Larry & Sergey To Cash In $5.5B of Google Chips 339
theodp writes "According to an SEC filing, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have adopted five-year trading plans to sell about 5M shares each, which would yield each about $2.75B based on Friday's closing stock price of $550.01. BTW, Google kicks in 12 cents to Social Security and another 2 cents to Medicare on its founders' celebrated $1 annual salaries." After this stock is sold, the founders will hold less than 50% of the voting shares and thus will give up voting control of Google.
They will still control Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they have less than 50%, if they have the largest block then in all likelyhood they will still retain control.
Re:They will still control Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Only on paper. The other 50+ % could tell them to take a hike, as they change Google's direction into uncharted, less 'friendly' territories.
The wind of change is coming, hide your data.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you misspell "more evil" - the evil could be about to start!
Re:They will still control Google (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the internet, you can't take your data back again, only pollute it.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, i guess you don't understand.
I don't care if there are 10 or 100000 shareholders. If 50.000001% want to go left, the company goes left.
Sure, I will give you the fact that organizing 100,000 people isn't a cakewalk, but the point i am making is still valid as it can be done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They will still control Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They will still control Google (Score:5, Insightful)
He stayed on Apple's board long after he knew about the Android move, and he's usually the one pushing the "it's technically not illegal" line. I don't see that he's the best person anyone would like to leave their data with. IMO, prepare for more Facebook-esque pranks from Google in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? So you want people to know your personal writings, your bank account and financial information, perhaps a few embarrassing stories of your childhood shared between freinds, medical information etc.
There are MANY things that are legal and non suspicious that someone might like to keep private and secret from the world at large.
Re:They will still control Google (Score:4, Informative)
He said if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell it to Google. Which is an entirely different matter. Basically, as a US corporation they fall under US laws including ones that allow the government to subpoena them and other things. Now they've resisted every request for information, but if a judge says they have to fork it over, they have to do it.
So don't tell Google information you want to remain private. It's that easy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even better: Google has two classes of shares: A and B, one having 10 votes per share and the other only one vote per share. Selling the 10-vote share automatically makes it 1-vote share. Larry and Sergey, unsurprisingly, have all the 10-vote shares.
So, in order to have ultimate control over Google, the two only need to have 5% of all the shares, not 50%, as long as all the shares they own are B-class.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They will still control Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. Anything more than 30% (or less) is sufficient to control a large public corporation. The majority of stock in a corporation like Google is held by mutual funds, who do not typically actively engage in corporate control. So 30% is more than 60% of the stock held by individuals, who are more likely to claim a voice in corporate governance. IOW, they're keeping total control, for all practical purposes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They will still control Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Since they are cashing out together, it seems they have some joint project they want to work on. Maybe something to do with censorship in China? A several billion dollar advertising campaign could do something maybe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except they still have most of their wealth in Google stock. More likely they just want some money. Bill Gates did the same thing when he started his charitable organization, so maybe they are planning on starting a charity. Or maybe they want to buy some islands somewhere. Or a small country.
Just some a-grade weed and one hell of a high price hooker!
Re:They will still control Google (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this is their signal that they wouldn't mind having $5.5 billion dollars around that doesn't depend on Google.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is? Perhaps it's just smart financial strategy? It's called taking profits. Their SEC requires them, along with pretty much every other insider, to file their stock selling plans ahead of time. They can't just buy & sell google stock like you and I can at a whim.
Face (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what? When it comes to face, I think the rest of the planet needs to make it so they lose face all the time. They need to, untrustworthy gangster scum need to "lose face". We should stop kowtowing to them like that, ALL the time. The only face they really want is your face with their economic and physical boot in it. Screw that.
The Chinese "leaders" are the direct unbroken political descendants of a regime that murdered millions of their own people and engaged in genocide with other people. I have no idea why we even set out on this path to make them richer and more powerful, we wouldn't have done that with the stalinists, nope, nor hitlerites if they were still in power, but for some reason, these murderers get a free pass, like we are just supposed to play make believe history didn't happen and today's reality isn't happening.
The industrialized and more civilized nations (in cahoots with various big business trader traitors and their political puppets) handed them for free, or sold cheap, or they outright stole, and continue to steal, most of the crown jewels of the knowledge and techniques of said industrialization and modernization and *still* we are supposed to be oh so freaking worried about their "face". Well...too bad!
*(*&&*( their dang tyrannical despotic "face", they *need* to "lose face" for being mass jerks. (**&*^ all this bowing and scraping and treating them like they are civilized and honorable. They aren't, they are just modernized thugs, same as they have always been, and getting more powerful daily. They are and have been a major serious threat to the rest of the planet.
The best thing we could do is pull out, make all these stupid global companies just pull the heck out as well, or kick them out, before we are too poor and too far gone into stupid debt, before it is too late to build back up the west's industrial base, the true wealth creation parts of our economies.
That's the main reason we are hurting economically, we let them billionaire traitorous skunks with their despotic allies with their precious "face" swap out our manufacturing for that conman crap about being a "service" economy and emphasizing high stakes casino gambling as some sort of wealth creation "industry". Then they ran that little multi trillion bail out pure extortion racket on top of that!
There's been ZERO quid pro quo budge with them people, no reform inside that nation, no freedoms there except the freedom to be global class crooks, with caveat emptor products, since we handed them the means for wealth creation. All they have done is gone on an around the world grabbing spree, grabing industry after industry, and now raw resource after raw resource, and every time some one dares to point this out, the wall street gangster tools and their chinese mafia brothers cry "protectionism!" BS, they have been "protecting" that cooperating mob gang since day one, it's time for a little more proactive self defense *protection* back.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And one more thing...there was nothing altruistic about what they did in China. Their opportunity to do any such thing passed long ago, when they had the choice of whether or not to hand over information on Chinese dissidents a couple of years back, gave the guys up, then tried to hide behind the veil of "we're only doing what's lawful".
Why do I care about Google contributing to SS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It goes to show how Social Security tax is not only fundamentally flawed but regressive as well. It's a tax that mostly affects everyone except those with high wealth/income.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely. The amount you draw out of SS is proportional to the income you had while you were contributing, so their $1 income (for SS purposes) will result in smaller SS checks when they retire. How small, I couldn't tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so but until the benefits start coming in a few decades down the line, the tax hurts the poor much more than higher incomes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a 23 yr old, neither will I.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless of course they raise the cap on SS by like 10%. In which case it's fine.
Social Security isn't in any great risk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you get this total bullshit? The former Comptroller General, David Walker, has been warning for years now that Social Security and Medicare will start eating us alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs [youtube.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_(U.S._Comptroller_General) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you actually read what he said? It's not "Social Security and Medicare", it's just Medicare. And only Medicare.
And this is because our health care system has such screwed up incentives the costs are spiralling out of control system wide which is driving up the Medicare costs to levels that cannot be supported.
Since our government simply refuses to do anything to get the situation under control it'll what bankrupt us, not Social Security which has been 40 years away from bankruptcy for like the last 50 years (and even if and when the trust fund empties it'll be able to provide along the lines of 90% of the promised benefits).
They're being lumped together for partisan, idological reasons that have nothing to do with the fiscal stability of Social Security.
Re: (Score:2)
Social security has functioned as long as it has because every 10 years or so, the fund is tweaked.
Raise the retirement age a year or two, increase the tax withheld, raise the cap on SS taxable income etc.
Social security tax is running a surplus right now but the vast majority of that is funneled into the federal budget.
Re: (Score:2)
While that was true in the earlier days of the program, the tax rates and benefits have not been adjusted, other than the max income subject to the tax to indexed inflation, since 1983. Even so, only very minor changes might be needed to ensure all the promised benefits are paid out.
Re: (Score:2)
SS and progressive taxation affects qualified workers the most. And the most qualified non-financial workers make an average of less than 1/3M a year, of which half goes away in taxes. Some manage to get a huge cut on their taxes by appearing as societies of two, but most professionals are unable to do that due to the nature of their work.
Thus, when taxes are raised "on the rich", it's your surgeon and not the CEO of the clinic they're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit... they can do that? That would be awesome. Instant 7% salary increase (14% if they pass along their portion).
Re: (Score:2)
Given the inability of Congress to fix social security, neither will anyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. Some school systems (or teacher unions, whatever) are run this way - no SS, in exchange for a guaranteed pension.
Re: (Score:2)
i've worked hard my entire life, and will more then likely NEVER call on social security of any kind. i pay for private health cover as well. seems so unfair that i have to support all these blood suckers on long term welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no.
Capital gains is only 15%, IIRC. Odds are good they'll pay a lower tax rate than the average middle class household, probably by quite a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we should have a VAT, rather than an income tax. A VAT actually taxes wealth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The VAT tax as well as other forms of consumption taxes are inherently regressive in nature. The APT tax may be a better system [wikipedia.org].
Re:Why do I care about Google contributing to SS? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care so much about SS. It's capped anyway, and to within a hand grenades throw you pretty much take out only what you put in.
However, what I don't agree with is them taking $1 and for the most part dodging an income tax. They aren't doing it to save jobs, like the CEO of Vale or Aspen or one of those who did the same thing. For these guys its all PR. The company can afford to pay them. And should. Instead it pays less taxes on that money than if it were on a personal income. All of the things that you and me pay for they are getting for free, or at a lower rate because they have the ability to be compensated in ways that have lower tax rates. It's good to know these guys have policemen and firemen protecting their millions in assets for free. It's good to know that the fighter jets that will protect them from the Chinese were not funded at all by these bozos (yes, a bit of tongue in cheek there but you get the point). These guys are dodging their civic duties for good PR and nothing more.
What they should do is take hte salary and contrinute 100% of it to the national debt, or other charity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I think you should contribute 100% of your wages to me! In other words, it really doesn't matter what you think they should do with their money. It's theirs, not yours.
But seriously, they aren't exactly getting a free ride in regards to public services such as police and fire departments. You have to keep in mind that Google employs tens of thousands of people. People that are earning high wages and paying lots of taxes. So, the founders are paying lots of taxes indirectly by employing thousand
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So now it becomes evil... (Score:2)
We have seen that process over and over...
Re: (Score:2)
Or they may lose their drive/direction and flounder. We have seen that even more times.
Major Cash Flow!!! (Score:4, Funny)
I think China should buy all these shares, then they wouldn't need to hack anything!
Re: (Score:2)
Will this mean there's no "vision" at Google? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google has always appeared to me as a company that was moved by the vision of its founders. While the "do no evil" policy has been... flexible, there has always been a sort of philanthropic, "we get why you hate Microsoft, we want to be different" type of thing with Google.
I wonder how long that will last with the founder no longer in control.
Re: (Score:2)
The founders will pretty much be in control. I don't think it'll end up being, "Well, sir, the shareholders say that we have to eat all these babies because the Chinese are going to pay a million dollars to televise it. So I've brought you some forks and napkins. Bon apetit!"
The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...at a much lower tax rate. [gawker.com]
Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score:4, Informative)
Until Bush's tax cuts expire later this year and Obama doesn't renew them and then NOBODY invests in the stock market because the risk just isn't worth it when 35% of your investment gains are taken away.
I trust Warren Buffet's insight [cnbc.com] more than I trust yours:
I've been around rich people all my life. And I have seen capital gains taxes close to 40 percent. No one went home at 3 in the afternoon and said, "I've worked enough, and because tax rates are so high, I think I'll go to the movies." I mean, people want to maximize their after tax income, and there's two ways to do it: Increase their income, or get Congress to lower the tax rates for them. But I have never seen anybody with capital say, "I'm going on strike. I won't invest." I've been managing capital for 50 years for other people. No one left and said, you know, "The taxation system's too tough. I think I'll just stick it all under my mattress." They can't stick under their mattress. They're going to invest their money regardless.
Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score:4, Informative)
Buffet is a guilty dipshit, he feels bad for being rich. He's also stupid, I don't care how rich he is.
Class A shares in Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet's investment firm) trade for $105,000 apiece. That's 190 times the price of a share of Google stock. I don't care how rich they are, nobody gives that kind of money to someone stupid.
Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
At least that's true for long term gains. Short term gains are ordinary income. So... as we approach the point where people have been holding a stock for more than a year (AFAIK, that's the definition the IRS uses), we get an interesting decision point. This has interesting implications for stocks having rallied off their lows, and this past week's drop in the market may be a manifestation of that since people who bought low in the late '08 crash can now cash out at the lower rate.
Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score:4, Interesting)
...as Warren Buffet has pointed out, our tax system is skewed so that wealthy folks like himself pay an effective tax rate of 17.7% [nytimes.com], while his secretary is taxed at 30%.
Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X%.
This way politicians would have to upset everyone in order to raise taxes and couldn't single out certain groups based on which one is most likely to put up with it (or is unable to vote them out). If they want/need to increase taxes, it must affect ALL of their constituents.
Also, as long as what is taxed is clearly defined, it makes tax codes a LOT simpler. Easier job for the IRS, accountants, employers, and employees.
Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it depends on what you mean by "a flat tax". People pushing the flat tax, like Steve Forbes, have typically been pushing for a flat tax on wage and salary income, but that excludes capital gains entirely. One flat tax of x% for the working schmucks, and another flat tax of 0% for the trust-fund kids like Steve Forbes.
If it were a flat tax that included capital gains, that might have a better chance of going somewhere, but the major flat-tax proponents have not been pushing that. Though even in that case you would have a bunch of entrenched popular deductions that people would try to pull in, like the mortgage-interest deduction, the deduction on money donated to charity, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Steve inherited millions of dollars from his dad, so I'm not sure how you could with a straight face consider him a self-made man. Even his "work" is work that his daddy handed to him, the editorship of Forbes magazine. His daughter Moira also owes her job to the family inheritance--- she's publisher at ForbesLife Executive Women.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X%.
If you need 20k to make ends meet and you get 30k, you won't be happy if the flat rate is 33%.
If you need 40k to make ends meet and you get 100k, you won't be happy if the flat rate is 33%. But at least you'll be able to put away 25k for retirement.
If you need 80k to make ends meet and you get 300k, you won't care if the flat rate is 33%. After all, you still get 120k to invest. After 5 years, you can more than hire a 30k maid just on interests, who still won't be able to make ends meet. {30k spent = 45k in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It'll never happen because the politicians use the tax code for control more than to raise funds.
Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
One reason is a flat tax, just as sales tax, has a more significant impact on the poor. If the tax rate is 10% and you make $100 a weak, the difference between 100 and 90 is pretty significant. If you make 10,000 a weak, the different between 9000 and 10,000 is far less significant. So, a flat tax is "fair" but only from a certain set of principles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's that the poorer you are the greater percentage of your income goes on essentials: housing, food for yourself, your family, clothing, transport, etc.
As you become more wealthy, that percentage lowers, or you have to become greatly excessive in your consumption, gold-plated quails eggs on toast made from wheat rolled between the thighs of supermodels for breakfast every morning, etc. At any rate, it's unessential and so taxing someone to whom a penny has greater value (to them) the same as someon
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate? You make minimum wage? You pay X%. You're lower middle class? You pay the same X%. You're upper class? You pay the sam X%. You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company? You pay the same X%.
There's 2 major problems with this.
The first problem is discretionary income, that is income past what is spent on taxes and living expenses. At the lower incomes most of the income is necessary simply for living. If someone is earning just barely enough for food, shelter, and clothing then a flat percent tax is a killer. Higher incomes have a much larger proportion of discretionary income.
There's a simple answer for this: allow everyone a single deduction based on cost of living for their area. You then ta
Re: (Score:2)
"Can someone please tell me why we just don't move to a simple flat tax rate?"
(Special) Interest Groups. Also known as the voters.
The tax code is used to influence and/or create policy. Want people to own homes? Then create an home loan interest tax deduction (loophole). Want to encourage long term stock ownership? Then create a capital gains tax deduction (loophole). Want to encourage X, Y, and Z. Then create create a deduction (loophole) for X, Y and Z.
Pretty soon any flat tax will look just like o
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the rates that makes the tax code complex (it's like a page of the entire code), it's all the deductions, definitions of taxiable income and what's not that make it so complex.
Most all of the supporters of the "flat tax" want a flat rate, but refuse to get rid of the deductions and non-taxible income sources.
If you want a single rate on all income (wages, salaries, bonuses, capital gains, inheretance) no exceptions, no deductions that's one thing.
Ireland does this quite well with a flat 12.5% tax r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The SS/Medicare comment is pointless (Score:5, Informative)
Um, no [taxfoundation.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Anything over 100,000 or so a year isn't taxed for Medicare/Social security. At ~15% up to 100,000 that's ~15,000 in taxes which to them is a nearly irrelevant sum. As for taxes on their sold shares, I believe that the IRS considers it taxable as capital gains which incurrs a tax of 20% (after the Bush tax cut sunsets)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't taxed for Social Security after $110k (i think, it goes up each year), but it is taxed for Medicare. Medicare doesn't have a cap, you pay a percentage of everything that is "salary".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Er... no. The profits will be taxed as capital gains. The top capital gains rate is 15 percent I believe, and there's no social security or medicare tax on capital gains. So they'll pay tax at a considerably lower rate than someone who works at McDonald's.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except the person paying income tax and FICA may be paying a lower *rate*, but seriously, 15% of $2.5 Billion is 300 Million Dollars. As for there being no SS/Medicare on the capital gains taxes, does that really matter? Money is liquid - like water, it will flow to the lowest point. When Congress starts coming up short of money for SS/Medicare, they will move money around as necessary, I would think. In any case, Congress 'borrowed' money from SS for many years, so it needs all the 'general' tax reve
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I just wish I paid less taxes.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
No. I want the benefits of them starting Google, plus more benefits from them starting Google.
Fixed.
Holy crap! (Score:4, Funny)
They're liquidating their assets and moving to their moonbase!
The real question is - (Score:2, Interesting)
What are they planning to do with the money? Simply kick back and relax? Or now that Google's reached cruising speed, are they likely to be looking around for new challenges?
Terrible (Score:2, Insightful)
I smell a Rat (Score:3, Interesting)
Trouble in China followed by the two principals cashing in stock? Something's going down.
The wave has crested (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all downhill from here. I wouldn't say that Google's endeavors beyond search have been complete failures. I wouldn't call them raging successes either. The time is coming in the next few years when people are going to take a long and hard look at Google's valuation and begin to ask, "Where is the value?"
For all of their side projects and initiatives and ideas, Google seems to be little more than the most successful (so far) advertising resource on the internet. It isn't hard to imagine Google holding onto their lead in search, and that will continue to generate revenue for them. Beyond that, what are they really going to do that justifies their $500+ per share stock price? Cellphones, netbooks, tablets? Google Apps?
SEC filing does not = selling (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, people but large shareholders file SEC notices like this all the time, but that does not obligate them to sell. It just allows them the option to sell.
They will still be in voting control (Score:3, Informative)
So their share of Google, between the two of them, falls below 50%.
Unless it falls significantly below 50%, a wide array of other parties would have to be in agreement, and against them, for them to not have control. Unless they start screwing up, that is unlikely to occur.
Re:BFD (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more so, it seems like Google has been doing some huge changes lately (maybe pulling out of china, android for mobile phones, photographing every street on the planet, current "main guys" and owners starting to sell shares).
Remember that their current stance on privacy (and especially their datamining everywhere) doesn't tell anything how the company will be ran in future. It's even more worry some when the 'geeky' owners sell their shares and leave control to business people.
Re:BFD (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet the Chinese Government are buying those shares (and the voting rights attached to them) as fast as they can. People said Larry and Sergei were crazy pissing them off but maybe it's all part of the plan.
Re:BFD (Score:5, Funny)
I bet the Chinese Government are buying those shares (and the voting rights attached to them) as fast as they can. People said Larry and Sergei were crazy pissing them off but maybe it's all part of the plan.
That's just paranoia! This is what is really happening...
As they sell their shares, other mutual funds and pension funds will buy the stock as "investments" - those mutual funds and pensions won't be really well known. It'll be something like the Virginia Government Employee Retirement Fund or what have you. Now, those funds would be managed by a company that's called, the Center Investing Authority - let's say. Now that company is actually a shell company based in the Cayman Islands. Their agents in the Caymans would be Guido Catelloni, Fettuccine Alfredo and Jose Paco Horowitz. Of course, it's really a ruse. Since the true owners are in Iceland. So, you have Igottafatdottir as being the power behind the Cayman name, Now, you'd think that that money was stolen from the current Icelandic financial crisis. Nope! the money actually came from Italy. You see the Cayman Island guys are actually the real guys BUT they're Jesuit priests! That's right! The Catholic Church is buying up Google and pinning it on the Chinese. Why is the Catholics buying Google? Why to launder all that treasure from the Crusades!
See, you're theory is just too far fetched, as for mine, well, there's a couple of millennia of history to back it up.
Re:BFD (Score:4, Funny)
Dan Brown posts to slashdot!?
I gotta admit that was a compelling little narrative.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"by Anonymous Coward" is an anagram for "Dan Brown yoyoma suc"
just saying
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The class B shares that L&S own, which have 10x the voting power of class A (regular) shares, convert to class A shares when they sell. Nobody else can use a sale like this to grab a disproportionate share of control over the company.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Google's Android's market share compares well with Apple's iPhone [computerworld.com]
And that's from May, as in before the Droid hit the market.
Better Link (Score:4, Informative)
They went from 1% to 16% in a year.
Re:Escape before they go Enron crazy! (Score:4, Insightful)
If my salary was $1 and I had over a billion in stocks you best believe I'd be cashing some of it out....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't we get real for a minute? If these guys were forced to live like they only earned $1 I would agree with you completely. They own the company you moron! They can pay themselves whatever they want without selling the stock. They can also buy anything they want in the name of Google and not pay any taxes on it.
I want to live in your fantasy world. Its 10-25 in federal resort prison for what you just described.
Re: (Score:2)
Boo! That's not why we have Google. There are a billion companies which will do that for you. Google the company for fantasizing about space elevators and still managing to be insanely profitable in their spare time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It is about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Maybe now the company will stop wasting money on projects with a shit ROI and return some of the profits to shareholders in the form of dividends."
I totally agree. Microsoft has been gouging investors for years.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the mods marking parent interesting instead of funny? I presume he was being sarcastic.
Phillip.