7 ms·

> I get throwing in a little extra to shield executives, but $5 billion? If i had singular control of a company the size of FB and the ability to spend it's mo

> I get throwing in a little extra to shield executives, but $5 billion? If i had singular control of a company the size of FB and the ability to spend it's money to avoid any sort of liability, i'd take the offer too.

rebuilder 5y ago
It’s a hell of an upsell, though. That’s 50 times the initial price. Zuckerberg must have been really worried, or really, really unwilling to take any personal risk.
- ivalm 5y ago
  The marginal utility of $5b of facebook’s money to Zuck is very low, but the cost of even a low chance of serious personal liability is high.
  - shapefrog 5y ago
    Guessing he had a few people fired from their 100k jobs for only generating a mil in profits for the company and thus being a drag on the metrics.
- pc86 5y ago
  Zuckerberg is worth $130 billion. And this $5 billion isn't even his money; it's the company's.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  > Zuckerberg must have been really worried, or really, really unwilling to take any personal risk. I’m not so sure. If you asked a random person if they could wash the dishes, or not do them but someone other person would have to pay 5 billion dollars, what would the result be?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    Depends on whether or not they're psychopathic enough to be CEO material. I feel like these figures -- 50x and $5B -- are good things for people to keep in mind next time their company asks them for uncompensated self-sacrifice.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I'm sorry guys - we're unable to offer a CoL adjustment or performance raises this year. We really wish we could but the CEO just mauled a few pedestrians in his lambo.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > That’s 50 times the initial price. There is no limit of someone else's money i'd spend - repercussion free - to avoid the slightest bit of liability. I can imagine the same thing applies to Mark. tbh can't fault him for it. The blame for this behavior lies in the FTC for brokering a deal (as if the US needed money? Was it for a big-number press cycle?) and for early stage investors in FB for allowing a business with such a brass stock agreement.
  - scotuswroteus 5y ago
    Oh in point of fact this was illegal if it's true, and I don't know how you ignore the law in who you can "fault" with respect to corporate officer conduct.
  - patentatt 5y ago
    But he personally has a controlling stake in the company, it’s like at least half his money in some sense.
- barkingcat 5y ago
  or is just really rich. perspectives are different at that scale. if he has the ability to make fb pay for it why not? It's just like me not giving a second thought to getting in my car, driving down to the market that's 1.5 blocks away to pick up some eggs. When I didn't have money, didn't have a car, that was unbelievable to me. But now it's just second nature. To people with wealth at that scale, hundred million vs single digit billion might not be such a big deal. (I mean it's one order of magnitude to go from x00 million to y billion, so it's not that far fetched for a rich person to take that as is) The real discussion should be why the fine was so low and wasn't in the hundreds of billion to trillion range in the first place. That's the real steal.
unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
Minority shareholders aren't just supposed to be along for whatever frolic you whimsically decide to send them on.
- landemva 5y ago
  Queue the shareholder lawsuit. USA is home of justice to the highest bidder.
  - fakedang 5y ago
    Cue*
  - collectedparts 5y ago
    Er, yes. The topic of the linked article - the reason that this is coming to light in the news now - is indeed, that a shareholder lawsuit has been brought against them (Zuckerberg, Sandberg, etc are named defendants and the company is nominal defendant). Direct link, from the article: https://655e71e2-f98d-40e9-822b-081bc894b6af.filesusr.com/ugd/372b91_d52609662545424aaa74c3b37a4edf65.pdf https://655e71e2-f98d-40e9-822b-081bc894b6af.filesusr.com/ug...
    - scotuswroteus 5y ago
      Also, lawsuits aren't just raw competitions between two entities about who is willing to spend the most.
- potatolicious 5y ago
  Not to mention the "minority" shareholders are only minority in voting rights, not minority in shares owned. The multi-class share system is designed to enable exactly this kind of executive behavior, where even a broad shareholder revolt isn't enough.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
pydry 5y ago
There's still a myth floating around that companies are legally obligated to make the maximum amount of profit for shareholders. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
- nceqs3 5y ago
  It's in the bylaws of the corporation typically. Feduce duty lawsuits are very common and it certainly isn't a "myth".
  - pydry 5y ago
    Within some constraints you can put whatever you want in your corporation's bylaws when you found it, including a directive not to make a profit should you so choose.
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    Can you give an example of a company with it their bylaws? I’ve never seen it, and Facebook doesn’t. https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_downloads/governance_documents/2019/Facebook-Amended-Restated-Bylaws.pdf https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_downloads/governan...
    - adventured 5y ago
      It's absolutely not typically in the bylaws of corporations, that they must seek to optimize for profit. The parent comment dances around the language of the premise. It's extraordinarily rare to put anything remotely close to that in the bylaws, because it's a super dumb way to set yourself up for entirely unnecessary legal problems in the future. The lawsuits may happen, however they also almost never win.
    - crznp 5y ago
      It isn't necessarily in the bylaws, it comes with being a director of a Delaware corporation. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/03/10/directors-fiduciary-duties-back-to-delaware-law-basics/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/03/10/directors-fiducia...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rebuilder 5y ago

It’s a hell of an upsell, though. That’s 50 times the initial price. Zuckerberg must have been really worried, or really, really unwilling to take any personal risk.

ivalm 5y ago
The marginal utility of $5b of facebook’s money to Zuck is very low, but the cost of even a low chance of serious personal liability is high.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  Guessing he had a few people fired from their 100k jobs for only generating a mil in profits for the company and thus being a drag on the metrics.
pc86 5y ago
Zuckerberg is worth $130 billion. And this $5 billion isn't even his money; it's the company's.
lostlogin 5y ago
> Zuckerberg must have been really worried, or really, really unwilling to take any personal risk. I’m not so sure. If you asked a random person if they could wash the dishes, or not do them but someone other person would have to pay 5 billion dollars, what would the result be?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Depends on whether or not they're psychopathic enough to be CEO material. I feel like these figures -- 50x and $5B -- are good things for people to keep in mind next time their company asks them for uncompensated self-sacrifice.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I'm sorry guys - we're unable to offer a CoL adjustment or performance raises this year. We really wish we could but the CEO just mauled a few pedestrians in his lambo.
vineyardmike 5y ago
> That’s 50 times the initial price. There is no limit of someone else's money i'd spend - repercussion free - to avoid the slightest bit of liability. I can imagine the same thing applies to Mark. tbh can't fault him for it. The blame for this behavior lies in the FTC for brokering a deal (as if the US needed money? Was it for a big-number press cycle?) and for early stage investors in FB for allowing a business with such a brass stock agreement.
- scotuswroteus 5y ago
  Oh in point of fact this was illegal if it's true, and I don't know how you ignore the law in who you can "fault" with respect to corporate officer conduct.
- patentatt 5y ago
  But he personally has a controlling stake in the company, it’s like at least half his money in some sense.
barkingcat 5y ago
or is just really rich. perspectives are different at that scale. if he has the ability to make fb pay for it why not? It's just like me not giving a second thought to getting in my car, driving down to the market that's 1.5 blocks away to pick up some eggs. When I didn't have money, didn't have a car, that was unbelievable to me. But now it's just second nature. To people with wealth at that scale, hundred million vs single digit billion might not be such a big deal. (I mean it's one order of magnitude to go from x00 million to y billion, so it's not that far fetched for a rich person to take that as is) The real discussion should be why the fine was so low and wasn't in the hundreds of billion to trillion range in the first place. That's the real steal.

unyttigfjelltol 5y ago

Minority shareholders aren't just supposed to be along for whatever frolic you whimsically decide to send them on.

landemva 5y ago
Queue the shareholder lawsuit. USA is home of justice to the highest bidder.
- fakedang 5y ago
  Cue*
- collectedparts 5y ago
  Er, yes. The topic of the linked article - the reason that this is coming to light in the news now - is indeed, that a shareholder lawsuit has been brought against them (Zuckerberg, Sandberg, etc are named defendants and the company is nominal defendant). Direct link, from the article: https://655e71e2-f98d-40e9-822b-081bc894b6af.filesusr.com/ugd/372b91_d52609662545424aaa74c3b37a4edf65.pdf https://655e71e2-f98d-40e9-822b-081bc894b6af.filesusr.com/ug...
  - scotuswroteus 5y ago
    Also, lawsuits aren't just raw competitions between two entities about who is willing to spend the most.
potatolicious 5y ago
Not to mention the "minority" shareholders are only minority in voting rights, not minority in shares owned. The multi-class share system is designed to enable exactly this kind of executive behavior, where even a broad shareholder revolt isn't enough.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

pydry 5y ago

There's still a myth floating around that companies are legally obligated to make the maximum amount of profit for shareholders. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...

nceqs3 5y ago
It's in the bylaws of the corporation typically. Feduce duty lawsuits are very common and it certainly isn't a "myth".
- pydry 5y ago
  Within some constraints you can put whatever you want in your corporation's bylaws when you found it, including a directive not to make a profit should you so choose.
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  Can you give an example of a company with it their bylaws? I’ve never seen it, and Facebook doesn’t. https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_downloads/governance_documents/2019/Facebook-Amended-Restated-Bylaws.pdf https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_downloads/governan...
  - adventured 5y ago
    It's absolutely not typically in the bylaws of corporations, that they must seek to optimize for profit. The parent comment dances around the language of the premise. It's extraordinarily rare to put anything remotely close to that in the bylaws, because it's a super dumb way to set yourself up for entirely unnecessary legal problems in the future. The lawsuits may happen, however they also almost never win.
  - crznp 5y ago
    It isn't necessarily in the bylaws, it comes with being a director of a Delaware corporation. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/03/10/directors-fiduciary-duties-back-to-delaware-law-basics/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/03/10/directors-fiducia...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]