4 ms·

Only if you assume that not being constrained is somehow a bad thing for shareholders, which apparently is a logical fallacy some believe true.

• kasey_junk 2y ago
  It’s less a value judgement than a fact of law. Delaware has strict rules, precedents and courts that enforce shareholder protections. By leaving Delaware the company has signaled that giving that up is less if a downside than whatever upside they are getting in the new jurisdiction. In the case of Tesla it was an explicit repudiation of those rules that caused the company to leave, so it’s reasonable to see it as a signal.
  • dgfitz 2y ago
    Same point. Leaving a constrained environment for a less-constrained environment. If shareholders don’t like this move, they are free to move on from their position. They are owed what they own, because of their belief in future profits. If shareholders think this move is detrimental to that, move on. Like mentioned, Zuck owns the control. This isn’t a secret revealed to shareholders after they buy in to the gambit.
    • kasey_junk 2y ago
      Thats not true. Shareholders have rights beyond future profits. Those rights are governed by the constraints of the environment, and are part and parcel to the ownership of the shares. Zuck has a large amount of control both because of his ownership percentage and the ownership structure, but even with that amount of control the rights of the shareholders are not something he can change unilaterally. Changing the incorporation location is absolutely a change to the ownership introduced to the shareholders after they buy into the shares. This is basic property rights stuff, not some sort of fringe theory.