I think this is a perfect free market reaction to companies not having voting stock.
Last week the FTSE Russell index announced the same thing.
As a minor point, dual/triple class shares are still allowed so FB, GOOG and BRK are still ok.
If you really want to own a stock that gives you no profits, no income from dividends, no voice in how its run, and actually no value what so ever other than the greater fool theory then go ahead.
I mean, Google could come right now and offer to buy SNAP for 10x what its currently valued at and Evan Spiegel could say no, even though its almost a certainty that the company will never be worth that much.
On the other hand if you don't like the fact that a company goes public and declares that its ownership is in for life no matter what, then you'll probably view this as a positive measure.
All this means is that ETF funds will have some recourse to hold management accountable.
One thing is for sure now ETF investing got a bit less passive.
As a side note on SNAP in particular, Even though the first Lockup has just expired, most employee's, are in lock up due to earnings coming out on August 10th and a subsequent lock up at the end of the month.
By mid September we should have a clear picture on just how the markets value SNAP.
EDIT
To give an example of what companies like SNAP are foregoing by not allowing voting rights is access to, of the 7 largest owners of google stock, 2 are the founders, the other 5 are mutual funds/ETF fund firms.
> I mean, Google could come right now and offer to buy SNAP for 10x what its currently valued at and Evan Spiegel could say no, even though its almost a certainty that the company will never be worth that much.
Even worse, Google could offer to buy SNAP by only purchasing the shares that Evan Spiegel holds. If the Class A shares have no voting rights, and you want to buy the company, why even tender to buy the Class A shares? Just buy Evan's shares, at whatever price you and he agree to, and the Class A shares come along for the ride.
Are there SEC regulations preventing a purchaser from doing that? It seems like the SNAP stock classification system is really setup nicely for a hostile takeover that completely screws the Non-Voting shareholders.
> If the Class A shares have no voting rights, and you want to buy the company, why even tender to buy the Class A shares? Just buy Evan's shares, at whatever price you and he agree to, and the Class A shares come along for the ride.
The Class A shares' owners will still own them, they'll still have rights, the company directors will still have obligations to them. If the company were to sell its business then the cash from that sale would belong to the company. If they then wound up the company they would have to distribute the company's assets (i.e. the sale cash) evenly among all shareholders. If they tried to sell the company for a low price and were paid separately by the buyer there are laws about that.
Not SEC regulations, but Delaware corporate law rules. I don't remember all the details because law school was too long ago. Something to do with the Revlon doctrine, probably.
Based on my skimming, Revlon is about directors' obligation to go for a high buyout price in sinking-ship conditions, rather then dig in their heels and poison-pill. The GP's point was about being able to buy control from buying only a tiny sliver of the shares, AIUI.
Edit: Or your point is that the share A class is the poison pill? I'm in over my head here...
How is this a perfect free market reaction? It's explicitly a reaction not by market participants, but by the relatively minor players who make up part of the rules of the game.
The "free market reaction" is that if these capital structures suck, active investors don't buy them or short them, and the stock price goes down. That is, if shareholder control was actually valuable, it'd command enough of a premium to discourage SNAP's behavior.
Why don't you just buy SNAP directly? S&P 500 is just an index, like a phonebook. They can list or not list whatever they want, and ETF's can follow or not follow those indexes.
They don't arbitrary choose however. They have published and objective criterias, and they're not singling out SNAP but it is literally the first big stock without ANY voting rights so theyve decided to draw the line now.
It's not just a list of stocks. It's also a basis for the purchasing of stocks by ETFs, Mutual Funds, etc. Being in the S&P provides a lot of "depth" to a company's stock.
I agree that a company like SNAP doesn't need to be in the S&P since it's pretty much a tech gamble. It's either gonna grow into a juggernaut or it's gonna fizzle. We'll find out soon enough.
I invest almost exclusively in index-tracking funds and ETFs. I don't want my money going into shares of stocks that confer no voting rights at all. That's not really traditional stock ownership at that point, as the corporation is no longer ultimately run by or held accountable to investors. It's something else.
Good index funds are much more diverse than the S&P 500. The S&P 500 is mostly composed of large-cap companies.
The beauty of index funds is that they're so diverse if you had a SNAP in it that plummeted it'd barely impact your portfolio. This is the whole point of index fund diversification.
> I invest almost exclusively in index-tracking funds and ETFs. I don't want my money going into shares of stocks that confer no voting rights at all.
Okay. I wouldn't either. What does your comment have to do with what I wrote?
> That's not really traditional stock ownership at that point, as the corporation is no longer ultimately run by or held accountable to investors. It's something else.
I agree. Once again, your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote. Did you reply to the wrong comment by any chance?
I'm just pointing out why S&P index is important and why it is more than a list?
>It's not just a list of stocks. It's also a basis for the purchasing of stocks by ETFs, Mutual Funds, etc. Being in the S&P provides a lot of "depth" to a company's stock.
It's still just a list and the reason it exists is to indicate some level of vetting. That's the reason that it's used by those funds.
Being excluded from the list just means you don't meet certain requirements but it doesn't block anyone from purchasing your stock.
Maybe these structures are themselves a free market reaction to the misbehaviour of hedge funds and hostile takeovers messing with how a company is run. They only want investors who trust how the company is run.
I admit I have very mixed feelings about these kind of structures. On the one hand it feels like cheating, on the other hand I totally get why this is necessary to protect the company. Still, it basically means that investors don't really own part of the company anymore; they just have a right to its dividends, but need blind trust in how the real owners of the company decide to run it. It enables more autocratically run companies without any accountability to shareholders, because those aren't real shares anymore.
Note that the differences between Berkshire A and B aren't that great. B's have about 1/6 the relative voting rights per dollar of value. I used to look at arbitraging the A shares into B shares when the relative values were attractive, and voting rights never mattered because I wanted the guy running it to have that power.
But maybe that's wrong. I like what the S&P is doing here and maybe they should drop the hammer on GOOG and BRK too. And I say this as someone who has about 2/3s of my net worth in BRK.
In fairness to Berkshire, the A and B shares are both traded on exchanges. If the voting rights are important to you, you can just buy the A shares. In theory, if you had a metric ton of money, you could take control of the company just by buying shares there.
In Snap, you can't go on exchange and go buy the voting shares. They're held by insiders who won't sell at anywhere near the price of the non-voting shares.
And in fact S&P had to change its methodology for the S&P 500 a few years ago to allow for the two publicly traded Google share classes (A and C) to be included in the index.
It seems like an arbitrary criterion and God forbid Google starts investing into future growth a la Amazon, but you're right, as long as the profits are rolling in, the interests are aligned. When the music stops, it's yet another GRPN or ZNGA.
Although the immediate reason BRK/B ended up in the S&P 500 was because they acquired BNI (Burlington Northern, a railroad company) for stock in 2010. But fair enough that it wasn't in there beforehand and is still around now. I don't remember why, probably some other S&P decision about the big-numbered, less liquid BRK/As.
Also, BRK/A shares are quite expensive but you still get Buffett's shareholder reports with a share of BRK/B. I'm sure you could find them either way, but hey. Interesting reading is a nice fringe benefit.
> If you really want to own a stock that gives you no profits, no income from dividends, no voice in how its run, and actually no value what so ever other than the greater fool theory then go ahead.
Totally agree. You can have this kind of dismissive attitude with naive early employees that don't know any better (equity low on the vesting rung, expensive equity buy-outs, unfair vesting schedules, etc.), but this shit won't fly on Wall Street.
> If you really want to own a stock that gives you no profits, no income from dividends, no voice in how its run, and actually no value what so ever other than the greater fool theory then go ahead.
The fundamental value of a stock is in the claim on the assets at dissolution (dividends are just partial dissolution, and voting rights are just a way for you to have a—very small, for most investors—protected role in having a voice in determining whether the company increases or decreased the value to which you would be entitled if it dissolved.)
Once upon a time, the fundamental value of a stock was the present value of the entire future dividend stream. Given the two forms of dissolution, acquisition (Yay!) or bankruptcy (Boo!), I'm not sure this is an improvement.
Do you mean dissolution due to bankruptcy (i.e. value = the sum value of all assets, like hardware, real estate, etc.) or sale (value = the sale price)?
I know very little about finance, but surely it must be important to distinguish the type of dissolution when using it to calculate the present value of a stock. There needs to be some consideration of probability of bankruptcy versus probability of sale (versus probability of no dissolution at all), right?
> Do you mean dissolution due to bankruptcy (i.e. value = the sum value of all assets, like hardware, real estate, etc.) or sale (value = the sale price)?
Any dissolution, in principle, though in a dissolution forced by bankruptcy, there are unlikely to be net assets to distribute to shareholders.
> I know very little about finance, but surely it must be important to distinguish the type of dissolution when using it to calculate the present value of a stock.
Technically, you have to consider all possible dissolutions along with their relative probabilities, since stock isn't a claim on assets restricted to any particular dissolution.
Nope.. thats bullshit. If a company dissolves, creditors are first in line and stockholders are last in line. The nuts and bolts or even cash holdings, are often not even factored into stock price. If you did that with apple, its value should be much, much higher. What you buy, when you buy a stock, is earnings (sometimes paid out in dividends) and voting rights.
> If a company dissolves, creditors are first in line and stockholders are last in line.
Yes, that priority is accurate, and part of what sets (and limits) the value of stock, as is the priority between different classes of stock, where they exist.
> What you buy, when you buy a stock, is earnings (sometimes paid out in dividends) and voting rights.
Earnings are just increase in dissolution value, and dividends are just a partial dissolution.
It's hard for people to get their head around this but you are exactly right. A company has value tied into their market value and accumulated assets even if they pledge to never pay dividends. Berkshire Hathaway is a notable example here. Stock trading is a way to make this value liquid before any actual dissolution event.
The indices should have given a grace period rather than a blanket grandfathering of existing multi-class-structured companies. It arguably discourages further participation in the public markets if a massive amount of control has to be ceded, and it implicitly gives the grandfathered companies a massive advantage (in particular Facebook, wherein one founder has majority voting control despite not having majority ownership)
When the owners don't control the vote, it's difficult to pass up on short-term opportunities without facing pressure from activist investors and the like. And being able to stay the course is a massive advantage to those companies that can do so without facing corporate attacks. That's a concrete advantage for the long-term prospects of Facebook, assuming of course that the owners' interests are aligned with the long-term value of the company.
And obviously having innate demand in the form of index funds is a great advantage that boosts the market cap (as you see time and time again when stock prices pop upon entrance and drop upon exit of indices)
When the owners don't control the vote, you have situations like Facebook or Google. It may not be necessarily bad, but the idea of those who have control being the owners is an indication of why it can be bad.
Right but I think the parent's point was that, at the moment you're relying on someone to exercise judgment about which shares are too dangerous to be in the index, that's indirectly a kind of active investing.
FWIW, I don't think that concern applies here, because it's a judgment about share uniformity, not performance.
Sure, but that has always been the case. I would buy the argument if it was a change by a specific S&P 500 ETF, but since it's the index itself it doesn't seem like anything is changing.
Then I still think you're not appreciating the point: it would, in effect, be active investing if you bought an "index fund" that tracked the "JimBob index of stocks that JimBob thinks are good buys".
It's irrelevant that "hey, I'm just following the index", since the index is inheriting an active manager's judgment. The more such judgment is exerted, the more the index becomes someone's active management. At some point, it is not really an index fund (as properly understood), but an actively managed fund (albeit low-cost).
The OP's concern, then, was that making this kind of decision about "man, these multi-share stocks are too nutty" is getting close to looking like active management rather than some robotic, mindless tracking of some mostly-objective market measure.
It moves the S&P500 a little bit closer to the DJIA which is effectively your JimBob index. FTSE Global All Cap Index is still out there, though even that has to make some choices and draw some lines.
> If you really want to own a stock that gives you no profits, no income from dividends, no voice in how its run, and actually no value what so ever other than the greater fool theory then go ahead.
I guess I'm a fool, because I take zero interest in participating in any of the stocks I've bought, apart from just monitoring the latest price and watching them (hopefully) go up.
Voting rights or not makes no difference to me.
But I suspect most individual / non-institutional investors are like me. So when I see people get upset about voting rights, it's really just a small number of very self-interested and deep-pocketed parties (activist investors, etc) with their own opinions of how a company should be run, and I don't as-a-rule agree with their opinions.
I also never vote (which means my broker votes for me). However, I very much value the ability to vote. Owning stock is about owning the company, and if you have no vote, you have no ownership. If management doesn't trust me with a vote, what makes me think they have my interests in mind? At that point, owning the stock is simply gambling on the price going up. Maybe I get some dividends, too--bonus--but since my share class can't vote, what would make the owners give any dividends to that class, rather than keeping it all themselves? If management wants to keep control, that's great, I'm all for that, but then they should issue bonds, not stock.
"To give an example of what companies like SNAP are foregoing by not allowing voting rights is access to, of the 7 largest owners of google stock, 2 are the founders, the other 5 are mutual funds/ETF fund firms."
I agree with most of your post, but what exactly are they forgoing? How much of Google do the two founders control? Furthermore, most funds are mostly hands off, and any proposals by any one not in your list are starting out dead.
They're forgoing investment from those sources, is the point. If those funds aren't buying the stock, its price will presumably be lower, which makes it harder for Snap to buy other companies, raise new capital, and so on.
We've entered into this topsy turvy world where passive investors are activists and active investors are passive. It's lead to ridiculousless like the current situation and also Aramco's contortions to bend the arm of the LSE for a new listing structure.
It speaks to the incredible orthodoxy that's grown up around indexing over the last few years, much of it poorly thought out. After all, if you believe in the Efficient Market Hypothesis, then indexes pulling out of SNAP doesn't hurt SNAP, it only hurts index funds as activists will move to backfill demand. If you don't believe in EMH, then what are you doing buying index funds?
Index has become such a hot word recently that it's started to lose it's meaning. Before, a fund operated something like this:
1. You pick a basket of stocks
2. You buy those stocks
Now, because "passive" is so much hotter than "active", it becomes:
1. You pick a basket of stocks
2. You contract a 3rd party index provider to construct an "index" based on that basket
3. You buy that index
Voila, you're now "passive" rather than "active" but all you've done is stock picking with extra steps.
The markets have already responded with price signals and their signal is that voting really isn't that valuable. For all the high minded rhetoric of corporate governance, price is where the rubber hits the road and the results are pretty unambiguous.
The whole point of indexing was that I didn't have to make decisions and now I have to make all sorts of decisions over which index provider I pick and what growth I'm missing out on because of arbitrary exclusions to the index.
edit: As always, Matt Levine of Money Stuff says this stuff better than I ever could. Read him religiously if you want to cut through all the bullshit of finance.
"If you really want to own a stock that gives you no profits, no income from dividends, no voice in how its run, and actually no value what so ever other than the greater fool theory then go ahead."
While I see you sentiment here, I don't think it's actually correct. Non-voting common stock will receive distributions if any cash is left over after a liquidation and debt, preferred and high-ranked common stock holders are paid (i.e. there is a real claim on assets). Also, with any common stock that doesn't pay dividends, the reason to hold is the promise of dividends (and/or buybacks) when the company does not have any more avenues for investing excess income. This is true for non-voting shares as well.
What could you do with the voting rights? 51% of the votes are held by the two founders. Some more votes are held by people close to them (i.e. Eric Schmidt) This gives very little theoretical and even less practical worth to the votes, whereas the actual worth is benefiting from profits.
I guess the premium accounts for the eventuality of the founders selling their stock. Their shares will be sold eventually, whether in their lifetimes or after.
While introducing the C class of stocks they made clear that they don't plan to give up their majority any time soon (that's the whole reason the were introduced) thus that premium is far in the future.
You absolutely get voting rights, you just don't get voting control. But there are three founders, so they have to vote together as a block to get that 51%. And over time, they may sell some of their voting stock.
> I think this is a perfect free market reaction to companies not having voting stock.
It's probably as good a reaction as we're going to get, but what in the world is free market about it?
A free market reaction would be something like: "Active investors decide that Snap's governance will lead to poor outcomes, and avoid it, driving the share price down. Future IPOs pick better governance structure in order to obtain higher share price."
Nothing of the kind happened. This is about a single company making a decision, not about markets at all.
So how many companies does it take to be a free market decision? 5? 20? A third? A majority? What if those active investors had taken advice from a single company, like a ratings agency?
> I mean, Google could come right now and offer to buy SNAP for 10x what its currently valued at and Evan Spiegel could say no, even though its almost a certainty that the company will never be worth that much
Nah you still have to run the company in good faith or you will get sued and lose.
>If you really want to own a stock that gives you no profits, no income from dividends, no voice in how its run, and actually no value what so ever other than the greater fool theory then go ahead.
If anything ICOs would show you are underestimating the demand for meaningless stock.
> actually no value what so ever other than the greater fool theory
Stock gives you partial (and qualified) ownership of the company, i.e. a claim on the company's assets. If Snap owns valuable assets then owning their stock is (indirect) ownership of those assets. No greater fool is required to give them value.
Most companies are run as 'going concerns' so a liquidation disbursement[0] to shareholders is probably (?) very unlikely, but its possibility must be the 'base value' of any stock. (Right?)
Most companies are run as 'going concerns' so a liquidation disbursement[0] to shareholders is probably (?) very unlikely, but its possibility must be the 'base value' of any stock. (Right?)
Of ANY stock? Wrong.
How much would you give me today if I gave you back 3% of that amount every year forever and at any time you could call it off and get back the original amount you gave me (and you get to keep those payments)? Okay, that's just a savings account.
Okay, how about if I had a solid plan such that I could give you back 3% of that amount next year, 4% the year after that, 5% the year after that, then 6.5%, then 8.5%, onwards and upwards until in a few years it plateaus at you being given 25% (and then rising with inflation) of your original stake each year (which, by the way, you can now cash in for a lot more than you originally paid for it). Is that worth something to you, even if you're not buying any physical assets? The plan is pretty solid, but not foolproof; there's a risk here than it won't work out, but it might.
I have dividend bearing stocks that have done this.
Dividends. A share of the company profits. The value of good dividend bearing shares can be based heavily on how much money they expect to give the shareholders now and into the future, and have very little to do with what physical assets the company actually has.
I was making the point that even stocks that don't pay dividends are still valuable in so much as the company and its assets are valuable.
Your comments are all about the relative value of a stock versus other alternative investments. I don't disagree with anything you wrote.
The point I was trying to make – and I have a good bit of experience now that it's either a really subtle point or it's so wrong (or 'not even wrong') that no one knows how to address it 'directly' – is that, given a stock that:
1. "gives you no profits"
2. Provides "no income from dividends" [Note that this is a separate item in the comment to which I originally replied!]
3. Provides "no voice in how its [company is] run"
The stock is still 'valuable' – apart from any value due to "the greater fool theory".
What I was not claiming is that stock is a 'good value' or a sound investment at its current price(s). I was claiming that if, e.g. someone gave you shares, you shouldn't (necessarily) give them away to someone else. Maybe you have no use for a shovel, or a house somewhere where you neither live nor travel to, but they're not literally of no value even tho you wouldn't buy them yourself at whatever price you could find.
I think it's a fantastic way to get value. Short of having significant influence over a company (Buffet) or very good intelligence about a company (e.g. to speculate that the value of a stock will change dramatically and use that information to make a trade) I consider it just about the best way to get value out of equities. The cash from dividends can be reinvested (the yield acts something like an interest rate on a savings account, although obviously the risk is higher and it isn't exactly the same thing) or pooled with cash from other dividends to diversify, etc.
I also like to issue covered calls/puts against assets/cash in my brokerage account for cash flow, although that's a tad more speculative than taking dividends.
Apart from selling my stock, it's the only way I could get any value out, but selling off the good dividend stocks just seems silly. Some of them have paid for themselves over the last decade; unspectacular, but very welcome.
Seguing off topic, a surprising number of companies are really bad at expanding; I'd much rather they gave the profits to me than waste them on failing ventures.
Might be more tax efficient, but I've seen a lot of companies buy back shares when the shares are high. Aside from high growth companies (which aren't usually buying back shares), that's value-destroying. Buy high, then sell low via options... With that kind of buybacks, I'll take the dividends, thanks.
Hmm, I appreciate your comment because it resulted in me looking into it and learning more. However as a result I've found that such a blanket statement is slightly dangerous - the [1]investopedia article goes into some good scenarios towards the bottom under "Additional Considerations."
Last week the FTSE Russell index announced the same thing.
As a minor point, dual/triple class shares are still allowed so FB, GOOG and BRK are still ok.
If you really want to own a stock that gives you no profits, no income from dividends, no voice in how its run, and actually no value what so ever other than the greater fool theory then go ahead.
I mean, Google could come right now and offer to buy SNAP for 10x what its currently valued at and Evan Spiegel could say no, even though its almost a certainty that the company will never be worth that much.
On the other hand if you don't like the fact that a company goes public and declares that its ownership is in for life no matter what, then you'll probably view this as a positive measure.
All this means is that ETF funds will have some recourse to hold management accountable.
One thing is for sure now ETF investing got a bit less passive.
As a side note on SNAP in particular, Even though the first Lockup has just expired, most employee's, are in lock up due to earnings coming out on August 10th and a subsequent lock up at the end of the month.
By mid September we should have a clear picture on just how the markets value SNAP.
EDIT
To give an example of what companies like SNAP are foregoing by not allowing voting rights is access to, of the 7 largest owners of google stock, 2 are the founders, the other 5 are mutual funds/ETF fund firms.