10 ms·

To me, as a founder (and former a16z portfolio company employee), this sort of thing shows why you'd want investment from a16z. They have a reputation for being

To me, as a founder (and former a16z portfolio company employee), this sort of thing shows why you'd want investment from a16z. They have a reputation for being founder-friendly. So while this gets spun as some sort of scandal, instead I think this quietly paints a16z in a friendly light.

ihsw 10y ago
It's good only if Zuckerberg comes out smelling like roses, otherwise it might give some pause.
bravo22 10y ago
or does it represent a lack of respect for fiduciary duty and a willingness to bend law and ethics to serve yourself? Wouldn't it be a bad signal that this person, if on your board, might pull a similar thing but to your detriment? Say if FB wanted to acquire you, would he take your side or MZ's? Would he give you advice that was beneficial to MZ but detrimental to your company? To be clear I'm not saying MA is actually guilty as the lawsuit alleges, but I'm assuming the facts are true since your conclusion relies on the same premise.
anotherarray 10y ago
I'm sorry, but this looks like a selfish, one-sided view. >The plaintiffs suing Facebook's board include pension funds, like the Employee Retirement System for the city of Providence, Rhode Island, and individual investors It may be "founder-friendly", but it's hurting thousands of Average Joes.
- moxious 10y ago
  In the article one of the main points is protecting Zuckerberg's long term control, in the event that he "spent 2 years in government". If that's not telegraphing intent, I don't know what is. So it appears pretty clear that there's a bigger career game being played here, and it isn't even strictly about stock.
- nailer 10y ago
  I can see the point, but it could also be argued that a large part of the value of FB is created by the control of Zuckerberg. FB can move much faster without having to move everything past shareholders. And the shareholder's primary interests are making money.
  - anotherarray 10y ago
    There are specific laws to protect rights beyond the realms of "speed". Apply your line of thought to democracy and you'll see what's the problem.
    - andrewflnr 10y ago
      The comparison to democracy is a red herring. Facebook isn't a government, it's a company. If you want an accurate government analogy, look at the military: it has to move fast to succeed. You only run a war by committee if you want to lose.
      - steveax 10y ago
        And if you want to run a company without having to deal with shareholders you can stay privately held.
      - anotherarray 10y ago
        I used an analogy to simply demonstrate every entity (e.g. government, corporation, military,etc) must follow specific rules while making decisions. Go radically against these and chaos will erupt. It's both unintelligent and ideological to take speed as an absolute.
      - briffle 10y ago
        Why even have an analogy. There is a perfect Example of Michael Dell wanting more control, and getting together with others to buy dell back, and its no longer publicly traded. They can not have to worry about shareholders, when the (for example) decide to buy EMC..
      - deleted 10y ago
moxious 10y ago
As a founder perhaps, but they have more relationships and reputation to manage than just with founders. It appears as though Andreesen was considered a trusted board member enabled to negotiate in the shareholder's interests, and as you say he was founder friendly instead. Probably a one time thing they don't have to worry about too much. But do that a couple of times, and they might start to have problems finding co-investors on bigger deals if the perception is that the investors won't hang together as a class.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Right. If the Bloomberg (plaintiff) portrayal is accurate, then this is pretty open and shut. I mean, actively texting Zuckerberg 'steering' hints during the interview which is supposed to be about protecting the rights of _all_ shareholders?
matthewmcg 10y ago
Fair enough, but as a special committee member he's supposed to be working on behalf of the other stockholders. If you were one of those stockholders, would you be happy to learn he seemed to be coordinating with the other side during negotiations?
forgetsusername 10y ago
>So while this gets spun as some sort of scandal, instead I think this quietly paints a16z in a friendly light. Is that like corrupt bankers being "shareholder" friendly, or "executive-team" friendly? It's okay as long as you get yours.
CalChris 10y ago
Next year, Facebook becomes a teenager. Just how long does the founder get founder privileges?
skynetv2 10y ago
thats great but if could not fulfil the duties & trust placed on him for this specific committee, he should have recused himself. in this case, being founder friendly is at odds with looking out for minority shareholders.
mathattack 10y ago
There are opposing issues here. 1) The article highlights that a16z is founder-friendly. 2) The lawsuit alleges that Andreessen acted against the behalf of shareholders that he has a legal obligation to protect. Part of the thesis that a16z operates under is that great companies keep their founders as CEOs longer and more often than non-great companies. So on the surface being founder-friendly doesn't have to imply a legal conflict. The argument that the lawsuit rests on is that common shareholders would be better off (had a high price) if Zuckerberg lost his special voting rights. In the end it's a moot point. If the board wouldn't let him do it, he would have postponed the charitable foundation.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Right, and Andreeson was appointed to the special committee as someone who had the least financial jeopardy from whatever decision was made to protect the interests of those common shareholders, i.e. specifically to investigate contrary viewpoints. Instead, he sent a crib sheet to Zuck, scripted potential responses to questions so Zuck "knew what they wanted to hear", and even texted him in the board meetings to provide live coaching. There's no way that this is not a bad move.
joshu 10y ago
This actually means they have good PR. If you were raising money, doing proper due diligence would reveal just as many issues with them as everyone else.
vermontdevil 10y ago
So this story confirms that Marc is "founder" friendly or "Zuckerberg" friendly? We don't know. It does not say either way.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  It could easily be both. Zuckerberg is a founder, after all.
rahrahrah 10y ago
Bullshit, he's not "protecting a founder", he's doing what he thinks is more benefitial for himself at the cost of breach of trust.
brilliantcode 10y ago
Don't you think, just maybe, there's a strong inherent bias in your statement? I'm going to be blunt but when was the last time a16z had a hit on their hands? Help me understand the branding value of a16z because I didn't get any of that vibe from the article. Also most founders aren't multi-billionaires to boot, so I don't see the connect.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
golergka 10y ago
Well, I know a couple of guys in prosecutor's office. They're good friends of mine actually. If I had trouble with the law, they would take care of it. (I'm not talking about US here — for this guys, business like this is nothing from the ordinary. When they want to get drugs, they just turn to the buddies in narcotics division). Such good friends they are. But asking for this friendly help would also be a violation of the law and in general, not a very ethical thing to do.

ihsw 10y ago

It's good only if Zuckerberg comes out smelling like roses, otherwise it might give some pause.

bravo22 10y ago

or does it represent a lack of respect for fiduciary duty and a willingness to bend law and ethics to serve yourself? Wouldn't it be a bad signal that this person, if on your board, might pull a similar thing but to your detriment? Say if FB wanted to acquire you, would he take your side or MZ's? Would he give you advice that was beneficial to MZ but detrimental to your company? To be clear I'm not saying MA is actually guilty as the lawsuit alleges, but I'm assuming the facts are true since your conclusion relies on the same premise.

anotherarray 10y ago

I'm sorry, but this looks like a selfish, one-sided view. >The plaintiffs suing Facebook's board include pension funds, like the Employee Retirement System for the city of Providence, Rhode Island, and individual investors It may be "founder-friendly", but it's hurting thousands of Average Joes.

moxious 10y ago
In the article one of the main points is protecting Zuckerberg's long term control, in the event that he "spent 2 years in government". If that's not telegraphing intent, I don't know what is. So it appears pretty clear that there's a bigger career game being played here, and it isn't even strictly about stock.
nailer 10y ago
I can see the point, but it could also be argued that a large part of the value of FB is created by the control of Zuckerberg. FB can move much faster without having to move everything past shareholders. And the shareholder's primary interests are making money.
- anotherarray 10y ago
  There are specific laws to protect rights beyond the realms of "speed". Apply your line of thought to democracy and you'll see what's the problem.
  - andrewflnr 10y ago
    The comparison to democracy is a red herring. Facebook isn't a government, it's a company. If you want an accurate government analogy, look at the military: it has to move fast to succeed. You only run a war by committee if you want to lose.
    - steveax 10y ago
      And if you want to run a company without having to deal with shareholders you can stay privately held.
    - anotherarray 10y ago
      I used an analogy to simply demonstrate every entity (e.g. government, corporation, military,etc) must follow specific rules while making decisions. Go radically against these and chaos will erupt. It's both unintelligent and ideological to take speed as an absolute.
    - briffle 10y ago
      Why even have an analogy. There is a perfect Example of Michael Dell wanting more control, and getting together with others to buy dell back, and its no longer publicly traded. They can not have to worry about shareholders, when the (for example) decide to buy EMC..
    - deleted 10y ago

moxious 10y ago

As a founder perhaps, but they have more relationships and reputation to manage than just with founders. It appears as though Andreesen was considered a trusted board member enabled to negotiate in the shareholder's interests, and as you say he was founder friendly instead. Probably a one time thing they don't have to worry about too much. But do that a couple of times, and they might start to have problems finding co-investors on bigger deals if the perception is that the investors won't hang together as a class.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Right. If the Bloomberg (plaintiff) portrayal is accurate, then this is pretty open and shut. I mean, actively texting Zuckerberg 'steering' hints during the interview which is supposed to be about protecting the rights of _all_ shareholders?

matthewmcg 10y ago

Fair enough, but as a special committee member he's supposed to be working on behalf of the other stockholders. If you were one of those stockholders, would you be happy to learn he seemed to be coordinating with the other side during negotiations?

forgetsusername 10y ago

>So while this gets spun as some sort of scandal, instead I think this quietly paints a16z in a friendly light. Is that like corrupt bankers being "shareholder" friendly, or "executive-team" friendly? It's okay as long as you get yours.

CalChris 10y ago

Next year, Facebook becomes a teenager. Just how long does the founder get founder privileges?

skynetv2 10y ago

thats great but if could not fulfil the duties & trust placed on him for this specific committee, he should have recused himself. in this case, being founder friendly is at odds with looking out for minority shareholders.

mathattack 10y ago

There are opposing issues here. 1) The article highlights that a16z is founder-friendly. 2) The lawsuit alleges that Andreessen acted against the behalf of shareholders that he has a legal obligation to protect. Part of the thesis that a16z operates under is that great companies keep their founders as CEOs longer and more often than non-great companies. So on the surface being founder-friendly doesn't have to imply a legal conflict. The argument that the lawsuit rests on is that common shareholders would be better off (had a high price) if Zuckerberg lost his special voting rights. In the end it's a moot point. If the board wouldn't let him do it, he would have postponed the charitable foundation.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Right, and Andreeson was appointed to the special committee as someone who had the least financial jeopardy from whatever decision was made to protect the interests of those common shareholders, i.e. specifically to investigate contrary viewpoints. Instead, he sent a crib sheet to Zuck, scripted potential responses to questions so Zuck "knew what they wanted to hear", and even texted him in the board meetings to provide live coaching. There's no way that this is not a bad move.

joshu 10y ago

This actually means they have good PR. If you were raising money, doing proper due diligence would reveal just as many issues with them as everyone else.

vermontdevil 10y ago

So this story confirms that Marc is "founder" friendly or "Zuckerberg" friendly? We don't know. It does not say either way.

nostrademons 10y ago
It could easily be both. Zuckerberg is a founder, after all.

rahrahrah 10y ago

Bullshit, he's not "protecting a founder", he's doing what he thinks is more benefitial for himself at the cost of breach of trust.

brilliantcode 10y ago

Don't you think, just maybe, there's a strong inherent bias in your statement? I'm going to be blunt but when was the last time a16z had a hit on their hands? Help me understand the branding value of a16z because I didn't get any of that vibe from the article. Also most founders aren't multi-billionaires to boot, so I don't see the connect.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

golergka 10y ago

Well, I know a couple of guys in prosecutor's office. They're good friends of mine actually. If I had trouble with the law, they would take care of it. (I'm not talking about US here — for this guys, business like this is nothing from the ordinary. When they want to get drugs, they just turn to the buddies in narcotics division). Such good friends they are. But asking for this friendly help would also be a violation of the law and in general, not a very ethical thing to do.