Support NeoGAF

[Spring Drive]

SAN FRANCISCO — Mark Zuckerberg would not retain his iron grip on Facebook should he leave the giant social network under a proposal from the board of directors.

The Facebook board is asking shareholders to vote on the proposal that would deny Zuckerberg voting control if he is no longer running Facebook at the annual meeting on June 20. The proposal would ensure "that we will not remain a founder-controlled company after we cease to be a founder-led company," the board said in a filing.

Under the current agreement, Zuckerberg would be able to exercise voting control even if leaves the company. Zuckerberg would also be allowed to pass on those shares, and conceivably his majority voting control, to his descendants after he dies.

The succession planning, first disclosed in April, does not suggest Zuckerberg, 32, is planning on stepping down anytime soon. It's part of Facebook's plan to create a new class of nonvoting stock to aid Zuckerberg — while he's CEO — to retain control as he and wife Priscilla Chan give away 99% of their Facebook shares over their lifetime to philanthropic endeavors.

Facebook's board is proposing a new class of shares, a "C" class, that will have no voting rights. If the proposal is approved, the shares will be issued as a one-time dividend, two shares apiece to Class A and Class B class common stock holders. The Menlo Park, Calif., company announced the three-for-one stock split in April.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/06/03/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-control/85343526/

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Man we could REALLY use a sequel to The Social Network if this happens.

 

[Slayven]

So if he leaves they would kick him out of the clubhouse into a huge pile of money?

 

[Big Blue]

That's the risk you take when you go public.

 

[Frozenprince]

So if he leaves they would kick him out of the clubhouse into a huge pile of money?

Into his own clubhouse made entirely out of money, tbh.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

Sounds like if he leaves the control room, they'd revoke his remote access rights, which at some point I can't exactly criticize. If you walk away from something, kinda hard to then say "I'm still calling the shots though!".

I might be misunderstanding, but I got the sense this was how Bill Gates handled things. Even once he was no longer the head of MS and was doing all his philanthropic stuff, he's still a close advisor to Ballmer and now Nadella and has say in any projects they might kick up.

 

[EmSeta]

That's the risk you take when you go public.

Pretty much this.

 

[Quonny]

I mean, I don't think he'd be too upset about this.

They're still giving him his money, and he's giving 99% of that money to charity.

 

[Steiner84]

im suprised hes still with facebook tbh.
l would have grabbed the billions and said goodbye to that shit long before.

 

[Walter White Walker]

Makes sense. If he leaves why would he retain control?

 

[Spring Drive]

Makes sense. If he leaves why would he retain control?

Because he owns stock in the company

 

[Seth Enosh]

He proposed this to the board. The idea is to let him sell a lot of shares while maintaining control of the company. In exchange, he can't pass on control to a family member or whatever.

 

[Zaph]

Because he owns stock in the company

Which he's mostly converting into new non-voting class of shares to give to charities.

This is the board's way of saying "look, we'll put up with all this shit, but only if you, and only you, stick with us".

 

[entremet]

im suprised hes still with facebook tbh.
l would have grabbed the billions and said goodbye to that shit long before.

Like Gates and Jobs before him, I didn't think Zuck just cares about chilling with Billions.

He has bigger legacy aspirations, so I'm not really surprised there.

 

[sangreal]

Presumably he is okay with this considering he currently controls 53% of the vote and this proposal needs to be voted on

 

[kswiston]

l would have grabbed the billions and said goodbye to that shit long before.

People with this attitude don't become billionaires, because they are more than happy to take a few million in an early buyout before their idea really explodes.


It's crazy that Mark Zuckerberg is now worth over $50B.

 

[Dennis]

The Facebook board is asking shareholders to vote on the proposal that would deny Zuckerberg voting control if he is no longer running Facebook at the annual meeting on June 20. The proposal would ensure "that we will not remain a founder-controlled company after we cease to be a founder-led company," the board said in a filing.

Seems entirely reasonable.

Under the current agreement, Zuckerberg would be able to exercise voting control even if leaves the company. Zuckerberg would also be allowed to pass on those shares, and conceivably his majority voting control, to his descendants after he dies.

lol trying to seem "progressive" while behaving like a medieval overlord.

We Crusader Kings 2 now.

 

[Moppet13]

Seems entirely reasonable.



lol trying to seem "progressive" while behaving like a medieval overlord.

We Crusader Kings 2 now.

That's how normal voting shares work.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Seems entirely reasonable.



lol trying to seem "progressive" while behaving like a medieval overlord.

We Crusader Kings 2 now.

Talk about hyperbole. This is between FB and its shareholders, no big deal.

 

[Dennis]

That's how normal voting shares work.

Yes and it is wrong.

Public companies should be public companies.

You want the public money but want to run things like a dynastic king even after leaving the company?

Fuck that.

 

[ClosingADoor]

lol trying to seem "progressive" while behaving like a medieval overlord.

We Crusader Kings 2 now.

Huh? It is totally normal to give your stock to your kids if you die. What else should be done with them?

And if those stocks are the majority of them and are voting stocks, then the owner of those has the final say at stock holders meetings and such.

Nothing medieval or non-progressive about it.

Yes and it is wrong.

Public companies should be public companies.

You want the public money but want to run things like a dynastic king even after leaving the company?

Fuck that.

They are public companies. You can go to Zuckerberg and buy the shares from him if you want and make a good enough offer.

 

[Dennis]

I am against the idea of voting stock.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I am against the idea of voting stock.

So the owners / stockholders of companies should not get a say in what that company does? That seems rather strange.

So who appoints the CEO in this case and leads the company?

 

[Moppet13]

I am against the idea of voting stock.

So you think that if you own over 50% of the company that you should not own the company and that the public should dictate your company, however you're also against the idea of voting shares which lets the public help decide the direction of your company?

 

[Dennis]

So the owners / stockholders of companies should not get a say in what that company does? That seems rather strange.

No, I am saying all stock should be equal. No voting versus non-voting stock to keep control in specific hands.

Public stock should be all equal public stock.

 

[deadlast]

They kick him out and he makes a new thing that everyone rages over and becomes addicted to.

 

[Dennis]

It's part of Facebook's plan to create a new class of nonvoting stock to aid Zuckerberg — while he's CEO — to retain control as he and wife Priscilla Chan give away 99% of their Facebook shares over their lifetime to philanthropic endeavors.

You should not be able to retain control after giving away 99% of shares.

 

[Spring Drive]

No, I am saying all stock should be equal. No voting versus non-voting stock to keep control in specific hands.

Public stock should be all equal public stock.

Aren't voting stocks more expensive than regular stocks?

 

[Zombine]

Yeah but who is designing the box

 

[Dennis]

It is like having your cake and eating it too.

"I will make billions on selling 99% of the stock but they are non-voting stock so I additionally keep control"

"I want the public investor money in my pocket but I will give up none of the control in return"

 

[Moppet13]

Aren't voting stocks more expensive than regular stocks?

Common stocks are voting shares, they're what most people own.

Edit: I should be more specific, common stock are class B shares which have a voting ratio of 1 vote for 1 share, they're typically what people talk about when they talk about buying and selling stocks. As opposed to class A stock which is probably what Zuckerberg owns.

It is like having your cake and eating it too.

"I will make billions on selling 99% of the stock but they are non-voting stock so I additionally keep control"

"I want the public investor money in my pocket but I will give up none of the control in return"

What in the world are you even talking about anymore?

 

[Slo]

Yes and it is wrong.

Public companies should be public companies.

You want the public money but want to run things like a dynastic king even after leaving the company?

Fuck that.

Democracy is not always ideal.

Facebook McBoatface.

 

[Raticus79]

I am against the idea of voting stock.

Sounds like you might actually be against the idea of non-voting stock.

 

[Dennis]

Sounds like you might actually be against the idea of non-voting stock.

I suppose that would be the proper way to put it, yes.

 

[Faddy]

It is like having your cake and eating it too.

"I will make billions on selling 99% of the stock but they are non-voting stock so I additionally keep control"

"I want the public investor money in my pocket but I will give up none of the control in return"

That seems like a noble goal. The problem is that all investors aren't equally interested in how the company is run. Small stock holder in companies like Google and Facebook are putting in their contribution for the growth and dividend prospects and not particularly caring to vote a Annual Meetings or even interested in how the company is run.

This leads to predatory buyers like Carl Icahn and Daniel Loeb wielding far more power than there shareholding should entitle them to.

It is no surprise that large tech companies like Apple, Google and Facebook are telling investors that they are going to protect their current leadership and if investors don't like it they can sell their shares