Eric Jackson

7 Steps Towards Real Free Market Capitalism

Appreciate all the comments. Several have said that "real" free market capitalism would have no government involvement.

First, I don't believe that either Friedman or Rand would agree with that.

See this clip of Ayn Rand and Mike Wallace from 1959 (the business/free market aspects are in the 2nd clip of the interview):

www.youtube.com/watch?...

Wallace specifically asks her if all she cares about is protecting the "robber baron" (i.e., monopolist or oligopolist) capitalists. She clearly says she doesn't want to see monopolies and is favor of breaking them up. She also, of course, played an influential role in the 1st term of the Reagan administration when they (among other things) broker up Ma Bell.

I am not she wouldn't have supported keeping Glass-Steagall or breaking up TBTF.

Friedman and Rand clearly saw a role for govt for police, defense, and our legal system. Clearly, an extension of those agencies would touch business. After all, why else would she support the break-up of AT&T?

But let's all -- as proponents of free markets -- think for ourselves instead of only speculating about what Rand would have thought. After the last 2 years, to me, it's clear that government's primary role in relation to the free market is to set and enforce the "rules of the game" such that the entire game isn't at risk of stopping... as it almost did last year.

Rules of the game means preventing monopolies that inhibit choice. It means -- to me, and I don't care what Friedman or Greenspan used to thing -- you prosecute no-talent fund managers who cheat their investors by illegally trading on insider information. It means giving shareholders -- the true owners of the corporation -- the right and freedom to toss out under-performance directors.

The government -- again my view -- shouldn't be setting pay, deciding that Bear should get bought and Lehman should go under.

Strong "rules of the game" set and enforced by the government allows 'real" free market capitalism -- and would also remove crony capitalists from their comfy perches.

HP's Executive Comp Is Troubling in a Year of Worker Pay Cuts

Jedimon:

I'm as big a free market capitalist as you can find. But, what's going on at HP isn't free market capitalism -- it's crony capitalism, slipping by big pay and perks past unsuspecting shareholders when performance has been poor. Remember the stock is down 5% in the last 2 years.

All the credit for turning this company around 4 years ago, which revived the stock. The senior execs deserve their due and pay for their part in that. My point is that story ended 2 years ago. HP is now an average company (as far as the last 2 years go) -- which looks much better thanks to Dell's stumbles. Therefore, as a recently average performing company, its execs should be paid accordingly and perks should be ended.

Yahoo CEO Bartz Has a Lot of Explaining to Do

Achates:

I've read through your other comments on Seeking Alpha. It appears that you are one of the most loyal Yahoo! employees ever. According to you, no Yahoo! executive has ever done anything wrong. You're the anti-Garlinghouse. I don't expect to change your mind.

I hope that for your sake and your fellow Yahoo!s that Carol is successful (although it will be more than her responsible, so she should cool it with the 'my, my, my, me, me, I, I, I" talk).

I'm glad she's a good negotiator and you and others are right that the Board's Comp Committee deserves the most blame here. However, I can't imagine why you think it's a good thing that you -- and your fellow employee shareholders -- cover the $150,000 bill for her advisors who helped her be such a good negotiator in getting your (the shareholders') money.

Why Did Yahoo's Carol Bartz Use Shareholders' Money to Pay Taxes?

@achates

I completely disagree with you. It is common for many lower level employees to choose to do what you did with your RSUs. I understand that. It is very uncommon for someone of Bartz' wealth to make that choice. Show me otherwise.

She had to make a choice on how to pay the tax bill: from her own funds or from selling the RSU YHOO stock. The first option would have been relatively easy for her. Instead of selling some of her Disney stock (or whatever holdings she possesses including cash), she decided to sell YHOO stock.

It's either because (a) she thought DIS was a going to do better in the long-term than YHOO or (b) she saw it as the shareholders' responsibility to pay this bill out of this grant she was getting. I'm sure she knew she how to negotiate to gross-up the amount she was getting as part of her make-up grant so that it would be the shareholders paying the tax bill not her. She also negotiated to get YHOO shareholders to pay $150,000 to the financial advisory firm that she used to negotiate her employment contract. $150k advisors know gross-ups.

Whatever her reasoning, the fact remains she sold $2mm in YHOO stock in the first year and we'll see what she does in September and December. She then goes on TV and says she "didn't sell anything" and that she "reacquired" the shares. I missed that in her Form 4 filings with the SEC which only mentioned a "disposal" of $2mm in stock. Why she would make these statements last Thursday really puzzles me.

It's wrong what she did and sends the signal that she doesn't want to keep every single YHOO share she can get her hands on. What's the difference when your expected total comp for 4 years of work will be $187mm -- and that's with low-risk, bump along performance, not shoot-the-lights-out performance?

She should fix it by going out tomorrow and putting a significant amount of her own capital -- $20mm -- at risk by buying open-market shares. Let her make her millions, but put some skin in the game.

Yahoo!: Do The Right Thing for Your Shareholders with Taobao and AliPay

Yes, they sought to stay independent to unlock value. Yet, they sold off Overture Japan (doing $396 mm a year in revenues) for $13mm. They've yet to provide a credible explanation for that. Shareholders and the press didn't notice or bat an eye. They cannot be allowed to give sweet-heart deals to friends.

Yahoo!: Do The Right Thing for Your Shareholders with Taobao and AliPay

They get away with it because shareholders do not raise their voice to it and the topic has been ignored by the press and Wall Street analysts. If shareholders don't speak up for ourselves, no one will.