My take is basically that (a) the projects have been run so independently that there was minimal benefit from being within the same legal entity, (b) organizations with very different legal risk profiles sharing a legal entity requires either excessive caution from some or excessive risk to others, and (c) board oversight is important for nonprofits and overseeing so many independent projects with their own CEOs didnât make sense for part-time volunteer board members.
Iâm curious to what extent these issues are linked to worries about the brandâs reputation, specifically the negative connotations currently associated with the EA brand.
Alphabet was created because investors got tired of Googleâs founders keeping control, and a series of bad financial results gave investors enough power to force the founders to partially cede control.
I think itâs clear that investors would prefer that alphabet further split up into separate companies, e.g. see this Harvard business review article about the founding of Alphabet:
Investors will inevitably push for more. The marketâs response has so far been positive, with the stock price up 6%. And I suspect it will also have a longer-term performance impact, as greater transparency of both its cash flows and investments prompts greater discipline and accountability. But I doubt this move will fully pacify the uneasy investor. While this new organizational form increases transparency, that transparency only further illuminates the disconnect between Alphabetâs various businesses. It simply highlights the question of why the various businesses are bundled together. Investors are still buying the whole collection of projects, only now theyâll be able to see clearly just how much search advertising is subsidizing the rest.
This is a very good point, when huge companies get split the stock usually rises.
When Alibaba was forced to split into six separate groups the stock went up 10%. Please someone correct me if Iâm wrong, but if I remember correctly when Standard Oil split into 43 companies the combined stocks also appreciated a lot.
Quick flag that this is mixed evidence for âEA organizations should be very smallâ.
First, this focuses on gigantic organizations. Alphabet has around 190k employees now, ~60k in 2015 when it âsplitâ. https://ââwww.macrotrends.net/ââstocks/ââcharts/ââGOOG/ââalphabet/âânumber-of-employees. I believe we have more information about mergers and acquisitions than we do companies splitting up, and there I think things seem more favorable. (My impression is that companies often do more M&A than investors would want, but there are definitely some cases where itâs a good fit for both executives and investors.)
Second, I believe one big reason why the stock market prefers large companies be split up is because that way they could invest less in the parts that funders donât like. In the case of Alphabet, I believe the executives were spending a lot of money on non-search products that investors would have rather been shut down. Iâm not sure how much this applies to the nonprofit case, at least in worlds where funders have a lot of control.
I havenât looked at Alphabet specifically, but generally similar corps are holding companies. They are the sole shareholder in their subsidiaries, which are legally distinct corporations in their own right. Basically, as long as proper formalities are observed and the subsidiaries arenât alter egos of the holding company, shareholders enjoy protection from corporate liabilities.
That model probably wouldnât work for an org like EVâmaking all the orgs sufficiently independent to not be alter egos of EV would largely defeat the whole point of centralization in the first place.
Iâm not entirely convinced it doesnât! But I think the biggest difference there is that the other companies under the alphabet umbrella benefit a lot from their connection with Google for (a) money, which works very differently from a non-profit, and (b) technology, where being able to use internal tech helps a lot in a way I donât see analogs for within EV.
Iâm curious to what extent these issues are linked to worries about the brandâs reputation, specifically the negative connotations currently associated with the EA brand.
I doubt thatâs much of it: at least the largest orgs spinning off (CEA, 80k, GWWC) are explicitly EA branded.
My take is basically that (a) the projects have been run so independently that there was minimal benefit from being within the same legal entity, (b) organizations with very different legal risk profiles sharing a legal entity requires either excessive caution from some or excessive risk to others, and (c) board oversight is important for nonprofits and overseeing so many independent projects with their own CEOs didnât make sense for part-time volunteer board members.
(Also seconding Elizabethâs post.)
Why wouldnât the same apply to Alphabet?
Iâm curious to what extent these issues are linked to worries about the brandâs reputation, specifically the negative connotations currently associated with the EA brand.
Alphabet was created because investors got tired of Googleâs founders keeping control, and a series of bad financial results gave investors enough power to force the founders to partially cede control.
I think itâs clear that investors would prefer that alphabet further split up into separate companies, e.g. see this Harvard business review article about the founding of Alphabet:
This is a very good point, when huge companies get split the stock usually rises.
When Alibaba was forced to split into six separate groups the stock went up 10%. Please someone correct me if Iâm wrong, but if I remember correctly when Standard Oil split into 43 companies the combined stocks also appreciated a lot.
Quick flag that this is mixed evidence for âEA organizations should be very smallâ.
First, this focuses on gigantic organizations. Alphabet has around 190k employees now, ~60k in 2015 when it âsplitâ. https://ââwww.macrotrends.net/ââstocks/ââcharts/ââGOOG/ââalphabet/âânumber-of-employees. I believe we have more information about mergers and acquisitions than we do companies splitting up, and there I think things seem more favorable. (My impression is that companies often do more M&A than investors would want, but there are definitely some cases where itâs a good fit for both executives and investors.)
Second, I believe one big reason why the stock market prefers large companies be split up is because that way they could invest less in the parts that funders donât like. In the case of Alphabet, I believe the executives were spending a lot of money on non-search products that investors would have rather been shut down. Iâm not sure how much this applies to the nonprofit case, at least in worlds where funders have a lot of control.
I agree, if anything data in the for-profit world probably updates me against very-small-sized companies being optimal.
That argument just doesnât go all the way to trillion dollar behemoths like I thought.
In the non-profit world, GiveWellâs top charities seem to have very different team sizes, so maybe we just canât say much with generality.
I havenât looked at Alphabet specifically, but generally similar corps are holding companies. They are the sole shareholder in their subsidiaries, which are legally distinct corporations in their own right. Basically, as long as proper formalities are observed and the subsidiaries arenât alter egos of the holding company, shareholders enjoy protection from corporate liabilities.
That model probably wouldnât work for an org like EVâmaking all the orgs sufficiently independent to not be alter egos of EV would largely defeat the whole point of centralization in the first place.
Iâm not entirely convinced it doesnât! But I think the biggest difference there is that the other companies under the alphabet umbrella benefit a lot from their connection with Google for (a) money, which works very differently from a non-profit, and (b) technology, where being able to use internal tech helps a lot in a way I donât see analogs for within EV.
I doubt thatâs much of it: at least the largest orgs spinning off (CEA, 80k, GWWC) are explicitly EA branded.
Why would for-profit and non-profit be the same?