3 ms·
1. Yes, he was an asshole. And is. 2. Who cares how old Wall Street is? Does this magically make an asshole into less of an asshole, or instantly grant him cred
by Bud 15y ago
1. Yes, he was an asshole. And is.
2. Who cares how old Wall Street is? Does this magically make an asshole into less of an asshole, or instantly grant him credibility? I sing classical music written by dudes who have been dead for centuries; I don't see anyone lining up to give me more respect and money than bankers. Why not? Don't I automatically deserve it?
3. No, they do not "rule the game". Zuck is the guy with something of value here. Not the bankers. Did you notice which direction the money is flowing here? That tells you who has the power in this transaction.
- joering2 15y agoNo it doesnt make Wall St less asshole and obviously the way they handle business is usually unethical, but still one can't deny - they run the show. Zuck May not have much value if he doesn't raise the money. Wasn't that the major reason why most investors gave him the money at the first place (or any other company in that matter)? To IPO and XX-fold their investments.
- rhizome 15y agoRight, because some yuppie doesn't like his style, people aren't going to invest in Facebook.
- larrys 15y agoYou might want to consider that that photo of Mark made every mainstream media and consider how older people who buy stocks might think of investing in facebook if they are turned off by what, to them, will seem like immaturity. There is a reason that company management of many widely held companies appears all serious and well groomed. Have you ever seen a General Electric annual report?
- rhizome 15y agoYet somehow these older people are too stupid to interpret the fact that he's built Facebook? What aspect of finance relies on the sartorial choices of a company's executives?