Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Major Facebook Investors Want Mark Zuckerberg Out as Chairman (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the nobody-likes-mark dept.

Major Facebook investors, including public pension funds and state officials, are pushing for Mark Zuckerberg's ouster as chairman of the company's board. From a report: The proposal is largely symbolic, since Zuckerberg holds absolute control of the board. But it comes at a difficult time for Facebook, as security breaches plague the company and spur questions around corporate oversight. "We need Facebook's insular boardroom to make a serious commitment to addressing real risks -- reputational, regulatory, and the risk to our democracy -- that impact the company, its share owners, and ultimately the hard-earned pensions of thousands of New York City workers," New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer said in a statement to CNBC. Stringer joined a previous motion by Trillium Asset Management in calling for Zuckerberg to step down.

23 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. And replaced with Satan himself by nwaack · · Score: 4, Funny

    As for their reasoning, they stated, "The Dark Lord would be less evil and have much more charisma than Zuckerberg."

    1. Re: And replaced with Satan himself by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      I love that South Park episode!

    2. Re:And replaced with Satan himself by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      To the main point. Is anyone really qualified to manage a company the size of Facebook?
      Most of the social media companies who were from the normal tech companies seemed to have failed (or just going by as a shadow of its former self)
      Google+
      MySpace
      Digg
      Slashdot
      MSN
      AOL
      Prodigy
      CompuServe

      Facebook was able to stay strong for so long. Even with all its faults and evilness people are still using it. Because much like Microsoft there are other options but such options just don't have the userbase to make it useful.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Someone else would be better? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... as security breaches plague the company and spur questions around corporate oversight.

    Because Mark is doing a bad job actually coding the security fixes? Maybe they can get another CEO to do the cyber security work. :-)

    "We need Facebook's insular boardroom to make a serious commitment to addressing real risks -- reputational, regulatory, and the risk to our democracy -- that impact the company, its share owners, ...

    Um... Zuckerberg is the majority (or largest) shareholder. From The Top Shareholders of Facebook:

    The founder and "face" of Facebook indirectly holds around 14.18 million Class A Facebook shares in a series of funds, as of July 25, 2018. Zuckerberg also owns a whopping 441.6 million Class B shares. Control over nearly 89% of the Class B shares, gives Zuckerberg 60% voting rights in the company.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Someone else would be better? by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      if the other shareholders only have two shares, and the company is public, he has a raft of SEC regs to live up to - and shareholder lawsuits...so what if he's majority owner

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    2. Re:Someone else would be better? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that there are legal recourses for minority stockholders who can show that the majority stock holder and board leadership are not acting in the best interest of all stock holders.

      They have a fiduciary duty to look out for all stock holders.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Someone else would be better? by epine · · Score: 1

      Zuckerberg also owns a whopping 441.6 million Class B shares. Control over nearly 89% of the Class B shares, gives Zuckerberg 60% voting rights in the company.

      You'd think his giant position would incentivize him to be less of a dork. Except, Fratbook. Once an ogler, always an ogre.

  3. only as chariman by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

    Only ousted as chairman, not as CEO. So even more symbolic than the article says.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:only as chariman by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Chairman and CEO should always be split anyway.

    2. Re:only as chariman by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Only ousted as chairman, not as CEO. So even more symbolic than the article says.

      That's because that's how it works. The shareholders own the company, and they appoint a board of directors to manage the company on their behalf. They choose a chairman to lead the board.

      The board then appoints an executive team (CxO) to manage the day to day operations of the company and represent the board (and by extension, the shareholders).

      At best, the shareholders can oust the board or the chairman, but they cannot get rid of the executive team except by having the board do it.

      Anyhow, Zuckerberg has never been much in the way of a traditional CEO - eschewing the traditional suit for a hoodie. That has angered some shareholders who expect their chairman and CEO to be a certain way.

  4. This is the problem by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    ...The proposal is largely symbolic, since Zuckerberg holds absolute control of the board.... If you want to fix a problem, then you need to put into place different thinking than that which caused the problem in the first place.

  5. There's another option by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    and ultimately the hard-earned pensions of thousands of New York City workers," New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer said

    Um, you could, I dunno, maybe *sell* all your FB stock and protect the pensions that way?

    1. Re:There's another option by RayMarron · · Score: 1

      That's the first thing I thought, too. If you don't like how a company is being run, it seems to me the most prudent option would be to simply invest elsewhere.

      --
      ON DELETE CASCADE
    2. Re:There's another option by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Nearly all pension funds are *drastically* underfunded even with their utterly imaginary 8% assumed return rate. They're all going broke, some sooner than others. They're looking for any excuse....other than corruption and having kicked the can down the road much too far for far too long. CA, Il, CT, MI - heck, it's not worth listing them all, there'd be quite nearly 50 state entries in the "gonna go broke, a sure thing, as no way funding at 100% of tax recipients would now save any of them". Hope you weren't actually expecting your promised bennies.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  6. So it begins by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    The screams of terror as Facebook sinks to the bottom is a most delightful melody.

  7. "Major" or "Majority"? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    If it's "majority" then problem solved. If it's just "major" then wake me up when you have "majority."

    Anyone else annoyed by partisan "pension boards" trying to throw their weight around by saying they'll do this or do that unless a company toes a PC line? As someone who would want to know my pension was there when I retired, I'd just want the Comptroller to STFU and make sure I got maximum return on my retirement dollars for minimal expenses.

  8. Zuck made his money by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    I don't really think he cares if he gets ousted or not.

  9. Possibly a step up by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    I usually consider a corporation to have "lost it's soul" once it pushes out the initial founders and becomes the typical corporation run by committee who are focused on quarterly profits and stock-price. I thought google was going to last a little longer as Sergey and Page were still around, but they conveniently re-structured into "alphabet" to let us all know the exact date that they decided to just go whole-hog evil. (Anyone with a knee-jerk argument about that needs to remember they're trying to get back into china and are ok with censorship now). But for Facebook? You know what? This could really be a step in the right direction. It's losing it's soul, but it wasn't a particularly good soul to start with. Give the suit-committee like 2 years to figure out what they're doing, then another 3-5 to give it a try and we'll see how it goes. They'll have to address the fact that their flagship is no longer "cool" and lost it's "small circle/exclusivity" aspect. They'll probably just continue to diversify like they did with whatsapp. Then again, maybe they'll just double-down and have a tie-in with China's social credit-score. Give the Pooh-bear all your likes or suffer the consequences. (And NEVER poke the bear).

  10. Pensions??? by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    ...that impact the company, its share owners, and ultimately the hard-earned pensions of thousands of New York City workers," New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer...

    How the hell is Facebook responsible for the pensions of New York City government workers?

    1. Re: Pensions??? by jd · · Score: 1

      Because pensions are all in 401k schemes.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  11. He has shown signs that he has a conscience by rundgong · · Score: 1

    He has shown signs that he has a conscience, and the share holders don't like that at all, because it can only hurt the bottom line.

  12. Not an option by spinitch · · Score: 1

    FB clear from beginning could only Like or neutral. Now can express sad, anger or laugh. Maybe FB will expand further with ... GTFO , FTFY etc ztzu

  13. Hey, Lets Get Rid Of All... by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    the idea guys... Jobs (done... dead), Allen (done... recently dead), Musk (half-done, just need to get him all the way out of the company), and now Zuckerberg. Can't have these deep thinkers around making everyone else look stupid. If you're good and have a good idea, for God's sake keep your organization as a proprietorship, or at worst a partnership. Screw this system where a bunch of Johnny Come Latelies can end up firing the main guy.