4 ms·

>and they're going to lead to trouble for companies whose stock drops and whose management can't be replaced. That will be both the problem and solution. Even

>and they're going to lead to trouble for companies whose stock drops and whose management can't be replaced. That will be both the problem and solution. Eventually a situation will arise in which the shareholders get burned, and it will be restricted from that point on, either by fiat or refusal of common investors to partake in any offering with this sort of structure.

aianus 11y ago
You would not have wanted to invest in a Google or Facebook run by some MBA instead of the founders.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >You would not have wanted to invest in a Google or Facebook run by some MBA instead of the founders. I invest in companies run by MBAs all of the time. I don't fear them or think they're inherently stupid. I mean, "tech people" have never failed at running companies, am I right?
  - aianus 11y ago
    > I invest in companies run by MBAs all of the time. So do I. But not if it's a tech growth startup. If you'd replaced Zuckerberg with an MBA in 2006 they would have exited at $1B, pocketed the cash, and moved on.
    - forgetsusername 11y ago
      >If you'd replaced Zuckerberg with an MBA in 2006 they would have exited at $1B, pocketed the cash, and moved on. Well, this is all bizarre speculation..but so what? Then what would have happened to the company? What would the purchaser have done with it? What would Zuckerberg have gone on to build? Maybe our difference of opinion lies in what we think of Facebook. Personally, I think it's a successful, well-run (so far) company that makes a product that's a vehicle to sell advertising. From that perspective, I don't think it's exactly earth-shattering stuff. I don't even use it.