dividen payment.
        
           | lesuorac wrote:
           | GOOG and GOOGL don't have dividends.
           | 
           | TCI actually calls on them to increase buy backs as
           | "Alphabet's large cash balance is serving neither
           | shareholders nor the company" and "share price is down 34%
           | YTD ... The stock is very cheap ... Alphabet should ...
           | significantly accelerate share repurchases".
           | 
           | I personally disagree with some of this logic though. IMO, a
           | large cash balance is serving the company as a hedge at going
           | bankrupt and is less than a quarter's worth of expenses
           | (~150B [1]). While companies aren't the same as individuals,
           | I do think you can be justified in saying you're keeping 3
           | months worth of expenses in the bank.
           | 
           | [1]: https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/20221025_alphabet_10
           | Q.pd...
        
             | PeterCorless wrote:
             | In a world of increased fiscal uncertainty having cash-on-
             | hand makes a huge difference in being able to weather
             | storms. We are literally weathering international warfare
             | in Europe, a pandemic, and uncertainty whether we are
             | heading to a period of inflation or recession [both?].
             | 
             | While minimizing your cash position is smart as a hedge
             | against inflation -- dollars will be worth less tomorrow so
             | get rid of them now -- it also helps weather a bad quarter
             | or even a bad year or two. Being cash-strapped when a
             | stochastic negative event hits means you are suddenly
             | _FORCED_ to take actions you would prefer not to. Like
             | massive layoffs, scaling back on your core offerings, or
             | cutting off your nose for future growth business.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-11-15 23:01 UTC)