6 ms·

... im probably on an island alone here with my opinion but... I'm glad this is being brought to light... and that investors are angry. This sort of action I t

... im probably on an island alone here with my opinion but... I'm glad this is being brought to light... and that investors are angry. This sort of action I think should be wildly illegal. It's removing a great deal of value from one's share. That value is being able to vote. I'm not a FB shareholder but if they had removed my voting power (or rather made it a 1/3 of what it was) I'd want compensation and then I'd sell my shares. This sort of crap is propagating a big issue: the separation of management and control from ownership of companies. It invites irresponsibility and selfishness because the cost of such to management is continuously decreasing. While the owners (shareholders) are the ones to pay the real price for their actions. This is how we have problems like CEOs losing money quarter after quarter but still getting bonuses and ever larger golden parachutes... It's easy to say he's a "visionary" now but the markets facebook has ridden its growth on were not a result of it being amazing. It was a combination of the right time, luck, and a bit of vision (he does deserve some credit). Now that markets are saturated we'll see how truly visionary he is... acquiring for growth targets doesn't make him visionary it just makes him a good business person. If he can't grow it or his vision is off-- it won't matter, if he missteps and costs his shareholders. He and his cronies will still be rich as hell and his shareholders will pay the price.

drieddust 10y ago
I think he showed his class when he tweeted against India after losing Free Basics campaign. Edit: typo
harryh 10y ago
The very similar prices of GOOG vs GOOGL kind of contradicts your assertion that the voting rights of shares are particularly valuable.
- rubyn00bie 10y ago
  Well... my apologies for not emphasizing more that it's my feeling of value. Not necessarily the market's... as you're right, by and large the market doesn't care. But their darlings are still performing well. I think a lot of investors are largely ignorant of the voting fact and I also think, most don't get involved until things go badly; so, we'll see how the long term plays out to really know.
- euyyn 10y ago
  OTOH, Larry and Sergey already controlled more than 50% of the votes before the split.
  - harryh 10y ago
    That's a very good point. I wonder if there are any other companies with stock structures similar to Google but without all powerful founders that would provide more data on this question? I don't know of any off the top of my head but my knowledge in this area isn't particularly strong.
    - terravion 10y ago
      The New York Times had similar structure to Google for almost a century.
      - harryh 10y ago
        But did they have 2 classes of publicly traded stock, one with voting right & one without, that could be compared? I don't think so?
        andreareina 10y ago
        Not exactly what you're looking for, but several companies have different voting power for different classes of publicly traded stock > Many companies list dual-class shares. Ford's dual-class stock structure, for instance, allows the Ford family to control 40% of shareholder voting power with only about 4% of the total equity in the company. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which has Warren Buffett as a majority shareholder, offers a B share with 1/30th the interest of its A-class shares, but 1/200th of the voting power. Echostar Communications demonstrates the extreme power that can be had through dual-class shares: founder and CEO Charlie Ergen has about 5% of the company's stock, but his super-voting class-A shares give him a whopping 90% of the vote. [1] [1]: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/092204.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/092204.a...
    - deleted 10y ago
- ChrisjayHenn 10y ago
  I seem to recall reading that GOOG pays a larger dividend to make up for the lack of voting rights though. Did I misunderstand that?
  - miano 10y ago
    Google does not pay out dividends.
- dmitrygr 10y ago
  Probably because GOOG's voting power is negligible when compared to class B shares (not available on open market) that have 10x the voting pwoer
bogomipz 10y ago
I don't think you are alone in your opinion. I agree with you. I found the tone in this exchange particularly galling: '"The cat's in the bag and the bag's in the river,'' he messaged Zuckerberg. "Does that mean the cat's dead?" Zuckerberg texted back, not understanding the spy speak. Andreessen replied: "Mission accomplished "'
onewaystreet 10y ago
> It's easy to say he's a "visionary" now but the markets facebook has ridden its growth on were not a result of it being amazing. Facebook's growth over the last few years is a direct result of Zuckerberg's decision to get serious about mobile advertising and his acquisition of Instagram.
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  I think you misspelled "Sheryl Sandberg"
  - sparkzilla 10y ago
    Correct.
tn13 10y ago
> It's removing a great deal of value from one's share. That value is being able to vote. I'm not a FB shareholder but if they had removed my voting power (or rather made it a 1/3 of what it was) I'd want compensation and then I'd sell my shares. Fully agree. > This sort of crap is propagating a big issue: the separation of management and control from ownership of companies. It invites irresponsibility and selfishness because the cost of such to management is continuously decreasing. While the owners (shareholders) are the ones to pay the real price for their actions. This is a non-issue if your point 1 in upheld. I am happy to own FB shares without voting rights if I am compensated for giving up those rights upfront. I would know that my shares mean no control on the company and hence I value them less over some other company's shares where I have got voting rights keeping everything else same.
- andreareina 10y ago
  "everything else" basically being dividends which FB doesn't pay out.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
I agree with you in principle but this is a special case. Mark Zuckerberg is is as close to bottled lightning as you get when it comes to his vision and leadership of FB. The acquisition and scaling of Instagram was superb. Lesser leaders would have just rolled it into Facebook Photos instead of letting it remain a stand alone product. I have little doubt that Oculus will eclipse this feat. Keeping him happy and focused is in the shareholders' best interest.
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  > I agree with you in principle but this is a special case. Mark Zuckerberg is is as close to bottled lightning as you get when it comes to his vision and leadership of FB. Then they should have kept the company private. Once you go public, you have to play by the same rules as every other public company.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    > you have to play by the same rules as every other public company. Let us speak truth. At that size, scale, and reach, you play by a different set of rules and even get to define some of them.
- rdlecler1 10y ago
  That may be true, but then Marc shouldn't have been secretly backchanneling support. He should be asking the tough questions, not advising against the challenges of the board. Did Marc say to the other members, "hey I'm going to give Mark a heads up on this"? Likely not. If Zuckerberg was not allowed to keep control I assume he wouldn't be divesting so I see no benefit to shareholders.
nikcub 10y ago
Facebook stock has never had any meaningful voting right. The shareholders aren't losing anything they never had before. If you don't like it, don't buy the stock - becoming a shareholder and then complaining about voting rights is an angle shoot. > problems like CEOs losing money quarter after quarter but still getting bonuses and ever larger golden parachutes... You're thinking of appointed CEO's. Founder CEO's, especially those with voting control, almost never grant themselves bonuses or golden parachutes (they don't have to, they own the stock)
basch 10y ago
It's Becoming Clear That No One Actually Read Facebook's IPO Prospectus Or Mark Zuckerberg's Letter To Shareholders http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-stock-letter-shareholders http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-stock-letter-shareho... The entire company was structured so he had control, forever. The only reason to buy stock is if you think he will continue to print money. I think it is refreshing to have a company built to be able to completely ignore quarterly profits and activist investors fighting for short term gains.

drieddust 10y ago

I think he showed his class when he tweeted against India after losing Free Basics campaign. Edit: typo

harryh 10y ago

The very similar prices of GOOG vs GOOGL kind of contradicts your assertion that the voting rights of shares are particularly valuable.

rubyn00bie 10y ago
Well... my apologies for not emphasizing more that it's my feeling of value. Not necessarily the market's... as you're right, by and large the market doesn't care. But their darlings are still performing well. I think a lot of investors are largely ignorant of the voting fact and I also think, most don't get involved until things go badly; so, we'll see how the long term plays out to really know.
euyyn 10y ago
OTOH, Larry and Sergey already controlled more than 50% of the votes before the split.
- harryh 10y ago
  That's a very good point. I wonder if there are any other companies with stock structures similar to Google but without all powerful founders that would provide more data on this question? I don't know of any off the top of my head but my knowledge in this area isn't particularly strong.
  - terravion 10y ago
    The New York Times had similar structure to Google for almost a century.
    - harryh 10y ago
      But did they have 2 classes of publicly traded stock, one with voting right & one without, that could be compared? I don't think so?
      - andreareina 10y ago
        Not exactly what you're looking for, but several companies have different voting power for different classes of publicly traded stock > Many companies list dual-class shares. Ford's dual-class stock structure, for instance, allows the Ford family to control 40% of shareholder voting power with only about 4% of the total equity in the company. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which has Warren Buffett as a majority shareholder, offers a B share with 1/30th the interest of its A-class shares, but 1/200th of the voting power. Echostar Communications demonstrates the extreme power that can be had through dual-class shares: founder and CEO Charlie Ergen has about 5% of the company's stock, but his super-voting class-A shares give him a whopping 90% of the vote. [1] [1]: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/092204.asp http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/092204.a...
  - deleted 10y ago
ChrisjayHenn 10y ago
I seem to recall reading that GOOG pays a larger dividend to make up for the lack of voting rights though. Did I misunderstand that?
- miano 10y ago
  Google does not pay out dividends.
dmitrygr 10y ago
Probably because GOOG's voting power is negligible when compared to class B shares (not available on open market) that have 10x the voting pwoer

bogomipz 10y ago

I don't think you are alone in your opinion. I agree with you. I found the tone in this exchange particularly galling: '"The cat's in the bag and the bag's in the river,'' he messaged Zuckerberg. "Does that mean the cat's dead?" Zuckerberg texted back, not understanding the spy speak. Andreessen replied: "Mission accomplished "'

onewaystreet 10y ago

> It's easy to say he's a "visionary" now but the markets facebook has ridden its growth on were not a result of it being amazing. Facebook's growth over the last few years is a direct result of Zuckerberg's decision to get serious about mobile advertising and his acquisition of Instagram.

pfarnsworth 10y ago
I think you misspelled "Sheryl Sandberg"
- sparkzilla 10y ago
  Correct.

tn13 10y ago

> It's removing a great deal of value from one's share. That value is being able to vote. I'm not a FB shareholder but if they had removed my voting power (or rather made it a 1/3 of what it was) I'd want compensation and then I'd sell my shares. Fully agree. > This sort of crap is propagating a big issue: the separation of management and control from ownership of companies. It invites irresponsibility and selfishness because the cost of such to management is continuously decreasing. While the owners (shareholders) are the ones to pay the real price for their actions. This is a non-issue if your point 1 in upheld. I am happy to own FB shares without voting rights if I am compensated for giving up those rights upfront. I would know that my shares mean no control on the company and hence I value them less over some other company's shares where I have got voting rights keeping everything else same.

andreareina 10y ago
"everything else" basically being dividends which FB doesn't pay out.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

I agree with you in principle but this is a special case. Mark Zuckerberg is is as close to bottled lightning as you get when it comes to his vision and leadership of FB. The acquisition and scaling of Instagram was superb. Lesser leaders would have just rolled it into Facebook Photos instead of letting it remain a stand alone product. I have little doubt that Oculus will eclipse this feat. Keeping him happy and focused is in the shareholders' best interest.

AlexandrB 10y ago
> I agree with you in principle but this is a special case. Mark Zuckerberg is is as close to bottled lightning as you get when it comes to his vision and leadership of FB. Then they should have kept the company private. Once you go public, you have to play by the same rules as every other public company.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  > you have to play by the same rules as every other public company. Let us speak truth. At that size, scale, and reach, you play by a different set of rules and even get to define some of them.
rdlecler1 10y ago
That may be true, but then Marc shouldn't have been secretly backchanneling support. He should be asking the tough questions, not advising against the challenges of the board. Did Marc say to the other members, "hey I'm going to give Mark a heads up on this"? Likely not. If Zuckerberg was not allowed to keep control I assume he wouldn't be divesting so I see no benefit to shareholders.

nikcub 10y ago

Facebook stock has never had any meaningful voting right. The shareholders aren't losing anything they never had before. If you don't like it, don't buy the stock - becoming a shareholder and then complaining about voting rights is an angle shoot. > problems like CEOs losing money quarter after quarter but still getting bonuses and ever larger golden parachutes... You're thinking of appointed CEO's. Founder CEO's, especially those with voting control, almost never grant themselves bonuses or golden parachutes (they don't have to, they own the stock)

basch 10y ago

It's Becoming Clear That No One Actually Read Facebook's IPO Prospectus Or Mark Zuckerberg's Letter To Shareholders http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-stock-letter-shareholders http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-stock-letter-shareho... The entire company was structured so he had control, forever. The only reason to buy stock is if you think he will continue to print money. I think it is refreshing to have a company built to be able to completely ignore quarterly profits and activist investors fighting for short term gains.