One of my favourite books – The Godfather – begins with the following quote: “Behind every great fortune there is a crime.” The book goes on to tell the story of a fictional New York mafia family, the Corleones. The Godfather is about the Corleones’ unchecked rise to power.
Today, the sentiment toward businesses, especially large technology companies, is evolving. Some fear they have grown too powerful and wonder whether crimes were committed along the way to trillion-dollar market capitalizations.
When I studied business, it was commonly accepted that a corporation’s sole objective was to maximize profit and shareholder return. Today, that viewpoint is changing, as questions about corporate social responsibility are gaining momentum. In August 2019, Business Roundtable, a collection of CEOs of America’s largest companies, redefined the purpose of a corporation to include all stakeholders. They stated that “customer value, investing in employees, fair and ethical supplier relationships, and care for the community and environment are also the purpose and responsibility of a business, in addition to long-term shareholder value.” This evolution is also evident in the regulatory and antitrust political conversations happening now in the United States and Europe.
Today’s largest corporations enjoy significant market power. Google dominates with roughly 90% market share of online searches, while Facebook has almost 80% market share of social media. Amazon accounts for approximately 50% of all incremental growth in online shopping. Finally, Apple captures a significant majority of global smartphone profits. Analysts refer to industries with such domination as “winner-take-all” markets.
Has technological innovation improved our day-to-day quality of life? No doubt! We can use Apple Pay and PayPal to purchase products without cash or even a physical card. Google Maps helps us get around and navigate unfamiliar places. Facebook’s WhatsApp keeps us in touch with friends and family. The bigger question is: Have these daily conveniences come at too high a price?
Last June, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that they are reviewing four of the technology companies mentioned above. As reported in The Wall Street Journal, the FTC is looking into Facebook and Amazon, while the DOJ is investigating Alphabet (Google) and Apple. The point of these investigations is to determine whether these firms are unlawfully stifling competition.
Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” In the late 19th century, two of history’s most famous entrepreneurs, Cornelius Vanderbilt and John D. Rockefeller, enjoyed monopolistic status in railway and oil, respectively. In response, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed into law in 1890 to prevent the concentration of power and prohibit monopolistic business practices, such as price gouging. It took time for reform to work through the system, but anti-monopoly policies eventually became a cornerstone of U.S. politics for decades.
It wasn’t until the 1960s that attitudes toward antitrust changed. The famous Chicago School economist, Milton Friedman, believed that “antitrust laws do far more harm than good and that we would be better off if we didn’t have them at all.” The Chicago School economists were strong advocates for free markets with no government intervention. Regulation has relaxed over the past few decades, and companies have since been left to their own devices. Today, industries tend to be more concentrated with far fewer competitors.
Will the regulatory pendulum swing back to the 1890s? It’s unlikely. Yes, attitudes around business are changing, and there are real concerns over these highly influential companies. One could argue that the winner-take-all model creates less competition, lowers productivity and inhibits new invention. The famed venture capitalist Peter Thiel, one of the original backers of Facebook, is critical of the general lack of innovation today, saying, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters” (referring to Twitter).
While many agree there is a need for increased oversight, there is little consensus on how to implement such regulation. Some politicians advocate for breaking big companies apart. Others prefer to focus on improved consumer privacy and well-being. In any event, we believe the probability of drastic political action is modest. Concerns in the run up to elections often turn out to be transitory.
Many expect Senator Elizabeth Warren to win the 2020 Democratic nomination to run for U.S. president. Her message is resonating with people seeking social reform. Warren’s campaign proposes sweeping corporate changes, such as regulating big technology as utilities and reforming big banks and health insurance.
What action could government take to foster more competition? If YouTube was split from the core Alphabet business, would it lose its dominance in online video streaming? Would splitting Instagram from Facebook affect Facebook’s status as the leading social media application? We don’t think so. Whether these companies are forced to split up, or new rules aimed to protect user information are imposed, they would likely remain dominant. Facebook, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon enjoy powerful network effects thanks to their well-established user bases.
Google and Amazon achieved dominance in part due to their experimental work cultures and ability to acquire complementary businesses. The companies’ founders designed their businesses to adapt to change by avoiding corporate complacency. Employees at both are encouraged to experiment with new ideas that could one day unfold into leading products and/or services that strengthen and broaden the respective core businesses. Regulations that impede these efforts, including a moratorium on acquisitions, would have the greatest impact on these businesses.
Outside of the U.S., countries are looking to tax the technology giants. France adopted a 3% digital tax on large technology company revenues. Canada may follow in France’s footsteps. During their reelection campaign, the Liberals said they would levy a similar 3% value-added tax on companies selling digital advertising and user data. The tax would apply to businesses with worldwide revenues of more than $1 billion and Canadian revenues of more than $40 million.
Given the turbulent political climate, modest regulation appears likely. In any event, we remain positive. In a world of economic stagnation and too much debt, we believe investors will continue to flock to large firms with strong balance sheets, durable cash flows and better-than-average economic growth.
Please read our Odlum Brown Limited Disclaimer and Disclosure - It is important!
Odlum Brown Limited is an independent, full-service investment firm focused on providing professional investment advice and objective research. We respect your right to be informed of relationships with the issuers or strategies referred to in this report which might reasonably be expected to indicate potential conflicts of interest with respect to the securities or any investment strategies discussed or recommended in this report. We do not act as a market maker in any securities and do not provide investment banking or advisory services to, or hold positions in, the issuers covered by our research. Analysts and their associates may, from time to time, hold securities of issuers discussed or recommended in this report because they personally have the conviction to follow their own research, but we have implemented internal policies that impose restrictions on when and how an Analyst may buy or sell securities they cover and any such interest will be disclosed in our report in accordance with regulatory policy. Our Analysts receive no direct compensation based on revenue from investment banking services. We describe our research policies in greater detail, including a description of our rating system and how we disseminate our research here.
This report has been prepared by Odlum Brown Limited and is intended only for persons resident and located in all the provinces and territories of Canada, where Odlum Brown Limited's services and products may lawfully be offered for sale, and therein only to clients of Odlum Brown Limited. This report is not intended for distribution to, or use by, any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country including the United States, where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation or which would subject Odlum Brown Limited to any registration requirement within such jurisdiction or country. As no regard has been made as to the specific investment objectives, financial situation, and other particular circumstances of any person who may receive this report, clients should seek the advice of a registered investment advisor and other professional advisors, as applicable, regarding the appropriateness of investing in any securities or any investment strategies discussed or recommended in this report.
This report is for information purposes only and is neither a solicitation for the purchase of securities nor an offer of securities. The information contained in this report has been compiled from sources we believe to be reliable, however, we make no guarantee, representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to such information's accuracy or completeness. All opinions and estimates contained in this report, whether or not our own, are based on assumptions we believe to be reasonable as of the date of the report and are subject to change without notice.
Please note that, as at the date of this report, the Research Analyst responsible for the recommendations herein, associates of such Analyst and/or other individuals directly involved in the preparation of this report hold securities of some of the issuer(s) referred to directly or through derivatives.
No part of this publication may be reproduced without the express written consent of Odlum Brown Limited. Odlum Brown Limited is a Member-Canadian Investor Protection Fund.