The Steve Jobs Effect: Are Companies Doomed When the Founder Leaves?

Source: Apple.

In August of 2011, Steve Jobs shocked fans around the world with his announcement that he would be stepping down as CEO of Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL  ) for health reasons. Before the announcement, the departure of Jobs was seen by some as the single greatest threat to owning Apple stock.

While the jury is still out on whether Apple will ever be as great as it was under Jobs, two things are clear. First, no game-changing gadgets have been introduced since his untimely death. And second, the stock performed demonstrably better when Jobs was at the helm than it has since.

This has led many investors -- myself included -- to seriously consider selling a stock when its founder leaves the executive ranks. But if we were to go back and crunch the numbers, what would history tell us about making such a move?

The answers might surprise you.

When executives leave
In order to get a historical perspective on this investing strategy, I went back and looked at the composition of the Nasdaq 100 in April of 2008. The index is made up of 100 of the largest nonfinancial companies listed on the NASDAQ index.

On April 1, 2008, founders ran 28 of the 100 companies on the index. Between then and now, 10 of those founders have vacated their position as chief executive officer.

There are examples of stocks that slumped after founders left. Apple's stock saw annualized returns of 32% with Jobs on board, but that return has slipped to 19% since he departed. And Apple isn't alone: SanDisk (NASDAQ: SNDK  ) averaged annualized returns of 37% when founder Eli Harari was CEO but has managed to post just 12% annualized returns since his departure.

But besides those two examples, the rest of the companies in this cohort actually showed much better stock returns after the founder stepped down.

 Company

Annualized Returns With Founder

Annualized Returns Without Founder

Apple

32%

19%

Research in Motion (NASDAQ: BBRY  )

(40%)

(23%)

Celgene 

(5%)

38%

Costco 

7%

21%

Dish Network

(6%)

33%

Garmin 

(7%)

18%

IAC/Interactive 

20%

27%

SanDisk

37%

12%

Vertex Pharmaceuticals 

5%

21%

Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO  )

(57%)

21%

     

Average

(1%)

 19%

Sources: Company websites, Businessweek, Google Finance

Though 10 data points aren't enough to prove a trend with absolute certainty, it's fascinating how clear the numbers are: On average, companies whose founders left have seen their stocks post annualized gains 20 percentage points higher than when the founder was on board.

Of course, we could look at each individual company and explain these anomalies away. Blackberry founder and former CEO Mike Lazaridis found a great concept that caught on with consumers, but he failed to continue innovating, and his product was eventually usurped by Apple and Android phones.

The same could be said of Yahoo!'s Jerry Yang, who refused to sell his company to Microsoft at a considerable premium -- and then failed to keep the company's business growing. Yahoo! has since started to right its ship with Marissa Mayer calling the shots, but Blackberry's woes continue with the recent announcement that it will not be bought out by Fairfax Financial.

Meanwhile, Vertex and Celgene needed drugs to be approved. Whoever was at the helm when that happened was the beneficiary of a nice pop in the company's stock price. Others, like Costco, have simply benefited from better market conditions since the founder stepped down.

Does this mean you should avoid founder-led companies?
As with many things in life, the answer is: It all depends. This list excludes the 18 other companies where the founder stayed on as CEO, so there's definitely a bias in these results.

It's also important to look at why founders step down. A lot of times, it's because a founder is an "idea" guy, and a company needs an execution and logistics person running the show.

There are times, however, when the CEO is the difference maker. Usually, these folks only step down when it's an absolute necessity -- because of sickness, age, or death, as was the case with Jobs.

Knowing why you are investing in a company -- and its CEO -- before you buy it is crucial. Only then can you know what to do when that ominous day eventually comes when a founder steps down.

Source: Matt Yohe, via Wikimedia Commons.

This Founder/CEO Could Be The Next Steve Jobs
Finding a company run by a founder/CEO who's a game-changer isn't easy.  But we've found the next one: This founder/CEO's incredible company is growing twice as fast as Google and Facebook and more than three times as fast as Amazon.com and Apple. Watch our jaw-dropping investor alert video today to find out what company we're talking about -- and why The Motley Fool's chief technology officer is putting $117,238 of his own money on the table. Just click here to watch!


Read/Post Comments (8) | Recommend This Article (4)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 06, 2013, at 9:25 PM, frankpeel wrote:

    For once the Motley Fool lives up to its name.

    This is a FOOLISH article.

    Of course AAPL is a different company since

    Steve Jobs died.

    But it is not in any way a worse company. It is

    a different company.

    And it is also now a far bigger and far more

    profitable company that produces many times

    the volume of product that it did under Steve.

    As well as an enormous volume of new product,

    if not the radical new OMG products of Steve's time.

    What exactly is the matter with that?

  • Report this Comment On November 07, 2013, at 12:43 PM, aindrais wrote:

    i think you should subtract the market return from those pre- and post-departure returns.

    either way, i'll never again shop at men's wearhouse.

  • Report this Comment On November 07, 2013, at 12:56 PM, ELB1958 wrote:

    Your comparison of pre- and post- founder leaving is likely flawed in that the post- time period is a.) very small compared to the pre- time period and b.) encompasses a nearly uninterrupted 5 year market rally. You also have no frame of reference...I suspect the stock of almost ANY company you look at has performed better in the past 5 years than it's long-term historical performance.

  • Report this Comment On November 07, 2013, at 1:04 PM, cbglobal wrote:

    Thomas Edison left General Electric what 100 years ago.

    Henry Ford left the car company what 70 years ago.

    Thomas Watson, Sr. left I.B.M. in 1929.

    How about Bill Hewlett and David Packard have been gone how long?

    Jesus Christ left the company 2000 years ago.

  • Report this Comment On November 07, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Mathman6577 wrote:

    Buy stock in "good" companies and sell stock of "bad" companies whether the founder is still in charge or not. "Good" founders gererally leave a company in "good" shape and "bad" founders leave a company in "bad" shape.

  • Report this Comment On November 07, 2013, at 1:48 PM, TMFCheesehead wrote:

    For those interested, the annualized return of the Nasdaq 100 from April 2008 to today is roughly 12%.

    @ELB-

    The post time periods vary greatly depending on the company.

    Brian Stoffel

  • Report this Comment On November 08, 2013, at 10:21 AM, TMFTopDown wrote:

    "A real test of a leaders effectiveness should be judged by how well his or her successor does." -Conscious Capitalism.

  • Report this Comment On November 08, 2013, at 10:24 AM, TMFTopDown wrote:

    Market conditions aside, "a real test of a leaders effectiveness should be judged by how well his or her successor does." - Conscious Capitalism

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2713796, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/20/2014 8:45:25 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement