3 ms·
It's not controversial. It's just factually wrong. Public company has different rules than private company. He now has fiduciary duty to other owners. It's tru
by nabla9 4y ago
It's not controversial. It's just factually wrong.
Public company has different rules than private company. He now has fiduciary duty to other owners. It's true that he has locked in majority of votes, but that's only because Meta has dual class structure.
It's unfortunate that it's possible to build this kind of monstrosities with dual class stocks.
- davnicwil 4y agoEverybody who bought the non voting stock did so voluntarily, understanding the structure before doing so.
- ketzo 4y ago> voluntarily unless they were doing so through an index fund like a significant majority of public capital > understanding the structure I would bet against every Facebook shareholder understanding at the time of investment; I would bet against even a majority thinking through the long-term ramifications I understand your point — it’s a free market, nobody MAKES you buy stock — but I still don’t think it’s a reason to totally write off all the implications of a dual-class share structure for one of the biggest companies in the world.
- geodel 4y agoWhy are dual class stocks allowed if they are so clearly wrong? Also why do investors buy into companies which have dual class stocks if they are bad?
- BaseballPhysics 4y agoA sick obsession with founder-centric companies thanks to the myth of lone geniuses fueled by industry hero worship of folks like Gates and Jobs. Fortunately, thanks to the flailings of folks like Musk, Zuck, and Holmes, that fever has broken and the sickness is starting to pass...