Live data from Hacker News

No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

steveblank.com

191–200 of 528 posts

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's China doing? They seem to have a lot of research going on that feeds into their manufacturing fairly quickly from the papers I hear about

China are certainly better at turning the results of research into products, whether that research was them or anyone else. The canonical example here is 5G. Once again the US science establishment had the guy, he ends up doing the breakthroughs for polar coding, they failed to appreciate him, he left and ended up being funded by Huawei. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdal_Ar%C4%B1kan The US science establishment isn…

Eh, China is better at directing massive state level resources at incrementally improving technology. Nothing truly revolutionary has come out of China. The West is still ahead in that sort of stuff.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#192
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here we have someone who clearly practices little real science, as evident by the ease with which they speak absolute statements that apply extremely broadly.

I'm sure you are a Scientist. I worked as a Scientist (not a data scientist etc), worked on pure science projects that ran under grants from government, spoke at international conferences presenting the findings etc. Believe me. Every single move in this "science" work was guided by funding. Not just my projects, but all of them.

Yes, I agree there is a funding requirement for academic science. Hell, even attending a conference you've been accepted to is prohibitively expensive if out of your own pocket.

But your original statement was far too broad:

> there is not a scientist, artist, researcher or writer who is not driven by funding.

There are absolutely members from every one of those subsets driven by curiousity.

(In my own life, I have reached out to labs in completely different fields than my own to help publish out of nothing more than pure curiosity.)

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#193
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all shareholders That's the key phrase, they benefit all shareholders. Buybacks on the other hand only benefit the following shareholders: 1. those with regularly vesting stock options and stock grants - basically employees. For non-tech companies especially, this only means high-ranking employees 2. those who intend to sell - that is, soon-to-be-ex shareholders 3. those who borrow against their stock - typically h…

Can you make this argument more rigorous? I’m just not following the connections here. It seems like your assumption is that a stock buyback is a short term gain. One of your arguments is that the strike price for options is set based on a certain amount of stock in circulation, and decreasing that amount will “artificially” raise the stock price, making the options more valuable. I agree that higher stock price bene…

> It seems like your assumption is that a stock buyback is a short term gain.

My argument is a stock buyback isn't a gain for a long-term, buy-and-hold investor. Unless

a) they sell some of the stock or

b) it pays dividends

they don't see the benefit of a higher stock price or reduced share count.

Qualified dividends and long term capital gains are taxed at the same rate. So anyone who says "buybacks are more tax-advantaged" is leaving out the second part: "because you can borrow against a higher stock price without paying taxes". Since most (non-rich) people don't do that stock buybacks have the same tax (dis)advantage as dividends. If you know of a way to get tax-free money out of a higher stock price other than borrowing on margin, please tell me. I'd love to learn.

> decreasing that amount will “artificially” raise the stock price

It isn't "artificial". There are fewer shares in circulation/more demand for the shares. That legitimately translates into a higher price. But stock options and grants are generally given to employees and especially executives. So a reduced share count and higher share price is particularly good for them.

> One of your arguments is that the strike price for options is set based on a certain amount of stock in circulation

My argument was more that when employees are paid a significant portion of their compensation in stock they tend to sell much of it upon vest (sensibly) in order to diversify or even just to pay their bills. Ergo, being frequent sellers, they benefit from the higher stock price more than they would from regular dividend payments. A higher stock price directly translates into higher compensation. Wouldn't this be a powerful incentive for company management to prefer buybacks over dividends?

> I suppose the other part of the argument could be that R&D is good for the stock in the long term

I didn't say anything about R&D spending. A company should return as much profit to shareholders as it sees fit.

I was rebutting the common, I believe simple-minded, argument that buybacks and dividends are completely equivalent. Even though the company spends the same amount of money, I think they are different in some very significant ways.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#194
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't group #2 sell 4% of their holdings, thereby remaining shareholders, and delivering to themselves the tax-advantaged equivalent of a 4% dividend?

Yes. This is correct. Share buybacks are financially equivalent to a dividend from the company's perspective, and slightly better from the shareholder's perspective because they can choose when to take the dividend and pay capital gains tax instead of income tax on it.

Qualified dividends (stock held more than 60 days) and long term capital gains are taxed at the same rate.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#195
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of this comes back to Dodge v Ford. The Dodge brothers sued the Ford Motor Company because Ford wanted to cut prices and invest in the company while removing dividends to shareholders. The Dodges disagreed with this and sued. The courts found in favor of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co .

Ford was an egregious case though. The court's judgement was surely correct but it also hardly matters for the real world. CEOs usually don't publicly announce they plan to literally and deliberately burn all their profits, even if it in reality they absolutely plan to spend it on vanity projects or whatever.

Regardless of what the intention was, shareholder primacy has roots in that judgment.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#196
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really seeing how the blacks and women ruined corporate research, can you expand on that more? Are you saying they were all retarded and without enough white, Asian, and Indian men nothing could be accomplished?

If for instance higher ups from all companies require you to hire only whites with straight blond hair, a certain weight/size and with green eyes, you will quickly need to hire the bottom of the barrel of this group to expand your teams.

[flagged]

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#197
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here we have someone who clearly practices little real science, as evident by the ease with which they speak absolute statements that apply extremely broadly.

I'm sure you are a Scientist. I worked as a Scientist (not a data scientist etc), worked on pure science projects that ran under grants from government, spoke at international conferences presenting the findings etc. Believe me. Every single move in this "science" work was guided by funding. Not just my projects, but all of them.

So nobody in your department ever ran out of stipend or research funding?

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#198

> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly B…

Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are. Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. W…

The reality seems to be that only the genius founder is allowed to do any unorthodox moves as the CEO. Once he's out, the board selects a CEO that will basically continue business as usual without rocking the boat. The new CEO essentially won't have a mandate to use any controversial or original approach.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#199
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that even mean? Both stock buybacks and dividends are the distribution of profit. Compensation expenses (such as stock options, RSUs, etc) are accounted as expenses, which of course reduces profit.

[flagged]

Dividends work as well for executives rewarded with stock (unless it's options).

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your definition of "benefit"? Assuming a buyback increases share prices, why would shareholders in general be indifferent?

Because if I don't intend to sell right now, and the company is otherwise a healthy, going concern that can pay sustainable dividends, the actual share price is irrelevant to me. If anything, given my belief in the company, a lower share price is better. I can buy more shares!

If you ever want to sell, getting in the limit nothing for the shares might matter, no? There are other things: for example, share based M&A or compensation or other investors with different preferences - no relevance or interaction?
Post reply on HN