Consider two recent events. On December 2nd, Intel’s directors fired unfortunate CEO Pat Gelsinger. He has put $150 billion in shareholder value in his three and a half years tenure at chip makers, even if the fate of all other chip companies is boosted by the White Hot demand for computing power within artificial intelligence. I torched it (ai) revolution. Then a good reddance. But what took the board so long?
On the same day, a Delaware judge reaffirmed the verdict from January and voided the eye-opening $560 billion compensation package awarded in 2018. This decision is controversial. Tesla shareholders have been making it recently thanks to the rising shares in the company. On June 75, 75% of them voted to celebrate Mega Paischek (and moved the company’s establishment from Delaware to management-friendly Texas). Tesla calls its latest ruling “wrong” and files an appeal. Still, Imbroglio reminds me that, in the judge’s opinion, the conceptually independent oversight of Tesla, which he registered in Musk’s Wind drop.
Intel and Tesla represent two ways that the board fails its obligation to represent investors and take management into consideration. Tesla’s case is the overseer of the mercy of a dominant person, even if it may mean that both ignore their whim, like the ruling shareholder, the CEO of the Empire, or Mr Musk. It shows that it has a strong incentive to make whimsical. . Similarly, as may have happened with Intel, a completely independent director may lack sufficient incentives to care for. Either way, the outcome appears to be a blurry passivity.
Certain features of American capitalism exacerbate both problems. Initially, more companies are publicly available with a ownership structure in which some shares are equal to others. Jay Ritter of the University of Florida holds a tally of companies that choose such dual-class stocks. When Google became famous 20 years ago, they were unusual. In the 2000s, they accounted for less than one in ten first public figures on American exchanges. Over the past five years, they have made up more than a quarter, and almost half of the high-tech IPOs from Airbnb to Zoom.
The dual-class arrangement appeals to founders who can receive money from the open market but who will not give up control. Investors were once questionable. After social media company SNAP sold its shares without voting rights in 2017, some of them persuaded the index compiler S&P Dow Jones, and multiples of the Blue-chip S&P 500 and its sisters. They persuaded them to ban new arrivals, including stock classes.
Since then, many have been experiencing heart changes and have been undoubtedly impressed by the value of the dual-class Darling Trill-dollar markets, including the Alphabet, Berkshire Hathaway and Meta. The same goes for S&P Dow Jones. In January, Musk meditated on adopting a structure at Tesla. Clearly, it is revealed from fear that only 13% of his shares are vulnerable to being “voted by a company that uses random shareholders.”
Investors may be right to conclude that only heroic entrepreneurs can lead a company to greatness. But they should not have the illusions that arise as a result of the exclusion of representatives in the boardroom. This is easier to swallow when the return is healthy than when it is healthy. Ask shareholders about SNAP. This is worth a third of today’s worth more than an IPO.
The rise of directors removed coincides with the oversight of the absentees. Most of them physically exist in board meetings, but like Intel, it seems too many people are freed. In the latest annual survey by consulting firm PWC, only 30% of executives rated board performance as good or excellent. I thought the fifth was poor. In most cases, 84% of executives did not believe that the director had stepped over the boundaries between themselves and management. In many cases, this is exactly what the Vigilance Committee should do.
One reason for the release of directors may be overcommitment. This has been cruelly exposed by Covid-19. This is not about seven weeks, but when boards are frequently called up each week. The subsequent backlash against “overboarding” forced many directors to split their time into fewer companies. The typical busy S&P 500 director sits on two manageable boards in a non-pandemic era. As the world becomes more complicated, onboard duties.
Director’s radar
Companies also find it difficult to recruit heavy hitters who don’t nod. Headhunters recall that CEOs, mostly white and male bundles, were favoured several years ago for increasing diversity. “This is the only thing companies want.” Many don’t get it because the share of active or former top executives on S&P 500 boards has declined over the past few years.
There is no perfect board recipe. However, some ingredients may make them better. Lucien Bevchuk of Harvard Law School proposes a “enhanced independence” director. Dismissal by that mandatory boss may be denied by minority shareholders. Versions of this exist in the UK and Israel. Returns are the eldest son of Expedia, an S&P company with a wider age range, and is probably 55 years older than AI billionaire Alex Wang.
Economist subscribers can sign up for our new opinion newsletter. This can connect the best leaders, columns, guest essays and reader communications.
©2025, The Economist Newspaper Limited. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited. From an economist published under license. Original content is available at www.economist.com
