Just to paint the other side of the picture: Many institutional investors think Zuckerberg has done a great job running the company, and think he'll probably c

Just to paint the other side of the picture: Many institutional investors think Zuckerberg has done a great job running the company, and think he'll probably continue to do a better job than a replacement CEO. As such, they want him to continue to run the company to maximise the value of their own shares. Shareholders actually voted to allow a stock split that would have allowed Zuckerberg to maintain his voting majority while allowing him to reduce his ownership share[1], though the split didn't eventually take place[2]. (Also, obviously this isn't true of all startups. Travis Kalanick was a drag on Uber's valuation, even though he can probably take a lot of credit for its rise.) These different voting classes are controversial, but it's also important to note what rights are not diluted as well. To wit: you get the same dividends as everyone else (hmm...) and the same rights as other shareholders to the furniture if they go tits-up (also hmm...). And to me that's the biggest argument against these different classes -- for companies that are unlikely to ever pay a dividend, they call into question what shares actually are, and why they should have value at all. 1: https://www.recode.net/2016/4/27/11586478/facebook-stock-split-zuckerberg-class-c-shares https://www.recode.net/2016/4/27/11586478/facebook-stock-spl... 2: https://www.recode.net/2017/9/23/16354302/why-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-stock-split https://www.recode.net/2017/9/23/16354302/why-mark-zuckerber...