Do Car-pool lanes waste time?

We have decades of "burning issues" which are taught with religious fervour and then fade away as the science changes.
I recently watched a video of Bobby Kennedy telling a classroom of fresh faced children that pollution was so bad that within 10 years they would be wearing masks and having to live underground - really!
Corporations and their Boards are facing these burning issues of the year and having to decide how to work with them. It costs money to support decisions about the environment - some are good but some are less effective for the cost of implementation.
Again, good old Ted Rogers talks gruffly about dealing with putting social issues and environment issues above business priorities:


investors have their pet issues; for example, whether or not a company:

• is "green," or environmentally conscious.
• does or does not do business with certain countries or groups of people.
• supplies the U.S. Armed Forces.
• is "involved in the community" in appropriate ways.
• pays its CEO too much compared with its lowest-paid employee.
• pays its CEO too much as declared by self-appointed "industry watchdogs."
• gives to certain charities.
• is willing to consider layoffs when the company is losing money.
• is willing to consider layoffs to streamline its organization (so-called downsizing).
• has a retirement plan.
• pays for all or part of a health-care plan.
• budgets a certain minimum percentage of payroll costs for employee training.
• places employees on its Board of Directors (you forgot this one).
• shares its profits with employees.

We believe Cypress has an excellent record on these issues. But that's because it's the way we choose to run the business for ourselves and our shareholders -- not because we run the business according to the mandates of special-interest groups. Other companies, perhaps those in older industries just trying to hold on to jobs, might find the choices our company makes devastating to their businesses and, consequently, their employees.
No one set of choices could be correct for all companies.
Indeed, it would be impossible for any company to accede to all of the special interests, because they are often in conflict with one another.
For example, Cypress won a San Jose Mayor's Environmental Award for water conservation. Our waste water from the Minnesota plant is so clean we are permitted to put it directly into a lake teeming with wildlife. (A game warden station is the next door neighbor to that plant.)
Those facts might qualify us as a "green" company, but some investors would claim the opposite because we adamantly oppose wasteful, government-mandated, ride-sharing programs and believe that car-pool lanes waste the time of the finest minds in Silicon Valley by creating government-inflicted traffic jams -- while increasing pollution, not decreasing it, as claimed by some self-declared "environmentalists."

Can a CEO run a company morally?

"You do not allow for the possibility that a CEO could run a company morally and disagree with your position."

Ted Rodgers wrote those words fifteen years ago. It is tiresome that we just have the same conversations and protests, just different people. Do our schools not teach history?

The Wall Street protesters or "We are the 99%" do display a lack of understanding about basic business and economics. They paint all corporations with a very broad and tainted brush. Their own insecurities and difficulties in life make them frustrated and lash out at the very institutions that give them a decent standard of living. Even the poorest American has more than 38% of the world. (The way Greece is going, that 38% could be rising). 

History does repeat itself and the same political conversations keep raising their ugly heads - communism, Marxism, socialism, equal outcomes put above equal opportunities. It is 2011, and in Canada, we have the NDP saying they do not want profits, business is for the people. 

When I read the response by Ted Rogers, while head of Cypress, to a group of investors upset that he was not supporting the ideology and political correctness of equal outcomes, I thought this letter should be redistributed to the protesters of businesses.

Finally, you ought to get down from your moral high horse. Your form letter signed with a stamped signature does not allow for the possibility that a CEO could run a company morally and disagree with your position. You have voted against me and the other directors of the company, which is your right as a shareholder. But here is a synopsis of what you voted against:

• Employee ownership. Every employee of Cypress is a shareholder and every employee of Cypress -- including the lowest-paid -- receives new Cypress stock options every year, a policy that sets us apart even from other Silicon Valley companies.
• Excellent pay. Our employees in San Jose averaged $78,741 in salary and benefits in 1995. (That figure excludes my salary and that of Cypress's vice presidents; it's what "the workers" really get.)
• A significant boost to our economy. In 1995, our company paid out $150 million to its employees. That money did a lot of good: it bought a lot of houses, cars, movie tickets, eyeglasses, and college educations.
• A flexible health-care program. A Cypress-paid health-care budget is granted to all employees to secure the health-care options they want, including medical, dental, and eye care, as well as different life insurance policies.
• Personal computers. Cypress pays for half of home computers (up to $1,200) for all employees.
• Employee education. We pay for our employees to go back to school, and we offer dozens of internal courses.
• Paid time off. In addition to vacation and holidays, each Cypress employee can schedule paid time off for personal reasons.
• Profit sharing. Cypress shares its profits with its employees. In 1995, profit sharing added up to $5,000 per employee, given in equal shares, regardless of rank or salary. That was a 22% bonus for an employee earning $22,932 per year, the taxable salary of our lowest-paid San Jose employee.
• Charitable Work. Cypress supports Silicon Valley. We support the Second Harvest Food Bank (food for the poor), the largest food bank in the United States. I was chairman of the 1993 food drive, and Cypress has won the food-giving title three years running. (Last year, we were credited with 354,131 pounds of food, or 454 pounds per employee, a record.) We also give to the Valley Medical Center, our Santa Clara-based public hospital, which accepts all patients without a "VISA check."

Those are some of the policies of the Board of Directors you voted against. I believe you should support management teams that hold our values and have the courage to put them into practice.

Ted Rogers: Quotas create institutionalized insult

While we are on the topic of female quotas for Boards, here is an amusing response from Ted Rogers, Head of Cypress, to a group of nuns asking for female representation on the board. I agree with Ted and wish I could have said it as eloquently:


09/03/2009Ted J. Rodgers' response follows.

A recent letter from Cypress's president and CEO Ted J. Rodgers to The Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia's Doris Gormley, OSF -- sent also to all Cypress shareholders -- has set the business community abuzz...so much so that, in its edition of July 15, 1996 The Wall St. Journal carried a long story on the "CEO who took on a nun in a crusade against 'political correctness'."

Dear Sister Gormley: Thank you for your letter criticizing the lack of racial and gender diversity of Cypress's Board of Directors. I received the same letter from you last year. I will reiterate the management arguments opposing your position. Then I will provide the philosophical basis behind our rejection of the operating principles espoused in your letter, which we believe to be not only unsound, but even immoral, by a definition of that term I will present. The semiconductor business is a tough one with significant competition from the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Koreans. There have been more corporate casualties than survivors. For that reason, our Board of Directors is not a ceremonial watchdog, but a critical management function. The essential criteria for Cypress board membership are as follows:

Experience as a CEO of an important technology company. Direct expertise in the semiconductor business based on education and management experience. Direct experience in the management of a company that buys from the semiconductor industry. A search based on these criteria usually yields a male who is 50-plus years old, has a Masters degree in an engineering science, and has moved up the managerial ladder to the top spot in one or more corporations. Unfortunately, there are currently few minorities and almost no women who chose to be engineering graduate students 30 years ago. (That picture will be dramatically different in 10 years, due to the greater diversification of graduate students in the '80s.) Bluntly stated, a "woman's view" on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO. I do realize there are other industries in which the last statement does not hold true. We would quickly embrace the opportunity to include any woman or minority person who could help us as a director, because we pursue talent -- and we don't care in what package that talent comes. I believe that placing arbitrary racial or gender quotas on corporate boards is fundamentally wrong. Therefore, not only does Cypress not meet your requirements for boardroom diversification, but we are unlikely to, because it is very difficult to find qualified directors, let alone directors that also meet investors' racial and gender preferences. I infer that your concept of corporate "morality" contains in it the requirement to appoint a Board of Directors with, in your words, "equality of sexes, races, and ethnic groups." I am unaware of any Christian requirements for corporate boards; your views seem more accurately described as "politically correct," than "Christian." My views aside, your requirements are -- in effect -- immoral. By "immoral," I mean "causing harm to people," a fundamental wrong. Here's why: I presume you believe your organization does good work and that the people who spend their careers in its service deserve to retire with the necessities of life assured. If your investment in Cypress is intended for that purpose, I can tell you that each of the retired Sisters of St. Francis would suffer if I were forced to run Cypress on anything but a profit-making basis. The retirement plans of thousands of other people also depend on Cypress stock -- $1.2 billion worth of stock -- owned directly by investors or through mutual funds, pension funds, 401k programs, and insurance companies. Recently, a fellow 1970 Dartmouth classmate wrote to say that his son's college fund ("Dartmouth, Class of 2014," he writes) owns Cypress stock. Any choice I would make to jeopardize retirees and other investors from achieving their lifetime goals would be fundamentally wrong. Consider charitable donations. When the U.S. economy shrinks, the dollars available to charity shrink faster, including those dollars earmarked for the Sisters of St. Francis. If all companies in the U.S. were forced to operate according to some arbitrary social agenda, rather than for profit, all American companies would operate at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors, all Americans would become less well off (some laid off), and charitable giving would decline precipitously. Making Americans poorer and reducing charitable giving in order to force companies to follow an arbitrary social agenda is fundamentally wrong. A final point with which you will undoubtedly disagree: Electing people to corporate boards based on racial preferences is demeaning to the very board members placed under such conditions, and unfair to people who are qualified. A prominent friend of mine hired a partner who is a brilliant, black Ph.D. from Berkeley. The woman is constantly insulted by being asked if she got her job because of preferences; the system that creates that institutionalized insult is fundamentally wrong.

Should Canada have Quotas for Females on Boards?

Should there be quotas for the number of women on Boards? I was asked this question by The Globe and Mail - read the full article here.

Having been at a Women Directors dinner with Diane Francis where this question was raised, I was surprised by how many women liked the idea of quotas. All of the women at that prestigious dinner held at Canoe would certainly be at the front of the line to benefit from a quota. Diane Francis said she was against quotas but the other women Directors argued against her points. 

After the dinner, I read about Quebec and Norway's foray with quotas. Norway has had companies de-list from their stock exchange to avoid the quota. 

Canada is a terrific place to be a working woman. Men have been my mentors and my sponsors. Very few women have held out a helping hand to me. As a consequence of those negative experiences, I try and pull up every woman behind me.

When Rebecca Eichler posed the question about boards being forced to have females on their Boards for the Globe article, I hesitated but spoke my true mind. Women are making incredible inroads by being great at business and knowing how to make the bottom line. How do I describe the powerful women in private business who are my clients?

Here is my response:

Jacoline Loewen, director of Loewen & Partners in Toronto, which sources capital for growing companies, has served on a range of boards and believes a quota would dilute the competitive, aggressive behaviour required to drive strong business results.

“I got to my position through hard work and would hate to be seen as a token appointee,” she said. “Men have to pay a price to get on a board, and the women I know on boards have worked hard to get there too.”

The article was posted and quickly attracted over 200 comments. As I read them, there really was an anger about affirmative action. With more women at university and entering the medical and legal professions, the playing fields seem to be open for all. 

Here are some of the comments. 

What do you think?

Where do you stop this quota foolishness? Government is to provice service, not employ minorities to fulfill quotas to look good on someones anual review. Private industry has an obligation to it's shareholders, if the shareholders are willing to risk finacial loss due to some silly poltically correct machination, it is their money. Under no circumstance whould quotas of any kind be legislated into law.

In Argentina they passed a law some 15 years ago that 30% of the MPs have to be women. What did that achieve? Most MP's wives are now MPs.

As a shareholder, I only want folks who make me money. I hold Corby's stock, a decade ago we had a lady as chairman, she made me a ton of money and her salary requests had my total approval. Now she has gone and corby's is a mess. I cant fire the male aholio who runs the place and special dividends have disappeared. Why quota up employment equity deadheads? If you cant make money for the shareholders, I dont care how big your breasts are or how small your penis is. It is all about return on investment.

How Mary Meeker Earned Back Her Reputation

Mary Meaker was the darling of tech investors back in the 1990's and with the dreadful crash, her reputation also took a hammering.
I do admire her as she got back up and has worked fearlessly to gain back trust. In the finance industry, this is very difficult to do once you have advised the fund investors and cost them a great deal of money and business.
Mary's detailed analysis was what built her status. Fund managers clamoured to see her latest presentations.
Twelve years late, Mary is back as an authority. Check out her overview of the Web today and in the next few years.
See the latest Mary Meecker PowerPoint Presentation on Web 0.2