3 ms·

> Zuckerberg would have had to defend the move that some shareholders said diluted their power and was decided without their interests in mind. Since FB is so

> Zuckerberg would have had to defend the move that some shareholders said diluted their power and was decided without their interests in mind. Since FB is so "profitable" and such an attractive stock, why is Zuckerberg so scared of what the shareholders think? Are these the big shareholders or all the shareholders? The only thing I can think of is he can lose his Chairman of the Board position. > The decision follows a rash of technology executives creating special shares to control their companies, and may make similar structures more difficult to put in place in the future. I definitely don't want to see that happening myself. If I were ever in his position, I'd like to retain control while able to sell my assets to do whatever meaningful work I want to pursue without losing my control on the big decisions. I could quit being the CEO, but not the board chairman / president of the board.

lovich 9y ago
These special share classes that let the founders get all the money but lose none of the control sound like a continuation of what companies are trying to do with consumers. It seems like almost everyone is trying to say that you can only rent things anymore and no one owns shit. It used to be if I bought electronics I could put whatever software I could get on there without the co oany fighting me, when you'd buy a tractor you could repair it yourself without needing an authorized tech, and when you bought a percentage of a company you got a vote commensurate to the percentage. I understand the desire behind eating your cake and having it too, but I don't know why society and the government have decided that's a fine way for us all to live
- si33 9y ago
  If Google was owned by Wall Street and Facebook was owned by Steve Bannon (Mercer) the world might be a different place. Everyone knows what happened to the Wright Brothers.
  - lovich 9y ago
    What does it matter if they paid for it? I'm ranting more about the rent seeking that has permeated every aspect of our society than saying one oligarch is better than the other.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  The alternative is Google that went from "Don't do evil" to "Grab what you can". In the long run it isn't going to work but that is not what shareholders are after.
adventured 9y ago
> Since FB is so "profitable" and such an attractive stock I can't imagine why profitable is in quotes. It's a wildly profitable company. They're within roughly ten quarters of becoming one of the most profitable companies in history. There has rarely been a cash production machine like their social network monopoly. They have a better, higher margin business than Google's search monopoly by contrast. They'll catch Google in net income in fiscal 2018, despite being six years younger as a business. The closest comparison in the last ~50 years in tech, would be Microsoft at their peak margin + scale circa 1999/2000 (~40% net income margin).

lovich 9y ago

These special share classes that let the founders get all the money but lose none of the control sound like a continuation of what companies are trying to do with consumers. It seems like almost everyone is trying to say that you can only rent things anymore and no one owns shit. It used to be if I bought electronics I could put whatever software I could get on there without the co oany fighting me, when you'd buy a tractor you could repair it yourself without needing an authorized tech, and when you bought a percentage of a company you got a vote commensurate to the percentage. I understand the desire behind eating your cake and having it too, but I don't know why society and the government have decided that's a fine way for us all to live

si33 9y ago
If Google was owned by Wall Street and Facebook was owned by Steve Bannon (Mercer) the world might be a different place. Everyone knows what happened to the Wright Brothers.
- lovich 9y ago
  What does it matter if they paid for it? I'm ranting more about the rent seeking that has permeated every aspect of our society than saying one oligarch is better than the other.
tinus_hn 9y ago
The alternative is Google that went from "Don't do evil" to "Grab what you can". In the long run it isn't going to work but that is not what shareholders are after.

adventured 9y ago

> Since FB is so "profitable" and such an attractive stock I can't imagine why profitable is in quotes. It's a wildly profitable company. They're within roughly ten quarters of becoming one of the most profitable companies in history. There has rarely been a cash production machine like their social network monopoly. They have a better, higher margin business than Google's search monopoly by contrast. They'll catch Google in net income in fiscal 2018, despite being six years younger as a business. The closest comparison in the last ~50 years in tech, would be Microsoft at their peak margin + scale circa 1999/2000 (~40% net income margin).