4 ms·

> the company has NO ONE's interests at heart Except for shareholder value

• bhouston 2y ago
  > Except for shareholder value Well, it depends. Zuckerberg has controlling interest in Meta even though he owns a minority of it (<15%) because of its dual share structure. Meta will do what he wants it do. Google has a similar structure.
  • jjulius 2y ago
    Semantics. I'd replace "shareholder value" with "making a chunk of people insanely wealthy".
    • iforgot22 2y ago
      It's not semantics. Those founders have more voting power than their actual share in the companies, so they don't have the same incentives as regular shareholders.
      • zht 2y ago
        the founders are also shareholders so they are still maximizing shareholder vlaue
        • iforgot22 2y ago
          Zuck's other financial and personal interests could compete with his money in the company. Unlikely at 1:1, but it's more possible the higher his vote multiplier is.
• GeekyBear 2y ago
  Isn't that more about the value of the shares they personally received as part of their compensation package?
• HDThoreaun 2y ago
  If meta cared about shareholder value they wouldnt be spending 10 bil a year on VR. Decisions at meta are made with marks interests in mind
• NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  Not even really true anymore. It’s all about “stakeholder capitalism“ now, which boils down to management being able to prioritize whichever stakeholder it wants to in any given situation. Shareholder primacy may not be perfect, but it at least constrains management instead of giving them completely free rein.