5 ms·

He doesn't need more than 50% common stock to retain control of the company. Facebook has different classes of stock. Zuckerberg has more than 50% of voting rig

• rst 16y ago
  FWIW, the Ford family used to have an even more favorable arrangement for their shares of Ford Motor Company. The family preferred shares were the only ones with voting rights; the publicly traded shares got dividends, but didn't have voting rights at all. They revamped this arrangement ten years ago, but the family "class B" shares still have disproportional voting rights. See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,823982,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,823982,00.h...
  • r00fus 16y ago
    IIRC, isn't this the case with Google as well (with the triumvirate holding 1/3 each of the voting shares)... the public shares aren't voting shares at all.
    • jwegan 16y ago
      I am familiar with the stock market, but I am far from a sophisticated investor. One thing I always had trouble understanding is what is value of holding shares in a company like Google? You have no voting power, no dividends, and an event like liquidation or sale of Google is very unlikely and would only happen in the case of a serious problem (which would have caused the share prices to fall drastically). So what is the tangible value of holding a share in Google (other than the fact other people also want to own this item that to me seems to not have any intrinsic value)?
      • defen 16y ago
        I believe you'll find that filed under "monetization" - stuff that has value solely because other people assign value to it. Same reason a $100 bill is worth more than the rag it's printed on, or an ounce of gold is worth far more than its industrial uses would imply.
      • JacobAldridge 16y ago
        That depends on whether you're looking for primarily an income or an equity outcome (and yes, both would be nice, but most businesses are far better at focusing on and delivering one, not the other). Most traditional blue chips deliver regular, well-sized dividends. Their stock price (and therefore, as an investor, your equity value) will largely move with the markets. You don't buy them for out-performing equity growth or a liquidity event, but rather for the regular profits they share as dividends. FWIW, I think Microsoft has an option to become one of these companies, instead of chasing rapid shareprice growth. The comparison is buying for equity, where you hope to buy low and sell high. Dividends aren't a priority - and since they often amount to cents per share and you're chasing share price growth measured in multiples, dividends are almost irrelevant to your success measurements. As you point out with Google, their share price could already be considered high. I don't know what their dividend plans are for the future, but that (plus growth more in line with the market, maybe a little ahead) is a "tangible value" of holding their shares. jwegan - I know I've probably oversimplified that for you since you have familiarity, but I thought it worth spelling out for other HN readers with less awareness / experience. Hope it didn't seem condescending.
• kmfrk 16y ago
  I see. My excuse is that Khan Academy hasn't covered this yet. :)