6 ms·

That doesn’t really help shareholders does it? Except Zuck has his own shareholder class so it really does! This is another reason against multiple classes of

That doesn’t really help shareholders does it? Except Zuck has his own shareholder class so it really does! This is another reason against multiple classes of share

avalys 5y ago
FB's valuation is currently around $1T. Shareholders should be pretty happy with what Zuck has done with FB's business and this seems sufficient to justify protecting him from what would have been a major personal distraction. But by all means, have sympathy for all those shareholders who were forced to invest their money in FB stock against their will and without any knowledge of the ownership structure.
- CamelCaseName 5y ago
  Who exactly was forced to invest money into FB stock? Why should we have any sympathy for them given the stock is up 200% over the past 5 years?
  - avalys 5y ago
    I was being sarcastic.
    - CamelCaseName 5y ago
      My apologies, that went over my head. Thank you for clarifying.
  - edoceo 5y ago
    My friends mocked me for buying on IPO day. Sold 1/2 a few months ago. I don't use the network but thanks for the money Zuck!
    - skeeter2020 5y ago
      Weird flex. Do you have a system I can buy that will let me reproduce your results?
      - edoceo 5y ago
        Dice. Purchase from your local gaming house.
  - neonnoodle 5y ago
    Anyone with a retirement account in an index fund!
    - asteroidbelt 5y ago
      Anyone with a retirement account can pick a different fund. They can be even buy individual stocks to collect their own portfolio. Or even buy anti-Facebook security. But there's no demand for that as far as I see. So I guess shareholders are actually happy, and unhappy are the people here on HN who are not shareholders.
      - JohnFen 5y ago
        There is a rather large number of investors that are not happy, and aren't quiet about it. That's why Facebook faces investor lawsuits every so often.
        asteroidbelt 5y ago
        Investors sue because they can, not because they are unhappy.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  Where does this logic end? If Zuck shoots a guy in the middle of the street, is it fine for FB to finance his legal defense fund? Hire operators to bust him out of jail if he's convicted? Both of those "protect shareholder value" in the same sense as this.
  - vasco 5y ago
    It ends in illegal activities. If you disagree with the settlement you should harp on the FTC for having offered it. Zuck is no saint but this "where does it end" is a poor argument.
    - cool_dude85 5y ago
      FTC seemed to think that Zuck was taking part in illegal activities right up until he offered a few extra billion in the deal. So it ends, well, before the article being discussed?
    - COGlory 5y ago
      You can't prove it's illegal if you stop it from ever going to court.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Where does this logic end? When there is an actual cost to Zuckerberg's behavior. So far, Silicon Valley is fine working for Facebook and Wall Street fine financing it. Users aren't rebelling. Advertisers are docile. Where is a politician aspiring to take Zuckerberg on supposed to find berth? (Genuine question.) The only fecund ground, to my sense, is the far right accusing Facebook of censoring its Nazism and far left upset that Zuckerberg is rich. Neither makes for a sustainably extensible base.
    - shmageggy 5y ago
      What about the far middle who have been hearing for years how Facebook is eroding democracy, providing a platform for misinformation, instilling anxiety in teenage girls (the latest headline), and on and on. Zuckerberg continually makes decisions that benefit him and shareholders to the detriment of society and humanity. I think there's a greater appetite for change than it might appear, but I also think for the average person, it's really, really hard to imagine what that might be.
- lordlic 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you think minority ownership of a public company should entail, but surely you'd agree that it should protect them from the majority shareholder spending unlimited amounts of company cash to save themselves from personal inconvenience/embarrassment?
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    "Personal inconvenience/embarrassment" will hurt his ability to operate the company efficiently. Protecting CEO is (usually) in the best interest of minor shareholders. This is why companies pay for personal security of CEOs or for their personal PR (most large companies, not just Facebook). > spending unlimited amounts of company cash This is clearly not the case here.
    - lordlic 5y ago
      $4.9B over what the fine would otherwise have been is pretty hefty. I don't think any human alive is worth $4.9B to their employer.
      - asteroidbelt 5y ago
        Perhaps damage to Z would result in damage to FB for more than 5B (company market cap would definitely fall for more than that, and it could result in large mismanagement in the following years), so he is worth it.
        lordlic 5y ago
        I meant "really" worth, for some reasonable definition of "really." But I can't argue that market cap is a more pragmatic definition of worth, so your point is fair enough I guess.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  So if I buy a share today at the $1T valuation, I DON'T support Zuck in this case, but if I bought one ten years ago I DO, because he made me rich?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > So if I buy a share today at the $1T valuation, I DON'T support Zuck in this case, but if I bought one ten years ago I DO, because he made me rich? If you bought a share today, you presumably aren't doing it out of charity.
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  This wouldn't be a "distraction", this would be him owning his shit. The distraction from that is what he fills the rest of his life with.
- sfg 5y ago
  They bought under the condition of the ownership structure and also the law. If, as alleged, the law was broken, then there is nothing wrong with shareholders seeking redress.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
I would argue against that argument. Arguably, Zuckerberg was instrumental in getting FB to where it is today. It is not inconceivable that protecting him is protecting shareholder value.
- Slartie 5y ago
  From which alternate reality, where you were able to observe how a Facebook "fork" governed in a non-dictatorial fashion has turned out, did you learn this "arguable" information?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    I am genuinely not sure why this is a controversial statement. Allow me to rephrase this in a very quantifiable way. FB IPO opened at $38 ( https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/11/17/if-you-invested-5000-facebook-ipo-how-much-have.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/11/17/if-you-invested-50... ). Today it trades at $346 ( https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB?p=FB https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB?p=FB ). That is 9 times the initial investment value. Now, we can argue how much of that increase should be given to Zuckerberg in the form of credit for directing the company, but I am relatively certain that the answer is not zero. I stand by my initial post. It is very much arguable. edit: Hatred of Zuckerberg really should not be blind. I mean there is enough there to dislike him for. There is no need to invent stuff.
    - croes 5y ago
      "That was on Thursday. What did he do on Friday?"
    - bostonsre 5y ago
      > It is one thing for the media to say false things about my work, but it's crossing the line to say I'm riding an electric surfboard when that video clearly shows a hydrofoil that I'm pumping with my own legs. Just read that incredibly smug quote from him in response to the many recent articles critiquing Facebook.. It is not blind hatred, I would say it is very well targeted hatred of someone who has an enormous impact on the world while only caring about Facebook. His denial and stubbornness is approaching that of a very recent ex president. https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10113917270654841&set=a.529237706231&type=3 https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10113917270654841&set=...
dqv 5y ago
If we’re talking about this from strictly the shareholders’ perspective, deposing Zuckerberg would do more than $5 billion in damage to Facebook.
- pydry 5y ago
  Why do you assume that?
  - dqv 5y ago
    I think Facebook has a lot of dirty secrets.
loeg 5y ago
FB investors seem pretty happy with Zuck's leadership of the company, and it's pretty easy to see the argument that the additional cost was well worth it to keep him at the helm.

That doesn’t really help shareholders does it? Except Zuck has his own shareholder class so it really does! This is another reason against multiple classes of share

avalys 5y ago

FB's valuation is currently around $1T. Shareholders should be pretty happy with what Zuck has done with FB's business and this seems sufficient to justify protecting him from what would have been a major personal distraction. But by all means, have sympathy for all those shareholders who were forced to invest their money in FB stock against their will and without any knowledge of the ownership structure.

CamelCaseName 5y ago
Who exactly was forced to invest money into FB stock? Why should we have any sympathy for them given the stock is up 200% over the past 5 years?
- avalys 5y ago
  I was being sarcastic.
  - CamelCaseName 5y ago
    My apologies, that went over my head. Thank you for clarifying.
- edoceo 5y ago
  My friends mocked me for buying on IPO day. Sold 1/2 a few months ago. I don't use the network but thanks for the money Zuck!
  - skeeter2020 5y ago
    Weird flex. Do you have a system I can buy that will let me reproduce your results?
    - edoceo 5y ago
      Dice. Purchase from your local gaming house.
- neonnoodle 5y ago
  Anyone with a retirement account in an index fund!
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    Anyone with a retirement account can pick a different fund. They can be even buy individual stocks to collect their own portfolio. Or even buy anti-Facebook security. But there's no demand for that as far as I see. So I guess shareholders are actually happy, and unhappy are the people here on HN who are not shareholders.
    - JohnFen 5y ago
      There is a rather large number of investors that are not happy, and aren't quiet about it. That's why Facebook faces investor lawsuits every so often.
      - asteroidbelt 5y ago
        Investors sue because they can, not because they are unhappy.
cool_dude85 5y ago
Where does this logic end? If Zuck shoots a guy in the middle of the street, is it fine for FB to finance his legal defense fund? Hire operators to bust him out of jail if he's convicted? Both of those "protect shareholder value" in the same sense as this.
- vasco 5y ago
  It ends in illegal activities. If you disagree with the settlement you should harp on the FTC for having offered it. Zuck is no saint but this "where does it end" is a poor argument.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    FTC seemed to think that Zuck was taking part in illegal activities right up until he offered a few extra billion in the deal. So it ends, well, before the article being discussed?
  - COGlory 5y ago
    You can't prove it's illegal if you stop it from ever going to court.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Where does this logic end? When there is an actual cost to Zuckerberg's behavior. So far, Silicon Valley is fine working for Facebook and Wall Street fine financing it. Users aren't rebelling. Advertisers are docile. Where is a politician aspiring to take Zuckerberg on supposed to find berth? (Genuine question.) The only fecund ground, to my sense, is the far right accusing Facebook of censoring its Nazism and far left upset that Zuckerberg is rich. Neither makes for a sustainably extensible base.
  - shmageggy 5y ago
    What about the far middle who have been hearing for years how Facebook is eroding democracy, providing a platform for misinformation, instilling anxiety in teenage girls (the latest headline), and on and on. Zuckerberg continually makes decisions that benefit him and shareholders to the detriment of society and humanity. I think there's a greater appetite for change than it might appear, but I also think for the average person, it's really, really hard to imagine what that might be.
lordlic 5y ago
I'm not sure what you think minority ownership of a public company should entail, but surely you'd agree that it should protect them from the majority shareholder spending unlimited amounts of company cash to save themselves from personal inconvenience/embarrassment?
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  "Personal inconvenience/embarrassment" will hurt his ability to operate the company efficiently. Protecting CEO is (usually) in the best interest of minor shareholders. This is why companies pay for personal security of CEOs or for their personal PR (most large companies, not just Facebook). > spending unlimited amounts of company cash This is clearly not the case here.
  - lordlic 5y ago
    $4.9B over what the fine would otherwise have been is pretty hefty. I don't think any human alive is worth $4.9B to their employer.
    - asteroidbelt 5y ago
      Perhaps damage to Z would result in damage to FB for more than 5B (company market cap would definitely fall for more than that, and it could result in large mismanagement in the following years), so he is worth it.
      - lordlic 5y ago
        I meant "really" worth, for some reasonable definition of "really." But I can't argue that market cap is a more pragmatic definition of worth, so your point is fair enough I guess.
skeeter2020 5y ago
So if I buy a share today at the $1T valuation, I DON'T support Zuck in this case, but if I bought one ten years ago I DO, because he made me rich?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > So if I buy a share today at the $1T valuation, I DON'T support Zuck in this case, but if I bought one ten years ago I DO, because he made me rich? If you bought a share today, you presumably aren't doing it out of charity.
howaboutnope 5y ago
This wouldn't be a "distraction", this would be him owning his shit. The distraction from that is what he fills the rest of his life with.
sfg 5y ago
They bought under the condition of the ownership structure and also the law. If, as alleged, the law was broken, then there is nothing wrong with shareholders seeking redress.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

I would argue against that argument. Arguably, Zuckerberg was instrumental in getting FB to where it is today. It is not inconceivable that protecting him is protecting shareholder value.

Slartie 5y ago
From which alternate reality, where you were able to observe how a Facebook "fork" governed in a non-dictatorial fashion has turned out, did you learn this "arguable" information?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  I am genuinely not sure why this is a controversial statement. Allow me to rephrase this in a very quantifiable way. FB IPO opened at $38 ( https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/11/17/if-you-invested-5000-facebook-ipo-how-much-have.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/11/17/if-you-invested-50... ). Today it trades at $346 ( https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB?p=FB https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB?p=FB ). That is 9 times the initial investment value. Now, we can argue how much of that increase should be given to Zuckerberg in the form of credit for directing the company, but I am relatively certain that the answer is not zero. I stand by my initial post. It is very much arguable. edit: Hatred of Zuckerberg really should not be blind. I mean there is enough there to dislike him for. There is no need to invent stuff.
  - croes 5y ago
    "That was on Thursday. What did he do on Friday?"
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    > It is one thing for the media to say false things about my work, but it's crossing the line to say I'm riding an electric surfboard when that video clearly shows a hydrofoil that I'm pumping with my own legs. Just read that incredibly smug quote from him in response to the many recent articles critiquing Facebook.. It is not blind hatred, I would say it is very well targeted hatred of someone who has an enormous impact on the world while only caring about Facebook. His denial and stubbornness is approaching that of a very recent ex president. https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10113917270654841&set=a.529237706231&type=3 https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10113917270654841&set=...

dqv 5y ago

If we’re talking about this from strictly the shareholders’ perspective, deposing Zuckerberg would do more than $5 billion in damage to Facebook.

pydry 5y ago
Why do you assume that?
- dqv 5y ago
  I think Facebook has a lot of dirty secrets.

loeg 5y ago

FB investors seem pretty happy with Zuck's leadership of the company, and it's pretty easy to see the argument that the additional cost was well worth it to keep him at the helm.