Forum Moderators: goodroi
(subscription)
the fund managers have a personal interest -- and the means -- to cause long-term market volatility. And they also know that if their poor decisions are exposed, a cunning law of relativity will forgive them if enough others do likewise ...The losers are the end-investors, mainly individual investors with pensions, insurance policies and collective investments ...
Google's response is a dual share structure, allowing shareholder-managers to retain their grip on decision-making ...
Critics object that this is undemocratic and that the company's management themselves are conflicted agents.
However, it is an illusory democracy when most end-investors are at the mercy of fund managers with a personal interest in short-term gains and a relative indifference to the fall out.
And if it is a choice between two sets of conflicted agents, who would you rather have manage your Google shares: volatility-junkies in the fund management industry or Google's managers, your fellow shareholders?
Like it says in their prospectus, "Google is not a conventional company". I think that's as much a marketing strategy as it is a genuine attempt to break the mould.
