Mike Merrill is a publicly traded person. Since his IPO in 2008, most of Merrill’s major life decisions have been run by a board of shareholders — from whom he can date to what kind of hair he can grow on his face. Now, Merrill would like to bring his shareholders to a 17-year-old named Jackson Gariety.
This may sound completely crazy, but before you decry the state of our poor dystopian world, consider this: Weren’t we all kind of, if we’re being generous, idiots at age 17? Maybe what we could’ve used, aside from an occasional kick in the shins, is semi-binding advice from a large group of people with a stake in our future.
Just look at what’s happened to Mike Merrill. The reason he’s now trying to push his shareholders’ decisions onto a new person is because he’s been too busy since his board voted for him to quit his job and start his own company this past March. The job change, which only one shareholder voted against, was a “huge boost of confidence,” Merrill told National Journal this fall. It’s the kind of confidence that could, theoretically at least, be beneficial for a freshly minted adult.
Jackson Gariety, like Merrill, wouldn’t be legally required to do anything Merrill’s shareholders voted for. So don’t expect a moral dilemma if shareholders ask Gariety to kill. As Merrill put it to NJ this fall, he is only beholden to his shareholders as much as he wants his share price to be high. And, presumably, if he were to refuse to obey an order from his board, prices would collapse. So it’s in the best interest of everyone to make decisions that would actually be the most beneficial to Merrill’s, or Gariety’s, life.
Of course, a lot of what a group of shareholders here would be doing for Gariety is taking the advisory role of a group of friends. Merrill’s rule for questions he’d put to shareholders is basically, “Anything I would normally ask my friends for advice for, I’d go to the shareholders and ask questions there.”
The difference is, unless he wants his market to tank, he has to take his shareholders’ advice. It helps to make tough decisions a little bit simpler. For a 17-year-old, that could be just the right thing.
What We're Following See More »
Twitter bots, "automated social media accounts that interact with other users," accounted for a large part of the online discussion during the first presidential debate. Bots made up 22 percent of conversation about Hillary Clinton on the social media platform, and a whopping one third of Twitter conversation about Donald Trump.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the nonprofit that published the Panama Papers earlier this year, is being spun off from its parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity. According to a statement, "CPI’s Board of Directors has decided that enabling the ICIJ to chart its own course will help both journalistic teams build on the massive impact they have had as one organization."
According to a new report, the Environmental Protection Agency waited too long before informing the residents of Flint, Mich. that their water was contaminated with lead. Written by the EPA's inspector general, it places blame squarely at the foot of the agency itself, saying it had enough information by June 2015 to issue an emergency order. However, the order wasn't issued until the end of January 2016.
After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."