All animals are equal<\/a>, and all.) While it started as an effort to build libraries and inoculate the poor, the Gates Foundation has since drifted into the wokest of territories, with Gates calling for (others to achieve) net-zero carbon, reliance on lab-grown meat, and the rest of the leftwing litany.<\/p>\nPresumably the Foundation did not make this investment because it believes that the advancement of alcohol is central to its mission. (Truly, though: just about the only way to achieve \u201cequity,\u201d or equalities of outcome for everyone who doesn\u2019t go to Davos, would be to keep everybody absolutely hammered all of the time, so that skill and effort and engagement become irrelevant.) Of course, this doesn\u2019t by itself make the purchase legally suspect: charitable foundations are free to invest for highest return in order to maximize the amount of income they can dedicate to their charitable purposes.<\/p>\n
There is reason to doubt, though, that this was an investment made with an eye toward maximum returns. It has already resulted in a six percent loss, and seems unlikely to outperform later on, as the industry seems to agree (as does basic recourse to human nature) that A-B\u2019s woke-fire losses are pretty permanent. Meanwhile, it hardly strains credibility to see in this purchase a different direct relationship to the Foundation\u2019s leftwing purposes.<\/p>\n
From the woke point of view, the investment serves two purposes: it helps (at least somewhat) to prop up A-B\u2019s stock price, thus partially camouflaging the full extent of the damage caused by A-B\u2019s dumb dance with extreme partisanship. And it at least notionally provides another $100 million worth of argument in favor of A-B keeping the woke course despite the now-unquestionable fact that leftwing politics and light beer are a noxious cocktail.<\/p>\n
The first purpose would be just fine for private investors: if they want to lose money to hide market effects, more power to them: lose away. As long as the investment can\u2019t change a company\u2019s performance, only the irrational investor loses. For a charitable foundation, the question is different; it would be interesting to look at the charitable purposes for which the Foundation was formed and under which grants to it have been made. Might Warren Buffett have reason to object to such money-losing skullduggery?<\/p>\n
The second purpose, though, is a genuine problem, one that illustrates why corporate law \u2013 and any honest theory of genuine capitalism \u2013 requires that corporate executives and directors dedicate their fidelity and owe their fiduciary duty not to any specific investor, but to a non-partisan, neutral, putative \u201creasonable investor\u201d whose goal is to make the most possible money from his investment over reasonably foreseeable time horizons given unbiased, objective, and competently established assumptions.<\/p>\n
If a large shareholder could purchase a stake in a company and pressure the directors and executives to run the company into the ground in order to achieve unrelated political or social ends, then genuine malefactors of great wealth could set out to hobble the national economy by making fractional investments in a wide swath of publicly traded companies in order to make them uncompetitive in world commerce.<\/p>\n
Owners of giant companies \u2013 big players in various fields \u2013 could buy significant minority stakes in smaller publicly traded competitors and then pressure them either to shift their efforts into different fields or adopt standards and practices that will make them uncompetitive. Would-be plutocrats could position themselves so as to be able to force companies to hire and promote on grounds other than individual performance, thus kneecapping the companies and driving opportunities away from any groups that the plutocrats disfavor.<\/p>\n
The result would be to eliminate the ability of smaller capitalists \u2013 whose assets, though smaller, are just as much\u00a0theirs<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 would be unable to invest coherently and to have the same opportunities to rise in the world that those plutocrats themselves did. This is antithetical to true capitalism; it turns the markets into a game rigged by and for the currently rich and affords them the opportunity to establish themselves as a permanent class of nobility. It must also be antithetical to anyone \u2013 or any Foundation \u2013 that honestly thinks that \u201call lives have equal value.\u201d<\/p>\nThen again, some animals are more equal than others. Just ask Bill.<\/p>\n
Scott Shepard<\/a> is a fellow at the\u00a0<\/em> National Center for Public Policy Research<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and Director of its\u00a0<\/em>Free Enterprise Project<\/em><\/a>. This was first published at RealClearMarkets<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In an op-ed published by RealClearMarkets, Free Enterprise Project Director Scott Shepard uses the Gates Foundation’s massive purchase of Anheuser-Busch InBev (A-B) stock to explain why true capitalism — as opposed to c-suite insurrectionism — requires that fiduciary duty run to a neutral, objective reasonable…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":45271,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,30,655],"tags":[712],"yoast_head":"\n
Scott Shepard: Companies Should Prioritize Profits of Everyday Investors Over the Whims of Bill Gates & His Buddies - The National Center<\/title>\n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n