Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of times they do. What you have to remember is that board members serve multiple functions. They are partially there to help inroads into other companies. They are their to provide insight into how the organization is to do business and what direction it should take. A lot of times this means that the people on the board need an inside perspective of what's going on in the industry. Other functions they serve i…
Hostile takeovers approximately never have board approval. They are decided by the owners, that's what "hostile" means. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hostiletakeover.asp
What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
61–70 of 80 posts
Re: What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
#62The story depicts a lovely bohemenie and spirit of agreeableness; it sounds like it's almost enforced: > You need to have a cohesive thought process to move the company forward. > if a board member isn’t performing well, we get rid of them > [I’ve] sat on boards with some amazing people who have done some amazing things in the world. What a wonderful club. It doesn't sound like one conducive to dissenting opinions an…
C'mon man. This is like a kid asking their parents how the marriage is going. You're not going to hear about the affair or addiction or whatever dirt you're looking for. But it'll still be educational just to know the time they spend on things and what perspectives people try to maintain. Honestly, this area is such a crazy mystery to the working class (including most white collar workers like myself) that I'm gratef…
> This is like a kid asking their parents how the marriage is going.
Only to a limited degree. A good journalist asks challenging questions and gets their interviewee to talk. The board member was anonymous, after all, so they could have spoken more openly and even generally about these kinds of problems. The interviewer asked easy questions and the board member painted a nice picture. (In fairness, I don't have a right to expect more (or anything at all) from some guy's blog; it's not the NY Times; so a genuine thank you is owed to Jay Shah!)
Re: What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
#63And if a board member isn’t performing well, we get rid of them. I’ve been on boards where the SEC is in there. I’ve been on boards where the Department of Justice is involved. You don’t want that. You destroy companies when you do that. You destroy shareholder value. So what you try to do as board is make sure people are above board. You guard against anything that hurts the companies from an outside perspective. It…
It all comes back to governance and taking care of shareholders. Which explains why companies are like they are -- if the board had a fiduciary responsibility to employees first and shareholders second, maybe workers would be better off.
I'm under the impression that in Germany, which has a highly productive economy, workers have seats on the board.
Re: What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - if the board had a fiduciary responsibility to employees first and shareholders second, maybe workers would be better off. If the workers were by definition the shareholders, you wouldn't have to worry about which came first.
And which laws, exactly, are preventing this ? There are plenty of employee-owned companies. Lots. I mean, they're not all that successful, mostly, but that's hardly relevant.
Which said laws were preventing this?
OTOH, if it's a desirable social norm, then it's perhaps insufficient for law to fail to prevent it; it may be desirable for law to encourage or even require it as a precondition for the protections associated with the corporate form.
Re: What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
And which laws, exactly, are preventing this ? There are plenty of employee-owned companies. Lots. I mean, they're not all that successful, mostly, but that's hardly relevant.
> And which laws, exactly, are preventing this ? Which said laws were preventing this? OTOH, if it's a desirable social norm, then it's perhaps insufficient for law to fail to prevent it; it may be desirable for law to encourage or even require it as a precondition for the protections associated with the corporate form.
People abandoned them, first in small numbers, and then of course the left no longer wanted anything to do with them, and they started getting sabotaged by (leftist) governments ...
And of course, now half of them are referred to as those settlers. It's not the same thing of course, but because of land prices they pretty much have to be, unless they're "historical".
TLDR: most of the existing ones failed and because of that everybody hates the new ones.
Let's not go there. Let's just skip it this time around, ok ?
Re: What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't mention customer satisfaction because it's not always a priority, shareholder value is. A fantastic example of this is Comcast. It is regularly voted America's most hated corporation in the country, yet because of its unique leverage in the areas that it operates, this poor customer satisfaction rating just doesn't matter. They're still able to satisfy the shareholders.
Incidentally I love comcast. 150mbps cable, cheap price, no outages, free hbo, X1 remote rocks. Pricing is a bit annoying (paying extra for HD) but is a great product. Just thought I'd mention it because it gets too much hate.
Comcast is ludicrously expensive in my neighborhood where they are the sole broadband option. It's so bad the city council is looking seriously at muni fiber.
Re: What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't mention customer satisfaction because it's not always a priority, shareholder value is. A fantastic example of this is Comcast. It is regularly voted America's most hated corporation in the country, yet because of its unique leverage in the areas that it operates, this poor customer satisfaction rating just doesn't matter. They're still able to satisfy the shareholders.
Incidentally I love comcast. 150mbps cable, cheap price, no outages, free hbo, X1 remote rocks. Pricing is a bit annoying (paying extra for HD) but is a great product. Just thought I'd mention it because it gets too much hate.
1Gbps download, 500Mbps upload, 10 USD/mo. How cheap is Comcast, again?
Re: What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
#68Great read on a subject that I don't know much about. For someone interested in how large corporations function and the power dynamics among the top, do any of you folks have any other recommended reading?
Das Kaptial
Re: What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
#69And if a board member isn’t performing well, we get rid of them. I’ve been on boards where the SEC is in there. I’ve been on boards where the Department of Justice is involved. You don’t want that. You destroy companies when you do that. You destroy shareholder value. So what you try to do as board is make sure people are above board. You guard against anything that hurts the companies from an outside perspective. It…
It all comes back to governance and taking care of shareholders. Which explains why companies are like they are -- if the board had a fiduciary responsibility to employees first and shareholders second, maybe workers would be better off.
Re: What it’s like to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
If shareholders aren't getting value, the company dies.
Only because we cultivate a culture that prioritizes them. The role of shareholder should be that of stewardship for the steward (the CEO), and both the board and their charge are in positions of servant leadership towards customers (first priority) and employees (second). Focusing on both those points creates the financial success needed to recoup investments.
I guess it’s because the level of capital that is required for modern endeavors is such that it is usually impossible to do full buyback like Dell did, for example. In part, it’s also because we have designated the investment itself as an asset as opposed to a loan. So even if a company wants to do full buyback it’s market cap is a moving target usually prohibiting that.
To understand this, imagine you got loan from your uncle for $100k to buy a house. But then your uncle sells your liability to another person for $200k because house prices are on the run. Now suddenly you must pay $200k if you really want to own the house. But then the cycle continues with people selling your liability at higher and higher price so one day you wake up and be happy that your house is now $10M but you can never truly be its owner unless you actually pay $10M. This is the magic and power of capitalism.
In antiquity, it was sometimes loathed upon even demanding interest on a loan because it was like stealing from someone else’s fruits of labor and making income through no or little effort of your own (aka passive income). But that prohibited the utilization of capital and people saw that there was nothing sinful in collecting interest on your capital as a reward for taking risk. Capital is an asset just like your house is an asset and demanding rent on is perfectly legitimate.
But then people with capital took one step further. Instead of demanding just interest, they started demanded ownership share of your endeavor as well. This was again loathed upon as the people landing money now also got all the rights and privileges in the creation of a person who actually did all the work. But soon people saw that this increased flow of capital even more. Investors now were suddenly more willing to participate in risky propositions. An entrepreneur can raise order of magnitude more capital than any other of time in history.
But then people with capital took one step further. Why can’t they sell your loan liability as an asset to someone else? This meant that original principal given to an entrepreneur as a loan now had undefined value. It was only determined by the wish and whims of buyer of his liability. This also meant that entrepreneur was freed up from any expectations that original loan would be paid up. Investors would instead be just happy with continuous flow of dividends and speculating how he will do in future. The loan became thus permanent. Soon need for larger and larger capital grew such that majority of ownership ended up with investors and the entrepreneur become the employee of the investor. This again allowed even higher order of capital collections. And that’s how we got here.