5 ms·

Considering that he alone has the majority of the votes, I don't see how any of these board member departures change anything (nor does the linked text make any

by gfosco 6y ago

Considering that he alone has the majority of the votes, I don't see how any of these board member departures change anything (nor does the linked text make any attempt at explaining this.)

Barrin92 6y ago
because there is such a thing as exercising too much power. Sole empires tend to collapse so even someone like Zuckerberg despite being formally unconstrained is probably wise to not literally run the entire business without input and he doesn't.
- gfosco 6y ago
  Sure, he gets input from all the board members, but he is unconstrained, he controls the majority of voting shares. The headline is not qualified.
  - hayksaakian 6y ago
    I think you're missing the point of the OP If Zuckerberg undermines the leadership of his operators some of them will move on to other companies. It's not feasible to run an enterprise as large as Facebook as 1 person at the top, so you need leaders with mutual trust to execute in their department.
    - gfosco 6y ago
      No I think we're really missing each other somehow... Board members don't usually work at the company. They don't have Workplace accounts, or departments. The headline that this 'asserts control' is click-bait.
      - alwayseasy 6y ago
        It really is an article about board politics. It's a different kind of game where control isn't only about shares in the company but also about controlled assets and influence outside the company. In Facebook's case, Zuck already has control of the company but "asserts control" through strategic moves at the board level by "firing" Hastings and Bowles (who both disagreed with his fumbling on political ads). Outside the company he "asserts control" thanks to his increased acrimony towards regulators while appeasing the Trump circle. A board member who goes after Zuckerberg not only risks getting fired from the board but also getting heat from the White House. This is a very unusual situation for a company in a democracy and in the tech sector.
        bryan_w 6y ago
        It's really weird how all these unrelated accounts keep giving gfosco non-seqitor answers to his responses in this thread, just pointing that out.
    - vasco 6y ago
      You're talking about the senior executive team, which may overlap with the board but it's not 1-1.
    - cryptica 6y ago
      Yes and let's not forget that all companies of such size have many skeletons in their closets and directors know all about them and they can be used against the company. If some of these board members are well connected to lobbyists in Washington, they can change the balance of power. Facebook's dominance is completely dependent on cheap fiat currency issued by banks at low interest rates. If the economic and political environment changes, Facebook may not survive. Facebook was founded on an unsound economy where popularity is valued much more highly than profits. In a sound economic environment, popularity by itself is a fickle thing which cannot be relied upon (without it being supported by real net value), but in our new economic age with massive fiat money printing, companies like Facebook have found a way to monopolize user attention and control it in a predictable way.
      - looping__lui 6y ago
        Not sure where you draw these conclusions from or how you back them up... I’d say FB reaching 1/3 of the worlds population, allowing advertisers to target very specifically whom they spend money on and giving metrics that are more understandable and ROI-relatable than TV/print make them pretty strong. Oh, and a 30% or so operating margin, 20% YOY growth are generally kind a strong and beyond most business performance... See: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-q1-earnings-2020-4?r=DE&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-q1-earnings-2020-4?...
  - erispoe 6y ago
    Each director gets a vote on a company board. Being a majority shareholder gets you to control who sits on the board, but you don't control board votes directly. A company officer still has a duty towards the company as a whole and all the shareholders, even if they also control the majority of votes. Facebook is a public company, which creates additional safeguards to protect the interests of all shareholders.
roenxi 6y ago
It is beyond outrageous that it is legal to have corporate structures other than 1 share 1 vote.
- nickff 6y ago
  Why? Not only is nobody forcing you to buy shares, but you have to pay to join in. It's also often legal to sell your voting rights (by handing over a proxy statement) anyway. What's the problem? Having a 'visionary' in charge is often a benefit, so I would imagine many would prefer to have Zuckerberg in charge rather than a board of activist investors.
  - close04 6y ago
    > Having a 'visionary' in charge is often a benefit, many would prefer to have Zuckerberg in charge rather than a board of activist investors Of course but not necessarily because he's 'visionary'. Rather he's shown a considerable willingness to put any moral concerns aside in the interest of increasing profits. If you have any doubts think of how many times he was forced to come public with statements like "we'll do better" without actually doing better. So it makes sense for many to hitch their wagon to him instead of some dissident who may alleviate some of the moral issues at a cost.
- robjan 6y ago
  Why? Before you buy shares you can easily find out what class of shares they are and whether they have voting rights. Any shareholders without voting rights voluntarily chose to buy part of the company with less or no rights.
- implements 6y ago
  I believe companies sometimes convert their bonds into stock - and as bond holders don’t have voting rights it makes sense (from some perspectives) for that stock to have reduced rights.
- lordgrenville 6y ago
  This is a classic case of "if people don't want it, no-one's making them buy it". Why make a law against it?
op03 6y ago
See Rockerfeller and Standard Oil.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Is that supposed to be a cautionary tale? Rockefeller was monstrously successful.

by gfosco 6y ago

Considering that he alone has the majority of the votes, I don't see how any of these board member departures change anything (nor does the linked text make any attempt at explaining this.)

Barrin92 6y ago

because there is such a thing as exercising too much power. Sole empires tend to collapse so even someone like Zuckerberg despite being formally unconstrained is probably wise to not literally run the entire business without input and he doesn't.

gfosco 6y ago
Sure, he gets input from all the board members, but he is unconstrained, he controls the majority of voting shares. The headline is not qualified.
- hayksaakian 6y ago
  I think you're missing the point of the OP If Zuckerberg undermines the leadership of his operators some of them will move on to other companies. It's not feasible to run an enterprise as large as Facebook as 1 person at the top, so you need leaders with mutual trust to execute in their department.
  - gfosco 6y ago
    No I think we're really missing each other somehow... Board members don't usually work at the company. They don't have Workplace accounts, or departments. The headline that this 'asserts control' is click-bait.
    - alwayseasy 6y ago
      It really is an article about board politics. It's a different kind of game where control isn't only about shares in the company but also about controlled assets and influence outside the company. In Facebook's case, Zuck already has control of the company but "asserts control" through strategic moves at the board level by "firing" Hastings and Bowles (who both disagreed with his fumbling on political ads). Outside the company he "asserts control" thanks to his increased acrimony towards regulators while appeasing the Trump circle. A board member who goes after Zuckerberg not only risks getting fired from the board but also getting heat from the White House. This is a very unusual situation for a company in a democracy and in the tech sector.
      - bryan_w 6y ago
        It's really weird how all these unrelated accounts keep giving gfosco non-seqitor answers to his responses in this thread, just pointing that out.
  - vasco 6y ago
    You're talking about the senior executive team, which may overlap with the board but it's not 1-1.
  - cryptica 6y ago
    Yes and let's not forget that all companies of such size have many skeletons in their closets and directors know all about them and they can be used against the company. If some of these board members are well connected to lobbyists in Washington, they can change the balance of power. Facebook's dominance is completely dependent on cheap fiat currency issued by banks at low interest rates. If the economic and political environment changes, Facebook may not survive. Facebook was founded on an unsound economy where popularity is valued much more highly than profits. In a sound economic environment, popularity by itself is a fickle thing which cannot be relied upon (without it being supported by real net value), but in our new economic age with massive fiat money printing, companies like Facebook have found a way to monopolize user attention and control it in a predictable way.
    - looping__lui 6y ago
      Not sure where you draw these conclusions from or how you back them up... I’d say FB reaching 1/3 of the worlds population, allowing advertisers to target very specifically whom they spend money on and giving metrics that are more understandable and ROI-relatable than TV/print make them pretty strong. Oh, and a 30% or so operating margin, 20% YOY growth are generally kind a strong and beyond most business performance... See: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-q1-earnings-2020-4?r=DE&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-q1-earnings-2020-4?...
- erispoe 6y ago
  Each director gets a vote on a company board. Being a majority shareholder gets you to control who sits on the board, but you don't control board votes directly. A company officer still has a duty towards the company as a whole and all the shareholders, even if they also control the majority of votes. Facebook is a public company, which creates additional safeguards to protect the interests of all shareholders.

roenxi 6y ago

It is beyond outrageous that it is legal to have corporate structures other than 1 share 1 vote.

nickff 6y ago
Why? Not only is nobody forcing you to buy shares, but you have to pay to join in. It's also often legal to sell your voting rights (by handing over a proxy statement) anyway. What's the problem? Having a 'visionary' in charge is often a benefit, so I would imagine many would prefer to have Zuckerberg in charge rather than a board of activist investors.
- close04 6y ago
  > Having a 'visionary' in charge is often a benefit, many would prefer to have Zuckerberg in charge rather than a board of activist investors Of course but not necessarily because he's 'visionary'. Rather he's shown a considerable willingness to put any moral concerns aside in the interest of increasing profits. If you have any doubts think of how many times he was forced to come public with statements like "we'll do better" without actually doing better. So it makes sense for many to hitch their wagon to him instead of some dissident who may alleviate some of the moral issues at a cost.
robjan 6y ago
Why? Before you buy shares you can easily find out what class of shares they are and whether they have voting rights. Any shareholders without voting rights voluntarily chose to buy part of the company with less or no rights.
implements 6y ago
I believe companies sometimes convert their bonds into stock - and as bond holders don’t have voting rights it makes sense (from some perspectives) for that stock to have reduced rights.
lordgrenville 6y ago
This is a classic case of "if people don't want it, no-one's making them buy it". Why make a law against it?

op03 6y ago

See Rockerfeller and Standard Oil.

koheripbal 6y ago
Is that supposed to be a cautionary tale? Rockefeller was monstrously successful.