Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

    Halsey Minor
    CNET Founder, Entrepreneur and Investor
    Posted: June 15, 2010 03:48 PM

    The Risk of Eliminating Risk

    Corporate America has been good to me. Over the past 20 years, I've made hundreds of millions of dollars in innovative tech companies I either launched or financed -- including CNET, Salesforce.com and the service now called Google Voice.

    But over those same two decades I've grown disgusted by what corporate America has become. Several words come to mind: venal, corrupt, conniving, irresponsible, unaccountable, amoral. All are accurate, but none alone captures the extent of decay that has left us with a truly rotten system.

    Corporations have mutated from organizations that once generated jobs, products and prosperity for the country into voracious, impenetrable monsters legally required to put their own selfish interests first. The result: Corporations now enjoy powers and privileges historically reserved for monarchs, and, like monarchs, the people who run them are largely insulated from the consequences of their actions.

    Let me give you a personal example. I recently won an $8.57-million court judgment against the auction house Christie's. The jury found Christie's guilty of fraud, among other things, because it refused to return artwork it failed to sell on my behalf.

    Fraud is serious. If a jury had found me guilty of fraud, I'd probably be sent to jail and it would stick with me for the rest of my life. I would be ruined. For Christie's, whose namesake founder has been dead for hundreds of years, it's just a cost of doing business. No one from Christie's will endure any serious consequence because they are protected by a cloak of corporate immunity and obfuscation.

    Corporate law makes it so Christie's, a faceless legal entity, is responsible rather than the individual human beings who actually committed the offense. It's the same for many of the corporate banks and financial institutions that brought the global economy to the brink of ruin -- and now are reaping record profits while millions of ordinary Americans remain out of work, struggling to make ends meet and in danger of losing their homes.

    I appreciate that few Americans would consider me a "little guy," but when dealing with ossified and entitled corporate infrastructures, we're all little guys. Anyone who has tried to argue with their insurance company or renegotiate their mortgage comes away with the distinct feeling that the deck is stacked against them.

    It is.

    And it's getting worse.

    Just look at the oil washing ashore on the Gulf Coast. Despite appropriately contrite statements from BP executives, the past may be a more telling predictor of what lies ahead. More than two decades after the devastating Exxon Valdez spill, just one person -- the captain of the ship -- has faced criminal prosecution. For its part, Exxon and its army of lawyers repeatedly appealed punitive judgments against the corporation.

    Thousands of the original plaintiffs who sued Exxon died before they collected compensation. The corporation meanwhile lives on, and quite profitably: the $507.5 million Exxon was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to pay in 2008 represented a measly 1.1% of that year's profit.

    Already, residents and business owners along the Gulf Coast are discovering that there are definite limits to BP's public promises to make whole those affected by the oil spill.

    To be sure, the concept of limited liability is an important part of corporate law and a key driver of 20th Century progress. It encourages responsible risk and promotes innovation, which necessarily requires failure. And it provides investors funding new ventures with the assurance that failure will wipe out only their investment, not their entire net worth.

    But we have moved beyond limited liability to an era of almost no liability.

    "It makes sense to protect the shareholder; it doesn't make sense to protect the managers," Joel Bakan told me recently. Bakan is a professor and author of The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, a compelling and sometimes frightening look at the rise of corporations.

    In the five years since Bakan's book was published, corporations have grown even more powerful and irresponsible, as the financial crisis demonstrated. When the federal government stepped in to prop up institutions it deemed "too big to fail," it created a collusive environment not seen since World War II.

    This time, the threat was not to democracy and freedom, but to an entirely undemocratic corporate system in which the guys at the top play by their own rules -- and, even then, ignore them.

    It's time to impose new rules.

    Let's start by removing the broad legal shield individual corporate employees hide behind -- and subject them to the same laws as the rest of us. In California, I can be fined as much as $25,000 if I throw batteries out with the trash. Yet when Wal-Mart agrees to pay $27.6 million because its employees dumped toxic chemicals at hundreds of stores, the corporate entity pays the fine, issues a blanket corporate apology and moves on with a corporate promise to do better next time.

    Instead, individual employees and managers -- all the way up to the CEO -- must answer when they screw up in the same way they are rewarded when they succeed. The threat of public prosecution can be a powerful check on the corporate culture of pathological recklessness that is rapidly devouring America. Only then will we see companies pursuing profit responsibly and ethically -- recalling cars before people are killed, bolstering safety before a mine explodes or accurately calculating risk before a financial instrument melts down.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/halsey..._b_611744.html

  • #2
    Re: Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

    Thanks, Chomsky, good read. Minor could have added that large corporations also shield themselves from start-up competition by a wall of designed-to-be prohibitively expensive regulations, despite the all-regs-are bad propaganda mantra by the corporate MSM.

    This would be a good thread to list all the trump hole cards held by these banditos.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

      Sounds nice, but keep in mind Minor has an axe he's grinding: besides the lawsuit with Christie's (and Sotheby's, and Merrill Lynch), his venture firm Minor Ventures owes the California Franchise Tax Board $13M

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=61212

      Last time we checked in with Cnet co-founder Halsey Minor, once crowned the "The Baddest Boy in Silicon Valley," he was facing about $60 million in lawsuits from the likes of Sotheby's, Christie's and Merrill Lynch.
      Minor, who, as far as we know, is still associated with the eponymously named Minor Ventures, a San Francisco VC firm, now has another pursuer: the state Franchise Tax Board, to whom he and his wife, Shannon Minor, owe a cool $13,120,479.39 in income tax.
      Add "baddest delinquent in the state of California" -- by far -- to Minor's personal awards. Coming in second on the tax board's scofflaw list is a southern California entity named, appropriately, Asset Liquidation Group Inc., owing a mere $8,349,084.20 in back taxes. Bronze medal goes to Orinda resident Mark C. Yurgelevic, facing a tax lien of $7,404,749.68.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

        Agreed. I've met Mr. Minor -- total jerk. But he's in the right in this piece, IMO.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

          Citing pristine sources is a bitch.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

            Originally posted by Chomsky View Post
            Let's start by removing the broad legal shield individual corporate employees hide behind -- and subject them to the same laws as the rest of us....
            Instead, individual employees and managers -- all the way up to the CEO -- must answer when they screw up in the same way they are rewarded when they succeed.
            This is a nice sentiment, and there might be ways to carefully implement something like this in a limited way that wouldn't kill off free enterprise. But who would take the risk of working as a manager at a company if you could personally be sued and imprisoned for things that go wrong?

            Consider a complicated product like a car - a Ford Pinto, for example. Hundreds of sub-assemblies, thousands of components interacting in various ways. You may be working on the fuel tank design and believe that the design is perfectly adequate. Someone else is working on the rear axle design and thinks it's perfectly adequate. But when yet someone else designs the fuel tank to go behind the axle, it turns out that if the car is hit from behind just right, it can explode into flames. Are you going to be sued because you designed the fuel tank, even though you didn't have a say about where it was placed? (This is all hypothetical.) Even if they eventually found you innocent, you would have had to pay for a lawyer and go through the uncertainty of whether a jury would decide you were responsible anyway. Who would want to get involved with any very complicated or potentially dangerous product if they might be thrown in prison? I predict that the result of passing legislation like this would be a drastic blow to the competitiveness of our industry.

            Again, there may be ways to fine-tune the system to improve it. But our prosperity is to a large extent due to people feeling safe to take risks because of the corporate shield. I think that if everything were put in a balance, it would show we have benefitted from the corporate shield many many times more than the price we have paid...and there's almost always a price to pay.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

              Ok, then how about any corporation found guilty of criminal wrongdoing has its charter revoked permanently?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

                The answer lies in the fact that we are not operating a free market for capital; instead, we are operating in a classic feudal mercantile economy where competition is suppressed. What we need is a large number of free enterprise companies, where the manager owns the business. Then, you have a ready mechanism to bring the culprits to answer for their mistakes and dodgy dealings. Used to be so, but now you cannot get the capital unless you play their game.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

                  This was a brilliantly written essay. Completely in line with my own personal philosophy.

                  I can't agree that a "broad legal shield" is the answer however.

                  The entire issue is with Corporate accounting more than anything else. As long as the rewards for "risk" are improperly shared amongst all those who bare it, and corporations can unjustly profit by gleaning the spoils from risks they do not share, any form of private enterprise is going to behave as our modern corporate vultures do. The answer is to properly "price" all externalized risks, bring them onto the balance sheet, and share revenue from those risks with all risk taking parties. It is the "externalities" that most corrupt the fair accounting of risk.

                  In tandem, corporate charters need to be universally modified to include all risk. The one size fits all carbon copy corporate charter no longer serves the complexity of our business world, and a "stratified" corporate hierarchy of charters should be introduced that limits the operating mandate of each Corp individually.

                  By mandating customized corporate charters that respect the values of the community as a whole, and fairly shareing the rewrds of risk taking by the enterprise, we can go a long way towards reigning in a corporate Frankenstein that is clearly out of our control.

                  This is a subject of deep interest to me, and I have done quite a bit of writing on it. By way of a cheap, shameless plug, I do go on and on about it here: Banks: Corporate Bundles of Dismal Joy - and Mislaid Rage

                  "Actually changing the mandate and social responsibility of modern corporations - bringing them into line with the contemporary standards of a vastly different world - at first blush seems simple enough. By law, change the charter, and by accounting practices, change the definition and recognition of costs and expenses. Simply put, legally ensure the returns of commercial activity are allocated to all stakeholders equitably, including the indirect investments made by communities that today we call "externalized costs"."
                  ScreamBucket.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Halsey Minor: The Risk of Eliminating Risk

                    Originally posted by Chomsky View Post
                    Ok, then how about any corporation found guilty of criminal wrongdoing has its charter revoked permanently?
                    Revoked charter? how about a bailout.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X