HBR – the Center of Brutalistic Capitalism
For a while, Harvard was going to tap into the educational aid relief that was in one of the CARES packages offered by Congress despite having the wealthiest university endowment of roughly $40 or $41 billion dollars. Now, I don’t know how these endowments work so I regarded them as funds for a rainy day to dip into when things get rough and this pandemic certainly qualifies as a rainy day... a very rainy day. So, it seemed like an obscenity to hold out their hands for money when they already have a very rich rainy-day fund.
I had to do some research to find out more about endowments as I’m woefully ill-informed and it turns out that universities do not get free reign on how they spend the endowment money: the donors have put some stipulations on how to spend and where. For Harvard, there is a stipulation, one of many, that the fund (or funds) have enough money in perpetuity and provide enough returns for the future, if I’m understanding it correctly. That could be a huge hurdle and I thought, okay, that could be why Harvard felt they needed the $9 million.
Harvard apparently spends roughly 5% of the endowment so it comes to roughly $2 billion for the current year. The school was going to get about $9 million in federal aid, about .45% of their $2 billion spend – a nothing burger in the scheme of things. Oh well, I guess every bit of penny counts.
One news organization did a deeper dive last year into the endowment and the spending of it, and the news organization found that roughly 30% of the spending was “flexible” spending, sounding like there is some flexibility in using the endowment. To me, it suggests that 30% (which comes to $900 million of the $2 billion spend) could be “redirected” to whatever the current pandemic needs are today. It sounds like they have the money for the current crisis.
Fortunately, there were enough pushback from society and the president that Harvard decided to reject the aid. Originally, they were going to keep their hands out because they were claiming that the aid did not come from the PPP (Paycheck Protection Plan) which was geared towards small businesses but the money was coming from the educational fund. But when the president chimed in on the pushback, it seemed like Harvard capitulated and pulled back in their hands. A wise move because that $9 million can be redirected to other smaller higher education schools that do not have that wealth. That money might just save a few universities from going under during this period.
This is one of the rare instances where the president did some good.
But we must remember, the mindset Harvard brought to bear during this bruhaha is illustrative of the brutalistic capitalist mindset: grab everything you can because you can and greed is good. (Okay, brutalistic is a made-up word but it’s evocative of what our capitalism feels like today.) Harvard University has the Harvard Business School where all the titans of companies are birthed and seeded throughout the world. How the university behaved is just a microcosm of how CEOs, hedge fund managers, private equity managers behaved for the last 40 years when they strode around the world, vacuuming up the money, under the guise of shareholder value.
To change capitalism, we need to change Harvard Business School. I don’t know how – maybe replace the professors with those focusing on social capitalism or stakeholder capitalism, but HBR needs to change in order for our business environment to change.
Thoughts on Coronavirus
HBR was not the only institution looking greedy; there were some stories about companies pigging out at the trough, especially large corporations getting PPP aid that was really slated for small businesses. Here's an article from New York Times that provides examples of large corporations that for a couple of years used the tax cuts of 2017 to buy back stocks rather than do some investments or other smart strategic moves. Now, they are coming to the government saying, "Hey, we need some bailout assistance."
This is obscene.
I want to pay special attention to a paragraph about shareholders:
Still, the crisis has exposed the potential failings of a strategy embraced by many big companies: aligning their priorities with the interests of shareholders, many of whom are narrowly focused on the performance of a company’s shares. Shareholders, wanting stock prices to go higher, pushed management to use up cash on buybacks and dividends. And senior executives, paid largely in stock and on the basis of how the stock performed, were happy to oblige. The result was that companies often didn’t have much spare cash, leaving them even more exposed to economic downturns.
I have always felt shareholders were a huge part of our problem with capitalism. CEOs are pressured to take short term actions that may bode ill for the long term because shareholders are constantly asking for their quarterly numbers. It's all about the bottom line for the shareholders and has been for a long time. Stock prices shoot up when corporations announce mass layoffs? That alone shows shareholders do not care about societal impact of such layoffs. Turning of a blind eye when a corporation meets its stock price goals quarter after quarter, years after years? Shareholders aren't interested in digging deeper into the numbers because it's all about getting what they can now.
Who are the shareholders? Are shareholders composed of a lot of average Americans or are shareholders really mainly the wealthy such as hedge fund managers and private equity investors with inside track. That has been a question in my mind for many years because in theory, the average American is able to participate in the stock market and therefore, a lot of Americans, in theory, are shareholders. But...but...but...I found that hard to believe. In order to invest you would have to have the money to theoretically lose and still be able to pay your daily living expenses. You have to be comfortable of losing whatever earnings you got. I suspected most Americans did not have that luxury of theoretically losing their money in the stock market; the money just wasn't there. The other element was you would have to have an inside relationship with those handling your money and stocks, and my feeling was Wall Street looks out for Wall Street and the wealthy, not the average Americans. So I always struggled with who were the shareholders.
Then a couple of years ago, I read somewhere that the top 10% owned 93% of the shares and the top 1% owned 53%. Ding ding ding ding ding… now that makes more sense. In the past year or so, I have been reading similar statistics that the wealthy owns most of the stocks.
So yes, shareholders are a HUGE part of our problem.
You must be logged in to post a comment.