> 1) Founder still has majority voting shares, gives a lot more freedom. I am bearish on FB for this reason. Companies with dual-class founder-dominated govern

> 1) Founder still has majority voting shares, gives a lot more freedom. I am bearish on FB for this reason. Companies with dual-class founder-dominated governance I think will increasingly see this where the founder fails to step aside for new leadership. More than that, FB more so than most other tech companies has constructed a cult of personality around its founder - even if the mechanisms existed for Mark to step aside it's unclear if the company can culturally withstand the change. Think Ballmer-era MS, but except with zero corporate governance mechanism to replace him with their equivalent of Nadella. I know we tend to worship founders around here but there are many instances where a founder is no longer the right leader for the company. My personal feeling has been for some time that Zuck is not the right leader for this stage of FB and seems to be doing more harm than good in the top post.