Why does the author of Google's Evil Stock Split, consider this move on the part of Google's executive management to be evil? Do you agree or disagree. Support your position with evidence from the article and additional research. Respond to a peer's submission.
92 Comments
10/31/2018 05:39:08 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GiF7rL489TWImTDsLp3Scmduu8OCCICffN0MgEMmwwM/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
Mollie Conville
11/5/2018 05:27:27 am
Although C-class stock doesn't have the right to vote, wouldn't they not have a say in anything and eventually see no point in staying with Google?
Reply
Rachel
11/1/2018 03:51:00 pm
The move on the part of googles executive management proves without a doubt to be evil. This is due to the fact that the major shareholders have more voting rights than the other class of shareholdersas stated in the below excerpt from the article; " Keep in mind those three already control more than 61% of the voting power for Google because they are the largest owners of Class B shares. Those shares are not listed publicly ... and they have 10 votes per share compared to one vote for the Class A shares."
Reply
Jake Barron
11/5/2018 06:43:59 am
Although it seems "evil," it is actually quite beneficial though. The split will allow investors to keep the same value, and allows for long-term growth. People who own class-c shares, if they care truly about the company and want their investment to increase in value, should support the company and buy Class-a shares. The company needs the private Class-B owners to remain in majority power, because they have grown the company significantly as the majority owners. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Reply
Jimmy Prior
11/20/2018 07:59:57 am
I disagree, the google stock split is not "without a doubt evil." It really had no effect on the amount of shares, share owners own they only doubled but the value of the amount invested stayed the same. Although, google stock split may not have been ideal in everyone's opinion. It is better then google creating more shares to sell in the market and diluting the their shares value. So really the google stock split is not evil.
Reply
Cole Barron
1/15/2019 08:18:35 am
I do agree with you that this was not evil, but I do believe this will mostly be beneficial to everybody in the market. Both A and C classes will benefit from this split in the long run. 11/1/2018 05:19:13 pm
Although the author's points are valid, both Classes A and C will benefit in Google's long-term growth. Therefore, the stock split is not evil.
Reply
11/5/2018 05:50:25 am
Maybe try to explain why you believe that that the author thinks the google split was evil.
Reply
Katie LeBlanc
11/5/2018 07:07:34 am
i agree that it isn't evil. if someone wants voting rights they can just buy into those type of stocks.
Reply
Cole Cameron
11/2/2018 08:39:53 am
In the blog the author has some valid points, but they do not really support the statement that the stock split is not evil. Classes A and C will surely help out google for their growth on the long term
Reply
Sean Picard
11/2/2018 06:23:25 pm
I do not agree with author the stock split is not evil because both classes A and C will benefit from this stock split in the long term.
Reply
Jack Gecawich
11/7/2018 09:42:58 am
I agree with you, but do you think that the value in the stock itself outways not having voting rights(its growth vs the value of voting rights)? However, what do you mean by both classes will benefit in the long run. I think that you mean by capital growth, but maybe I am making a wrong assumption.
Reply
Katie Shields
11/5/2018 05:42:50 am
The author considers this split to be evil on googles part, because it changes the way the investors run the company. I agree with the author, because in the articular it stated even though the investments will not change the way you contribute to running the company will. I think this is unfair, because if you own part of the company your should also have a say in how to run it, and google is taking that away from investors.
Reply
Georgia Priestley
11/5/2018 06:53:10 am
I agree, investors should not have to put all their trust in 3 people and they should be able to have a say in what happens.
Reply
Nick Iadeluca
11/5/2018 06:53:23 am
Google isn't taking away anyone's voting rights with this split though. Google is just trying to make their stock more accessible to those who want to invest, and if you want voting rights, you just have to buy the other stock. And even if the class A is more expensive than the class C, it seems fair that those who invest more are rewarded.
Reply
Nick Iadeluca
11/5/2018 06:45:57 am
I wouldn't consider the Google stock split to be "evil". It's just a company doing something to make sure they can continue to make money - like a company does. I'd imagine that most of the investors in Google are there for the monetary value in the stock, not the voting rights. Even if they did want the voting rights, they could sell their Class C stock and buy the Class A instead.
Reply
Will Casey
11/5/2018 07:08:33 am
Now that I read a different point of view, I completely agree. These companies are just trying to stay profitable and continue to make the most money they can. Yes, the stock holders have a reason to be angry, but sometimes you just need to wait and see what happens
Reply
rachel rosenbaum
11/7/2018 09:19:02 am
I now understand how this can be a controversial topic. There is way that it can be considered evil or it can be not evil due to the fact that the companies want to continue making profits and as much money as they can.
Jake Barron
11/5/2018 06:49:53 am
The stock split from Google is not "evil," for the benefits out-weigh the negatives. First off, the private Class-B owners have grown the company to where it is, and should remain as the majority shareholders for this. Class-C owners, although without voting rights now, still hold the same value as they would in a class-a stock, and have seen over a 200% growth over the current 5-year period. If class-c owners truly are unhappy with their ownership, then they have the right to buy class-a shares, however, investors who solely care about their value should be happy to see more shares at a lower price.
Reply
Cole Barron
1/14/2019 07:09:35 pm
I do agree with you that the move is not evil, but class-c owners do have the right to buy class-a shares, but it is not entirely affordable for them to do so.
Reply
Georgia Priestley
11/5/2018 06:50:45 am
The author considers this move on the part of Google's executive management to be evil because it changed what investors could vote or not. They have to put their full trust in Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt. I agree with the author, because it is not fair that investors have to trust that someone won't make a mistake since they have no voting rights. If you own shares of a company you should be able to have a say in things even if it is a very tiny influence.
Reply
Gianna Musella
11/5/2018 07:09:59 am
I agree with the fact that the investors should have a say in this decision, but I don't think it should be labeled as "evil." Either way, investors would have to put their trust in these company heads for the sake of their stocks. Not to mention that in the past they can be accredited to Google's stock raising 220% in the past five years. The article glosses over how this split will protect the company's value and keep it from sinking.
Reply
Gianna Musella
11/5/2018 06:55:28 am
While the stock split does seem to be unfair considering the fact that investors did not get a say, the article is heavily biased and does not focus so much on how both classes will benefit from this split. It protects the value of their investments and provides more security for the company for the future.
Reply
Anabel Stavrand
11/5/2018 07:16:11 am
I agree, I think that the author did not do a great job in telling the story from an unbiased point of view, and I agree that while it is unfair that they are not given a say, this is a decision that the company thinks will help them.
Reply
Jack Eustis
11/5/2018 07:20:18 am
Although I don't agree with you on whether Google's move was immoral or not, I do agree on the fact that this article was almost comically biased.
Reply
11/5/2018 06:59:38 am
I do not agree with the author I believe the stock split is beneficial to both group a and c . although the stock split will benefit group a trading under the new ticker symbol GOOGL because they will be able to vote at the annual shareholder meeting unlike group b who will be trading under the old ticker symbol GOOG although the value of their investment will not change they will not have a say in how Google runs the company. But the long term affects of this split will benefit both group a and c
Reply
Connor Thurman
11/5/2018 07:00:14 am
I agree with the author that this is evil. Even though the value of the investment wont change. Class C who owns part of the company is not able to give their opinion on how the company runs.
Reply
11/5/2018 06:34:06 pm
If people were really wanted to give their opinion, couldn't they just invest in Class A?
Reply
Katie LeBlanc
11/5/2018 07:04:56 am
although, google is taking away voting rights, it is not all that evil. there are still voting rights, but with certain stocks. if you want voting rights then just buy into that stock (class a and b). google still gives you options for what stock to buy and if you want voting rights or not. they did not completely get rid of voting rights so people still have a say, which is not evil.
Reply
Will Casey
11/5/2018 07:05:27 am
The author of "Google's 'evil' stock split" views this as an evil move by google's executive management because they are effectively limiting the voice of large stock holders by taking away their right to vote. Google still has all your money, but you now have no say in how the company is run. To give a decent opinion on this topic, I would need to know what made google make this decision. It is a possibility that the shareholders made a poor choice for the company more than once, so to fix those they need to make more of those important decisions themselves. It is also a possibility that Larry Page is just power hungry and thinks every decision he makes, is the right one. Considering that Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt already own 61% of the voting power, I think it was an evil move to try to push out the investor's voices and to consolidate power, but there are many other factors that could've lead to this decision.
Reply
Gabriella Weathers
11/5/2018 09:14:04 am
I agree that in order to make a judgment, you need to see both sides of the story. I think the author may have a stake in Google himself, or is otherwise biased.
Reply
Ryan Lennon
11/5/2018 07:14:17 am
In this situation I believe that the bad outweighs the good. For all the people who owned the GOOG stock as of March 27, they got twice as many shares at half the price when the market opened on April 3. However that only effected the people who had shares in the old Google stock. The problem with the split is that the three main leaders of Google now have all the voting power because they get 10 votes per share in the privately traded Class B Google stock while everyone else either gets 1 vote per share (Class A) or no votes at all (Class C).
Reply
Anabel Stavrand
11/5/2018 07:14:46 am
I don't think that what Google is doing is "evil." I think that the success of Google has created success for many investors and has brought them a lot of wealth in it's success. What they are doing now was a business decision that they think can help them succeed even more. While it isn't right that investors are given little control now, when they sued the company after it's proposal, the company settled and reached a compromise. While it is not ideal for investors, it is not "evil" as much as it is selfish. The author is obviously very biased against the situation and we do not know the whole story, but from what I could tell I would disagree with the author.
Reply
Jack Eustis
11/5/2018 07:16:55 am
I think that the split is "evil" because it is just Google executives trying to give themselves more power in the company. Everything else that comes from this, even if it is of benefit to the common shareholder is just a consolation to make sure that there is no public outcry aimed towards Google.
Reply
Gabriella Weathers
11/5/2018 07:18:10 am
The author believes the split to be evil because they are depriving other shareholders of their voting rights.
Reply
11/5/2018 07:20:05 am
The author believes the split is evil because it changes the rights of a shareholder and gives google more control. I believe they can do this because it is their company and therefore can do what they want
Reply
Laura Leigh Vetters
11/5/2018 07:20:06 am
I don't believe Google truly is "evil." Because they made so that people can by different classes of stocks, that still gives some people a say -- its not like they are cutting off the public completely. If people really care about the company and want to have a say, then they should invest in Class A. I actually think this benefits the company, because it makes it so that only people who really want a say have a say.
Reply
Ellen Warburton
11/5/2018 08:21:08 am
The author considers the movement on Google's executive management to be evil, this is because Google changed weather or not investors could vote. I agree with the author because it's unfair that investors have to give up their vote to then have to trust other people with their vote and hope that they won't make the wrong choice. I believe that if you own shares of any company, you should be able to put your input in.
Reply
Kelsa Dator
11/5/2018 11:51:59 am
What do you mean "Google changed weather or not investors could vote"?
Reply
Allie Fay
11/7/2018 07:53:40 am
I agree that it is unfair for google to take away voting rights from its shareholders. I think that if someone owns a big part of google they should have a say in big decisions.
Reply
KC
11/5/2018 08:35:09 am
I can certainly understand why investors would be angry about Google's latest decision to split, but they are not "different from the rest of the tech sector." They are simply a tech company. Nothing more, nothing less.
Reply
Nolan Kelley
11/5/2018 01:16:07 pm
I believe that the stock split should not be identified as "evil." In the past, people who have invested in Google had extreme profits from their shares. I do not see how that is evil. The author sees that the company's act is evil because Google made the stock split in order to maintain the power of the high ranking leaders of Google. The class B shares of Google have a lot more power than the ones of Classes A and C making the CEO, chairman and co-founder to have even more power within the company.
Reply
Kelsa Dator
11/5/2018 06:07:15 pm
This is a strong argument. You could support your idea of the extreme profits with this quote:
Reply
Jalynn Brown
11/5/2018 06:30:44 pm
The author of this article is saying that Google is "evil" for taking away people's say. I do not truly think this is evil because the people investors have put their trust in have done a wonderful job so far. If the people really want a vote, then they could just invest in Class A. Simply put it is not evil they are just doing what they believe is right for their company.
Reply
Olivia La Hue
11/7/2018 12:50:26 pm
I disagree because the owners get 10 votes for each share of class A. They are overpowering their investors by not giving them a say, which they expect and are having it taken away without notice
Reply
Lindsay Falk
11/7/2018 04:58:26 pm
I agree that google's stock split was not evil, however you could use a quote to make your argument even stronger. You could possibly include something like "The company wants you to blindly put its faith in Page, Brin and Schmidt and hope for the best. Google shareholders have been rewarded handsomely by that trio so far. Google's stock is up more than 40% in the past year and has surged 220% in the past five years"(La Monica). Providing a quote would further validate your claim and help prove that google's stock split was not evil.
Reply
Sean Picard
11/6/2018 09:59:27 am
Googles Stock Split is not evil. The people who have been investing in google in the past investors in google have been treated well making tons of money. Google did not make this stock split to be evil but to only make sure maintain there status as a high ranking leader in the corporation. Investors still have the option to vote all they have to do is invest in Class A and B and the will maintain there right to vote in the company.
Reply
Damon
11/8/2018 04:55:44 pm
I agree with you and was not thinking about how Google had made the profit for their investors and I also now realize that investors should trust the companies decisions to increase their profit
Reply
Allie Fay
11/6/2018 06:42:20 pm
The author of "Google's 'evil' stock split" thinks that what google has done is an evil move by google's executive management. The author thinks this because google is limiting the voice of large shareholders by taking away their right to vote. Google is holding onto the money from their shareholders but are not allowing them to vote on company decisions. I agree with the author. It's unfair that investors have to give up their vote when they own a piece of google. They are being forced to trust other people with their vote and hope they do not make the wrong choice. If someone owns shares of a company they should have a say in major decisions the company makes.
Reply
Chloe Euston
11/7/2018 03:06:55 pm
I see your point, however I disagree. While the stock split took away voting rights from class c shareholders, it will be beneficial in the long run to the company and to investors. This stock split will lower the prices, appealing to more investors. Google made a decision that will benefit its company, allowing it to grow. This is an important aspect of business and it should not be labeled as evil.
Reply
Emily Golding
11/7/2018 07:48:57 pm
I agree with you on some points. I see how it is frustrating to not have a say in the company when you own a part. However, the good outweighs the bad in this case and overall the price will be lowered, benefiting the company.
Reply
12/6/2018 10:30:32 am
I understand your point but I respectfully disagree as shareholders didn't have much influence in a company as massive as google in the first place
Reply
The author believes that google's stock split is evil as it eliminates some shareholders voices. But I don't see it as "evil". These investors had put there trust in google's leadership triumvirate and as of right now they haven't done anything to loose the trust of the people. These shareholders have still be very successful in terms of their profit under the leadership of CEO Larry Page, chairman Eric Schmidt and co-founder Sergey Brin.
Reply
Mollie Conville
11/7/2018 08:24:35 am
What do you mean by Google's leadership triumvirate?
Reply
Hanna Feeney
11/7/2018 10:10:23 am
google's leadership triumvirate refers for larry page the ceo, Eric Schmidt the chairman and Sergey Brin the co-founder
Mollie Conville
11/7/2018 08:20:02 am
Although the author's points are valid, both Classes A and C will benefit in Google's long-term growth. Therefore, the stock split is not evil.
Reply
Billy Tuttle
11/7/2018 08:43:53 am
Even though the points made by the author are valid, both classes A and C will benefit within Google's long-term growth. Google's stock split is not evil, as those who invested into Google have not been treated poorly and have made a lot of money.
Reply
Andrew Mega
11/7/2018 08:45:13 am
Just like many other people above said; the author believes that google's stock split is evil because they are limiting the voice of people who own many shares by holding onto their money but not allowing them to vote in company decisions. However, I disagree with the author because both class A and Class C google stocks will benefit in the long run. Google will make them money in the future.
Reply
Rachel B
11/7/2018 09:37:54 am
Although it is true that both class A and class B google stocks will benefit in the future, did Google really intend that? As the article says, "Why is Google doing this? To further consolidate power among the Google leadership triumvirate of CEO Larry Page, chairman Eric Schmidt and co-founder Sergey Brin." This contradicts with their original statement,"Don't be evil" because although they do benefit, Google did it to regain power over their company.
Reply
Ethan Mossey
11/28/2018 05:52:43 pm
I agree with what you said but how will the stock benefit the company in the long run because can't they sound less attractive to the sellers?
Reply
Rachel B
11/7/2018 09:33:41 am
I agree with the author that Google did make an unfair move on investors. Although class A and class B will benefit eventually from this change, investors that used to have a voice in the company will not anymore. Also, obviously Google didn't do this for the benefit of their-selves. As the author said, "Why is Google doing this? To further consolidate power among the Google leadership triumvirate of CEO Larry Page, chairman Eric Schmidt and co-founder Sergey Brin." It is only fair that people with a large ownership of the company have a say in how the company runs.
Reply
Allie Fay
11/7/2018 05:13:06 pm
In the end isn't Google doing what is best for their investors? The main goal of an investor is usually to gain profit. The stock split will lower the price of the shares. The new price will interest new investors and the company will grow.
Reply
Jack Gecawich
11/7/2018 09:38:09 am
The author considers the move on the part of Google’s executive management to be evil because he believes owning a stock means having a say in the company that you are buying into, and Google is taking that right away from investors by splitting the shares into non voting shares. Based on various readings and his article, I do not agree with the author as I do not believe that an investor must have voting rights of a company, as the value comes in the capital gained from the investment. While having a say in the company’s management and direction may be important to some, I feel that it is not what I am looking for when I look to invest. Instead, I am looking for capital gains from buying and selling the stock. The author states, “To be fair, Google shareholders have been rewarded handsomely by that trio so far. Google's stock is up more than 40% in the past year and has surged 220% in the past five years.” This statement shows the enormous growth that google has seen over the past half decade that has rewarded investors very nicely and could have made them a nice profit if they bought and sold at the right times. For that reason, I don’t see it necessary to have voting rights with a share, as it will only impede on the managerial style of the company. Additionally, the claim that the split evil may not be totally valid because they are doing so to protect the the corporate style that has made them successful and potentially boost the stock price with the split.
Reply
Maddie Curnow
11/7/2018 09:52:12 am
The author of Google's Evil Stock Split considers Google’s Executive Management's decision evil because of their termination of new stocks with voting rights. As google releases more shares for new investors, or class C shares, they are receiving some serious backlash from Paul R. La Monica. His article has pointed out that those investing in class C shares will not be receiving voting rights at the annual shareholder meeting. This is true even when the new investors are paying the same value. La Monica believes as a partial owner of the company, you should be entitled to a say. All in all, the author believes Google is evil due to the fact that they are taking away voting rights from new investors.
Reply
Samantha C
11/7/2018 02:25:57 pm
I would also like to add that Google agreed to compensate any Class C shareholders if they lose profit due to the lack of voting rights. This shows that Google does not only care about making a buck. They care about their investors.
Reply
Olivia La Hue
11/7/2018 12:38:41 pm
The author considers this split to be an evil move because they are issuing shares to existing Class C investors that have no voting rights. The 3 people in charge of Google mostly own Class B and they have 10 votes per share in Class A. These 3 people are changing Google so they can make all of the decisions. I agree that this is evil because it is immoral for Google to change your voting rights without any notice. Especially because their stand point was "don't be evil" but contradicted their own idea by not giving their investors what they expect, a say of what happens to the company. If an existing Google investor, the wise decision would be to sell Class C shares and buy Class A shares so you can make money and get voting rights.
Reply
Samantha C
11/7/2018 02:20:05 pm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15T7rcQ2lD0WVsWKaXCEVtg6PexrZ9jti471-zN5JvMo/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
Chloe Euston
11/7/2018 03:22:41 pm
I disagree with the author, the Google stock split was not evil. Although it takes away the right to vote from Class C investors, it will be beneficial to them in the long run. The stock split will decrease the price per share, which will appeal to a variety of more investors. With more investors, the company will continue to grow. Google made this business decision to allow the company to continue to grow and to keep the business successful. Growing a business's success is an important aspect of business and furthering the economy, and therefore should not be labeled as evil. Also, this stock split will reward investors, including Class C shareholders, in the long run. Although investors may want a say in the company's decisions, the main purpose people invest in stocks is to make capitol gains based on business growth. Google's stock split will do this for investors. The author even states, “To be fair, Google shareholders have been rewarded handsomely by that trio so far. Google's stock is up more than 40% in the past year and has surged 220% in the past five years.” This statement shows that this decision has given investors exactly what they wanted- capitol gains. Google should not be labeled as evil for improving their business and rewarding investors.
Reply
Lindsay Falk
11/7/2018 04:43:13 pm
The author considers google’s stock split to be evil on the part of the company’s executive management because class C shareholders no longer have any say in how the company is run. I disagree with the author because all of google’s shares will still profit long term regardless of whether or not shareholders have the ability to vote on executive decisions. Shareholders of google’s stock must put their faith in the company’s managers Page, Brin, and Schmidt. Google shareholders have been rewarded handsomely by that trio so far. Google's stock is up more than 40% in the past year and has surged 220% in the past five years(La Monica). Google’s managers have been making good decisions on behalf of the company, so although shareholders may think it’s unfair they don’t have a say in what goes on in the company, their investments are still good. I think that there are far more positive aspects to this stock split than negative effects.
Reply
Olin Thompson
11/20/2018 11:18:22 am
I feel like while profit is good. Investors also want a voice to what they are investing in. While they are still getting a profit, their voice goes down. People like the right to vote and to express what they think is right. For this split, there say in the company was made less, and this seems almost unfair to investors.
Reply
Allie Fay
11/7/2018 05:07:48 pm
FINAL RESPONSE
Reply
Emily Golding
11/7/2018 07:44:53 pm
In "Google's Evil Stock Split," the author believes that taking away certain investors voting rights is an unfair decision. The author believes this because shareholders in Class C will no longer be able to have a say in crucial company decisions, while Class A shareholders will be able to do this. The author shares the quote,"The new share structure was "designed to preserve the corporate structure that has allowed Google to remain focused on the long term." Then, the author says,"Translation: Nobody else really matters when it comes to decision making. We might as well be a private company" (Monica). Clearly, the author thinks that this is an evil decision. I, however, disagree. The stock split will only be beneficial to the company and allow the company to grow and expand more. Although some shareholders may not have the say in the company they wish to have, they will still benefit from the growth of the company. Therefore, the stock split actually has positive affects.
Reply
Damon Brouillard
11/8/2018 04:39:56 pm
I do not believe that the Google’s stock split was evil like the author believes. Google, on March 27, 2014, split each share and issuing new shares that will not have any voting rights. The author feels that that the purpose of have publicly owned stock to have the public owners voting, but with Google partially taking that away they might as well be private. Google said this change was “designed to preserve the corporate structure that has allowed Google to remain focused on the long term." I do not believe that this decision by google to no longer offer voting rights with their newly issued stocks is evil because they are not completely striping people of their voting rights. They are not terminating all voting rights powers of stock owners they are just ending the no longer offering that for their new stocks moving forward. The voting stock became A-class and identified as GOOGL. The new ones became C-class and identified as GOOG. So they split each single stock into two with each at half the price of the original one.
Reply
Courtney Wegrzyn
11/20/2018 07:28:11 am
The author believes that the stock split was evil because Google is taking away voting rights away from shareholders that normally would have a say in how the company was run, the entire point of owning a share. I understand that to shareholders, Google's stock split was evil but from the company standpoint, it was a smart decision. The CEO Larry Page, chairman Eric Schmidt and co-founder Sergey Brin have 61% of the voting power already and are going after more. This makes sense because they know the company best and Sergey co-founded the company itself which means that after ten years he knows what the company should and should not do in order to keep Google successful and has proven that they can change with the times. The Class C shareholders get what they paid for because their shares aren't losing any value with the cut of voting rights. If they don't agree with some of the decisions being made with running the company, they don't have to buy any shares or can sell them. They have already made a lot of money off of Google's stock, "up more than 40% in the past year and has surged 220% in the past five years." Google is essentially making itself a private company with the benefits of a publicly traded company "'designed to preserve the corporate structure that has allowed Google to remain focused on the long term.'"
Reply
Jimmy Prior
11/20/2018 07:56:01 am
I believe the author is wrong, the google stock split is not "evil." I really had no effect the amount of shares, share owners owned only double and the company value is not effected. Although, google stock split may not have been ideal in everyone's opinion. It is better then google creating more shares to sell in the market and diluting the stock holders shares value. So really the google stock split is not evil.
Reply
It is Below Actually
11/20/2018 11:13:48 am
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CoYtIkNtu7gP_pJJjvnX3V4wlnqL-SQBpPlr3WZsVVI/edit?usp=sharing
Reply
sam lewis
11/25/2018 04:02:25 pm
I don't think that googles actions are “evil”. Google's success has made lots of wealth for investors with this success. Their decision is only founded upon the goal of making more money which is not completely unreasonable for a company to do. It is not the best that investors are losing influence in the company but google still did reach a bargain with them after the uproar. The article seems to be somewhat like clickbait more that it is showing a serious argument.
Reply
Ryan Macaulay
11/26/2018 12:57:03 pm
Although stock splits in general are not "evil," google's stock split seems to not be presented in a way that would make it seem that way. The author claims that the split was just so the majority of stockholders would lose their voting abilities however they present no evidence to support it. Companies often split stocks to make them more appealing to a wider range of investors and there is no proof that this is not why Google split their stock.
Reply
Andrew Yang
11/29/2018 09:47:05 am
I agree with this point as the author seems very biased against Google. From the outset he had a negative view of Google making his writing a bit less reliable.
Reply
Ethan Mossey
11/28/2018 05:48:19 pm
I disagree with the author on Google being "evil." There was a reason to the move that the company saw as a move that would benefit the company. The three main people in the running of Google are Larry Page, Erin Schmidt, and Sergey Brin, these people hold 61% of the voting power in Google which is over half the power. With the company now limiting who can vote means they are trying to put the company in the hands of Page, Schmidt, and Brin because they are the reason for how Google got to where they are today, which also has been very good for stockholders because the company think in long term not short term.
Reply
Andrew Yang
11/29/2018 07:28:57 am
I believe that the stock split by Google isn't necessarily evil. Although it may be an bit inconsiderate of stockholders, Google as a whole has worked with this system. By giving the people who know what they are doing, Google is ensuring the success of the company. It's not as though shareholders are losing anything in terms of capital, "Google's stock is up an astonishing 1,235% from its IPO price of $85." With these statistics what do investors really have to lose?
Reply
Matt Mckenzie
11/29/2018 04:19:56 pm
I do not think that google is “evil” because they split up into different classes, they did this because it still gives people a say. They are not completely cutting off the public. Another thing is that if people really do care about the company they should invest in the A class. I also believe that it benefits the company because the people that really care about the company have more of a say and are benefiting the company more than just any one person.
Reply
elias pinkes
11/30/2018 05:14:03 am
I disagree with the author that google's move to split the stock is not evil because they are splitting the shares in half and lowering the value. 10 years until google’s first initial public offering and it is the guiding principle of Google. For example if the author states that “If you owned Google as of March 27th you will wind up with twice as many shares at half the price.” So the new class C shares will trade from the old ticker symbol of GOOG and will have no vote. The new ticker symbol is GOOGL. The stock is not evil because both class shares A and C benefit in the future.
Reply
Daniel Madden
11/30/2018 09:16:21 am
The author thinks that google's stock split is evil because it it doesn't give new shareholders the voting rights or any say of what happens in the company. I disagree because although this may seem unfair, I don't look at having a say in the company as a large benefit in owning stock. This split will only greatly affect people with an great number of shares in google, though I am not in that position and neither is most investors so I don't believe it is very evil.
Reply
Savannah
11/30/2018 11:17:34 am
The author of this article, has the strong belief that Google's stock split is evil. However, it seems that this would be beneficial for Google. At the moment, the founders of Google have 61% of the voting power. Many may see this at evil, but if anyone knows anything about the company it is them. They both what will work best for their company. The shareholders of "class c" aren't losing any value to the stocks that they own even if the voting rights are cut. They do not need to agree with the decision being made because they can sell stocks if they do not agree. Plus, the company has seen a large surge in stocks and have been making a lot of money in the market.
Reply
Dylan
12/4/2018 06:27:26 pm
I agree because I feel that there is more good than bad and prices will be lowered which help the company. Though I can see how it's annoying to have no say in what the company does when you own a part
Reply
Jack Lombardi
12/6/2018 08:54:21 am
I feel like you should be able to have a voice when you do own a part of a company. Your voice should be heard no matter who you are when you own a part of a company.
Reply
Jack Lombardi
12/6/2018 08:49:49 am
I agree with the author that this is evil. Class C, who owns part of the company, will not be able to voice their opinion on how the company should be able to run. Also, the value of the investment won't change, which would make it even less fair
Reply
Hector L Vargas
12/7/2018 09:47:11 am
I agree with the author. The class C, who owns part of the company, wont be able to voice their opinion. On how the company should be able to run.
Reply
Jacqueline DePetro
12/11/2018 09:46:46 am
Reply
Zachary Smith
12/13/2018 05:29:50 am
The author of Google's Evil Stock Split, considered this move on the part of Google's executive management to be evil. I agree with the author because since google is doing this split it makes it so class c and other shareholders won't have a say in the company unless they become a higher class.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
October 2017
Categories |
- Home
- Advisory
- Competitions
- Computers in Management (dual enrollment)
- Entrepreneurship
- Research in the Digital Age
- Personal Finance (dual enrollment)
- Business Law
- Marketing
- International Business
- Design Think
- 2014 Rhode Island Teacher of the Year
- C2M_EGHS
- Accounting
- School Wide Calendar
- College and Career Readiness Resources for Students
- EGHS Official School Store
- Teacher Resources
- FBLA