Hacker News Reader

Comment by Charos | Hacker News Reader

It's a distinct possibility. The C-suite is finally starting to understand the flaws in shareholder value theory, and going private/independent allows them to focus on long term value without having shareholders clamoring for their resignation due to poor short-term balance sheet results. Giant conglomerates such as GE or P&G will stay public, but I wouldn't be surprised if more focused technology firms - or even companies in other areas of consumer goods - start following this trend. It could be good for industry to have some variety in this way.

View on HN

Maybe. See letter to shareholders by Jeff Bezos. If the business can handle it, and the leadership is capable, I don't see why they would avoid the benefits of being public either. When public, among other things, you have access to a huge amount of capital if you want it (if you can handle the effects of the increased dilution).

http://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-letter-to-shareholder...

No one should expect Bezos to speak for all companies in -Amazon's- letter to the shareholder.

The problem with the stock market is that it is optimizing for a different thing than most companies, and even society at large. If the minimum holding period for an asset was, say, 20 years, the subprime mortgage crash would have been much less likely. (One could make a similar argument for democratic office. But I digress.)

Shareholder value theory induces a sort of hysterical myopia, where ideas and results are evaluated in these Q2Q or Y2Y window. Growth is only evaluated within the context of the company, which creates perverse incentives wrt externalizing costs. Furthermore, if growth initiatives require no additional external funding, then the public stock market -really- makes no sense, and that is likely the case for Blizzard and Dell.

Getting away from shareholder value theory's myopia is the surest way to begin a sustainable recovery of our capital markets.

If the minimum holding period for an asset was, say, 20 years, the subprime mortgage crash would have been much less likely.

One wonders what rules Microsoft stockholders are playing by. They seem to have the patience of a Zen master. Are their dividends enough to justify another 'lost decade' with Ballmer in charge?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com