Forum Moderators: goodroi
plans to fund the foundation later this year with 1 percent of its stock - a commitment that translates to about 2.7 million shares worth more than $500 million as of Wednesday. Google also intends to donate 1 percent of profits and divert staff to the foundation.
wellzy
Google is searching for an executive director to run the foundation.
know anyone good?
They should distribute the money to their shareholders, who should then make their own charitable gifts. I personally get annoyed when other people give away my money.
MQ
Am I the only one who thinks public companies have no business making charitable gifts?
Two words = Good PR.
Big ticket charity things like this are typically win-win; the company does some good by giving some money away to people who need it, and then the company can take a large tax deduction and benefit from a better public perception of themselves.
Google would not do anything that would cause them a loss in revenue.
Am I the only one who thinks public companies have no business making charitable gifts?
Am I the only one who thinks public companies have no business making charitable gifts?
On a practical level bakedjake is right, this is not going to lead to lower revenues. It will lead directly to tax deductions and indirectly to higher revenues.
On an ethical level, perhaps it's worth considering alternatively that charitable companies shouldn't feel that they have much obligation to pay their small-minded minor shareholders much more than lip service. If one no longer wishes to be a shareholder of a company one can always sell the shares.
Now that we getting technical: first of all shareholders have a right to demand accountability and $500 Million is a lot of money.
The idea is that the money is not theirs (G's managment) to give.
Brin, Sergei and other Google honchos can give their own money as they wish. They can create a $500 million fund and still have plenty left. Investors didn't spend $150 or $200 a share to buy Google, the Good samaritan. They paid a fortune to buy a company that flourishes and returns a lot of money back to the investors. $500 million can go a long way toward new projects, investing in a VC type fund etc.
That's all. Individual investors then can decide to do what they want with the money google gives them. Some decide to support jewish charities, some palestinian, some red Cross, some Salvation Army, some their local church, some a strip joint etc. etc. etc.
I'm a Social Worker and director of a small organisation, I can tell you there are plenty of brand name charities that:
* have a hell of a lot more than $500m gathering dust, and
* plenty that already own Google stock
Who knows, maybe google will get this right... they could consider:
* a gift matching program for staff giving
* an asset cap for charities they will give to
Either way it will be a long time before they catch up with the amount Bill & Melinda Gates have given.
Am I the only one who thinks public companies have no business making charitable gifts?
companies -- any companies -- are in the business of doing whatever is both legal and within their Articles of Incorporation.
Any other restriction imposed would be heavy-handed state intervention at its worst.
And, anyway, they are doing exactly what that said they'd do in the IPO. Shareholders knew to expect this when they invested....If Google didn't giveaway 1% as promised, they could be sued by shareholders for making false statements in the IPO.
:)
Come on guys lighten up, I own Google stock and any time they want to give up some expendable revenue to give back, I'm all for it.
Am I the only one who thinks public companies have no business making charitable gifts?
No, I am sure there are others that think this way and in my opinion, that is a sad way to look at things.
I am glad to see Google doing this. I would also guess that most large public companies give to charity in some way. I firmly believe in: Give and you shall receive. The feeling of scarcity creates scarcity.
For stockholders who do not agree with how Google is spending their money, they can vote on this anytime by selling their stock.
The question was asked as to why Google is working so hard right now to stay in the news and build up a good name for itself?
I can name that tune in Two Words:
MSN Search.
Well all know MSN is planning to launch the new search sometime in the next few months. When they do, there's gonna be such a massive blitz in publicity and advertising it'll make the headache inducing "Start Me Up" campaign look like a whisper in the woords.
Google is being smart by keeping it's name in the news now, so that when Microsoft launches it's next mind-numbing, soul-sucking, free will eroding advertising blitz, a few people will remember, and continue to use, Google.
IMHO
MSN Search and it's business model which doesn't justify a $40 billion valuation. Thisnk about it, how does Google make money? How does MSFT and Yahoo? Google has ONLY one source of income.
Plenty of companies donate money in one way or another. People don't have to invest in google.
Anyone who thinks they have some sort of VOTE or say because they are a shareholder is kidding themselves. Google has given no illusions - they own the VAST majority of the voting shares.
You can join in the profits, but you have no say with how the company is run.
This is the way it is with most other companies as well - only google is up front with it.
I doubt many of google's shareholders are complaining anyway. Anyone that bought in at the IPO has done fairly well. Google seems to know what they are doing. Besides some disgruntled webmasters - the vast majority of people have warm fuzzy feelings about google.
That is good for business.
Next thing you know people will complain about them wasting space on the front page for helping with tsunami relief efforts.
The question was asked as to why Google is working so hard right now to stay in the news and build up a good name for itself?
Why wouldn't a company work hard to stay in the news and build up a good name for itself all the time?
I'd rather be invested, financially and otherwise, in a company who made a point of regularly doing good for the sake of doing good.
