My own uneducated position is that is a new problem because shareholders don't want their money back. Shareholders have been piling money into stocks [1], so if you gave them the money back they would likely just put it right back into Microsoft (or, more likely, it would signal that Microsoft doesn't know what to do with the money, so people would pull out of Microsoft to invest somewhere else).

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-money-poured-stocks-past...

"Returning money to shareholders" is largely a consequence macroeconomic policy or state of affairs. It is, evidently, not actually a choice that CEOs currently have in practice. Dividends and/or buybacks are one of the powers shareholders do tend to wield, in practice. They want to invest more, not less.

Also, IDK if it is a common solution. Nothing is really common at MSFT-scale. A free cash flow like Google, Alphabet, etc. is almost unprecedented.

Meanwhile, I do actually think that this is better for shareholders. IMO "Synergies" is a term somewhere between euphemism and a boomerism but for the purpose of "shareholder value" it doesn't matter. At Monopoly/Unicorn/FAANG scale, there are big opportunities for synergy. Think Google-Android.

Why is Nuance being owned by Alphabet less efficient than being traded independently or owned by private investors? Why is Alphabet owning vanguard more efficient than owning Nuance?

The answer to those question can have no actual impact on reality. If the acquired business is cash generative, they can left to their devices. If the parent company doesn't borrow, then "efficiency" never becomes explicit. Explicit efficiency is relative to cost of borrowing. Implicit efficiency is implied by share prices... and at this point things get foggy.

>> a company that tried this would watch its stock price fall into the toilet.. But absent that, why not?

lol

>> Consolidation is what will bring us to a corporate-run dystopia. I would much rather the world be filled mostly with small and medium sized businesses...

The alternative to that is trust busting, perhaps. I was commenting on the market logic, so to speak. If we're optimistic, maybe it'll be a corporate-run utopia. Zuck's not great, but I think this generation is kinder than the Carnegie/Rockefeller days.

Look... if Bezos, Zuck, and such continue on trend, they'll soon be very rich. Bigger than the Rockefeller. Their companies will be one par with the VOC/EIC in terms of market cap, but I don't know if it's really comparable to that.

Google/FB are sketchy, if trust-busting comes into play. Advertising is sensitive to both regulation and trustbusting. A ban on snooping, manipulation and overly vigorous advertising would hurt advertising. Trust-busting, like separating adwords from google, hurts advertising monopolies too.

Meanwhile, what happens if a regulator messes up and breaks FB? Would the world lack for social messaging media? If Ford stops making cars, fewer cars are made in the world. If fewer FB likes happen, more sploosh sploshes happen and all is well in the world...

More likely though, no help is coming. That being the case, I think the tech bros aren't the worst candidates for trillionaire status. Someone had to be it. I'm glad it isn't the real estate bros.

Well; having been employed at 4 different companies in the past, where those companies were purchased and then shut down by a competitor - I'm pretty sure that consolidation is almost always a bad thing. For the workers, and the consumers.