Should LEGO become publicly-held in 2032?

[Callum Precious]

4 minutes ago, Murdoch17 said:

Can a MOD shut this thread down please? This is a ridiculous thread.

Why? I will move this thread to another forum.

[Murdoch17]

Just now, Callum Precious said:

Why? I will move this thread to another forum.

That's against the rules, just so you know. One topic, one thread, and If it gets shut down, that's it.

[Callum Precious]

1 minute ago, Murdoch17 said:

That's against the rules, just so you know. One topic, one thread, and If it gets shut down, that's it.

But again i will move my thread to another forum website that you don't know of.

But this thread i made is supposedly in good faith and respect.

Edited August 23, 2024 by Callum Precious

[JohnTPT17]

3 minutes ago, Callum Precious said:

If you're not aware about it, i am a human being and i am very intelligent adult.

Not to totally roast you, but "I" should be capitalized - and not doing it does not make you sound like a very intelligent adult.

For everyone else: didn't we have another "AI" thread like this last week about some other topic? At this point, you're either helping train AI, or just wasting time arguing with someone whose mind isn't going to be trained and/or a troll. Just block and ignore. 

[Callum Precious]

3 minutes ago, JohnTPT17 said:

Not to totally roast you, but "I" should be capitalized - and not doing it does not make you sound like a very intelligent adult.

For everyone else: didn't we have another "AI" thread like this last week about some other topic? At this point, you're either helping train AI, or just wasting time arguing with someone whose mind isn't going to be trained and/or a troll. Just block and ignore. 

I know that. But if one LEGO character said in a future LEGO film "Oh my god!", that's it!

Edited August 23, 2024 by Callum Precious

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, JohnTPT17 said:

didn't we have another "AI" thread like this last week about some other topic?

Yeah.

But, as far as I am concerned, it is entertaining to see how folks freak out on such topics.

Here is another one: Should the LEGO imprint on the bricks replaced by GB? Because they make the better parts?

AI ALERT, TROLLING ALERT, WHATEVER ALERT: No. It should not.

Take a deep breath.

And here is to feeling good!

Best,
Thorsten

[Callum Precious]

But the AI is no longer on this one!

[Mylenium]

On 8/22/2024 at 10:44 PM, Callum Precious said:

• Before making LEGO a public company, it needs to ensure that the company remains family-run (in a hybrid mode) despite the transition to the company's role from privately-held to publicly-held.

It could be highly problematic when you think of controlling committees, having a blocking minority vote on everything and a lot of other stuff. There are also much stricter requirements on reporting, controlling and filling critical positions, so ultimately the company would not be entirely owned and run by the family one way or another.

On 8/22/2024 at 10:44 PM, Callum Precious said:

• LEGO must also ensure that the quality and status of all of its products and franchises, including LEGO Star Wars and LEGO City, will be unaffected by the changes.

That's cute, but extremely naive. Will this even be still relevant in a few years? What is the measurement scale and reference point? Would people even care? The world keeps changing, you know. Of course they could lay out rules and instate controlling authorities, but this is simply completely unpredictable. It could also be utterly counter-productive. Forcing them to hold on to ill-perceived "traditions" and legacy products could go counter the companies business goals and actually be damaging. That and of course Disney/ Star Wars could collapse tomorrow and then what?

Anyway, it seems to me you haven't really thought through anything. You want to have it both ways and that cannot work. There are consequences and repercussions you haven't considered at all. Unlike many of the others I don't think going public would spell all doom for LEGO, but there's a lot more to it than just cashing in, expanding your business and dominating the world.

Mylenium

 

10 hours ago, Callum Precious said:

A key condition for LEGO’s public offering is the maintenance of family control through a hybrid governance structure. This model would combine public ownership with significant family influence, ensuring that the Kristiansen family retains a pivotal role in decision-making processes. The family could continue to hold a substantial percentage of shares, with a dual-class share structure ensuring that voting power remains concentrated within the family. This approach guarantees that the company's strategic direction would continue to reflect the values and vision that have guided LEGO for the past century.

And what does this achieve? A pissed off member of the family could still sell his equity share and in the long run over generations they could end up scattered all over the place. Your assumption of the children of the current company holders even wanting to take over is also at best questionable. Even if they want to enjoy the benefits of being wealthy, they may have no interest in actually being part of the corporate world. And then there are also rules. For every core equity share there have to be an X number of preference shares by legal mandate, shares can be split and merged, their value can be reassessed and reassigned by the corporate bodies and what not. Same as my previous post - my impression is that you haven't really thought this through.

Mylenium

[MAB]

[Clone OPatra]

22 hours ago, Yoggington said:

While you've laid out conditions for such a transition, you haven't actually mentioned any benefit to such a move?

Very curious OP has dodged this very important question. I would love to read someone's view of why it would possibly be beneficial in any way, because, much like the rest of you, I think it's very obviously a terrible idea.

There's nothing wrong with having a thread discussing the hypothetical, but if the OP keeps up patronizing responses and keeps rinsing and repeating the same information, I'll lock it because it's going nowhere.

[MAB]

There is no benefit to consumers, no benefit to the family (outside of a huge cash injection into their holding company's books) and also no benefit to new shareholders. I cannot see institutional or private investors wanting to buy shares in a family owned company where the family gets to maintain absolute control (as if they are a 51% shareholder). Shareholders would have no control over the company's direction despite their investment.

[Clone OPatra]

Shareholders of most publicly traded companies don't actually control the company. The benefit to being an investor as a shareholder is your share price going up.

And therein lies the problem. Publicly traded companies ultimately always become about serving the share price. LEGO already has super strict internal controls in order to give the company high profit margins. They already go through rounds of layoffs in various departments when their margins aren't quite what they'd like. As a public company with shareholders, it'd only get much much worse. A private company with mega-rich private owners can make altruistic decisions or take lower margins if they feel like it. A public one can't.

[MAB]

12 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

Shareholders of most publicly traded companies don't actually control the company. The benefit to being an investor as a shareholder is your share price going up.

And therein lies the problem. Publicly traded companies ultimately always become about serving the share price. LEGO already has super strict internal controls in order to give the company high profit margins. They already go through rounds of layoffs in various departments when their margins aren't quite what they'd like. As a public company with shareholders, it'd only get much much worse. A private company with mega-rich private owners can make altruistic decisions or take lower margins if they feel like it. A public one can't.

Shareholders do get to have some control of the direction of the company in that they have a say (by voting) in corporate matters at AGMs and if they have enough shares or group together with other people to have enough shares, can put resolutions forward. If 51% or more is retained by one party, the minority will never win a vote unless the majority holder also wants it. So they could put forward resolutions such as making 18+ sets depicting modern warfare,  or trying to oust the current execs if they believe the company is not going in the right direction, and so on, but those resolutions would never pass if the family chose to block them with their majority.

[Callum Precious]

6 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

Very curious OP has dodged this very important question. I would love to read someone's view of why it would possibly be beneficial in any way, because, much like the rest of you, I think it's very obviously a terrible idea.

There's nothing wrong with having a thread discussing the hypothetical, but if the OP keeps up patronizing responses and keeps rinsing and repeating the same information, I'll lock it because it's going nowhere.

But it should be a very good idea for LEGO to become public, to be honest with you!

And i am advising you NOT to lock the thread because it should stay open.

7 hours ago, MAB said:

Very funny, you

[Clone OPatra]

2 minutes ago, Callum Precious said:

But it should be a very good idea for LEGO to become public, to be honest with you!

How about you put some substance as to why.

[Callum Precious]

15 minutes ago, MAB said:

Shareholders do get to have some control of the direction of the company in that they have a say (by voting) in corporate matters at AGMs and if they have enough shares or group together with other people to have enough shares, can put resolutions forward. If 51% or more is retained by one party, the minority will never win a vote unless the majority holder also wants it. So they could put forward resolutions such as making 18+ sets depicting modern warfare,  or trying to oust the current executives if they believe the company is not going in the right direction, and so on, but those resolutions would never pass if the family chose to block them with their majority.

Please use the word "executives" the next time!

2 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

How about you put some substance as to why.

The reason why LEGO should become public is because, let me say it again:

A key condition for LEGO’s public offering is the maintenance of family control through a hybrid governance structure. This model would combine public ownership with significant family influence, ensuring that the Kristiansen family retains a pivotal role in decision-making processes. The family could continue to hold a substantial percentage of shares, with a dual-class share structure ensuring that voting power remains concentrated within the family. This approach guarantees that the company's strategic direction would continue to reflect the values and vision that have guided LEGO for the past century.

One of the foremost concerns in the transition to a public company is the potential impact on product quality and brand integrity. To address this, LEGO would establish a Product Integrity Council, an independent body responsible for overseeing the quality and consistency of all LEGO products, including its flagship franchises such as LEGO Star Wars, LEGO City, and others. This council will include representatives from the Kristiansen family, key stakeholders, and independent experts to ensure that all products adhere to the highest standards, regardless of the company’s new public status.

LEGO’s transformation into a publicly-held company must ensure that the benefits enjoyed by its employees and stakeholders remain robust and secure. I propose the introduction of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) that will allow LEGO employees to acquire shares in the company, fostering a sense of ownership and aligning employee interests with the company’s long-term success. Additionally, existing benefits such as competitive wages, comprehensive health care, and educational opportunities would be preserved and enhanced, reflecting LEGO’s commitment to its workforce.

LEGO’s contribution to education and culture is unparalleled, and this must remain a core focus post-transition. As a public company, LEGO would continue to invest in educational initiatives, including partnerships with schools and educational institutions across Europe. The LEGO Foundation would be reinforced, with a portion of the company’s profits dedicated to expanding its reach and impact. This would ensure that LEGO continues to inspire and educate children and adults alike, fostering creativity and learning worldwide.

Sustainability has been a cornerstone of LEGO’s operations, and this commitment would be further enhanced as the company transitions to public ownership. LEGO would continue to lead in sustainable practices, with a focus on reducing its environmental footprint, developing eco-friendly materials, and promoting sustainability through its products and operations. As a publicly-held company, LEGO would be accountable to its shareholders and the public, reinforcing its dedication to environmental stewardship.

NOTE: This was created using human writing!

 

[SpacePolice89]

There is something very wrong with this. The OP is either a bot or a troll. Please shut this down. It is impossible to have any sort of conversation here.

[Black Falcon]

Once again, there is not one single word about why it should be done, or what the benefits would be - just that it should move public but everything should be ensured to stay the same aside from that...

[The Reader]

1 hour ago, SpacePolice89 said:

There is something very wrong with this. The OP is either a bot or a troll. Please shut this down. It is impossible to have any sort of conversation here.

Yes, I agree. OP's posts read absolutely weird ... it sems like a machine is answering.

[Clone OPatra]

Yep. I gave it a chance. OP is getting banned now.

[Classic_Spaceman]

I must give this bot some credit, since when I first saw this topic, I just assumed that @CallumPears had changed their name! 
 

[Yperio_Bricks]

3 minutes ago, Christopher Williams said:

I don't think Callum should've been banned for everything because he has the right to say about everything that should be made possible and therefore there is no reason to ban him unless his banned needs to be overturned if the review being taken place. For example, the one he mentioned before. When he was banned, he looses his freedom of speech on this forum.

Says the person with the exact same IP as Callum Precious

[Murdoch17]

4 minutes ago, Christopher Williams said:

I don't think Callum should've been banned for everything because he has the right to say about everything that should be made possible and therefore there is no reason to ban him unless his banned needs to be overturned if the review being taken place. For example, the one he mentioned before. When he was banned, he looses his freedom of speech on this forum.

I would agree more on that.

As far as I can tell, he was banned for not answering the mods questions and being an bot.

Just now, Yperio_Bricks said:

Says the person with the exact same IP as Callum Precious

Typical bots!