4 ms·

I wonder if Zuckerberg's job is in jeopardy at this point? I didn't think Uber was going to be able to shed their CEO, but after months negative articles about

I wonder if Zuckerberg's job is in jeopardy at this point? I didn't think Uber was going to be able to shed their CEO, but after months negative articles about Uber, Travis lost his job, and I believe he controlled the voting shares also. Seems like FB is going through the same thing now (except there have been no sexual harassment complaints) Can any lawyers or investors comment on what it would take for Mark to lose his job as CEO? How much value has to be shaved off facebook shares before investors loss all confidence ?

ahmedalsudani 8y ago
He casts the majority of the shareholder votes.
- vxNsr 8y ago
  So did Travis, the way the shareholders and board got around that was by threatening expensive and public lawsuits. If you take a lot of money from rich people you're never gonna be above their power.
  - belenos46 8y ago
    Pretty sure Travis didn't. IIRC he had the single largest bloc of voting rights (~18%), but that can still be overruled. ~58% (Zuckerberg's share percentage) can't be ousted no matter how the other voting shares vote.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - anticensor 8y ago
      He could be sued out of excess (exceeding his proportion of shares) voting rights by beneficiary action. This is a public company, remember your fiduciary and beneficiary rights.
rco8786 8y ago
He would have to fire himself, I believe. Something a lot of shareholders aren’t happy about
- anticensor 8y ago
  He first needs to believe in the need to replace himself. Or something easier, yet a permanent solution: He could have completely abolished the CEO position, require board meetings for all executive decisions and require supermajority for all essential board decisions.
  - 0xCMP 8y ago
    Weirder things have happened. He could hire someone else to run Facebook and retain the voting control he has. Or at least to be the face of the company as he is and how Google's founders have made their CEOs do the work of showing up in front of congress and etc.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
Fordec 8y ago
Kalanick owned 16% of Uber voting rights when he was ousted. Zuckerberg has 58.3% of Facebooks voting rights. He's not going anywhere.
raiyu 8y ago
My suspicioun is that while Travis did have voting control they also needed financing and I think that was used as key leverage in the situation. It is possible that the investors had blocking rights on certain investments or that they went to SoftBank to force the issue which was using a possible investment in Lyft as a forcing function.
elorant 8y ago
Zuck might be a prick but all of FB's business relies on user's data. Even if he was to be replaced I can't see how FB could follow a different business plan. Their money comes from advertising and advertisers flock to it because they can target groups of individuals by choosing demographics in a way that no one else offers. If you remove that part from the equation FB's revenue would collapse. Zuck isn't the problem, the whole fucking service is the problem.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  It's not even Zuckerberg's business plan. Sheryl Sandberg was brought in to make Facebook profitable, she instituted the data selling systems.
- drb91 8y ago
  American consumers need to find a backbone.

ahmedalsudani 8y ago

He casts the majority of the shareholder votes.

vxNsr 8y ago
So did Travis, the way the shareholders and board got around that was by threatening expensive and public lawsuits. If you take a lot of money from rich people you're never gonna be above their power.
- belenos46 8y ago
  Pretty sure Travis didn't. IIRC he had the single largest bloc of voting rights (~18%), but that can still be overruled. ~58% (Zuckerberg's share percentage) can't be ousted no matter how the other voting shares vote.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - anticensor 8y ago
    He could be sued out of excess (exceeding his proportion of shares) voting rights by beneficiary action. This is a public company, remember your fiduciary and beneficiary rights.

rco8786 8y ago

He would have to fire himself, I believe. Something a lot of shareholders aren’t happy about

anticensor 8y ago
He first needs to believe in the need to replace himself. Or something easier, yet a permanent solution: He could have completely abolished the CEO position, require board meetings for all executive decisions and require supermajority for all essential board decisions.
- 0xCMP 8y ago
  Weirder things have happened. He could hire someone else to run Facebook and retain the voting control he has. Or at least to be the face of the company as he is and how Google's founders have made their CEOs do the work of showing up in front of congress and etc.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

Fordec 8y ago

Kalanick owned 16% of Uber voting rights when he was ousted. Zuckerberg has 58.3% of Facebooks voting rights. He's not going anywhere.

raiyu 8y ago

My suspicioun is that while Travis did have voting control they also needed financing and I think that was used as key leverage in the situation. It is possible that the investors had blocking rights on certain investments or that they went to SoftBank to force the issue which was using a possible investment in Lyft as a forcing function.

elorant 8y ago

Zuck might be a prick but all of FB's business relies on user's data. Even if he was to be replaced I can't see how FB could follow a different business plan. Their money comes from advertising and advertisers flock to it because they can target groups of individuals by choosing demographics in a way that no one else offers. If you remove that part from the equation FB's revenue would collapse. Zuck isn't the problem, the whole fucking service is the problem.

hannasanarion 8y ago
It's not even Zuckerberg's business plan. Sheryl Sandberg was brought in to make Facebook profitable, she instituted the data selling systems.
drb91 8y ago
American consumers need to find a backbone.