Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Shareholders Force A Vote On Ousting Mark Zuckerberg (businessinsider.com)
On May 30th, Facebook's shareholder's will vote on whether to remove Mark Zuckerberg as chairman of the board, reports Business Insider:
Business Insider broke the news of the proposal in July last year after revealing the plans of activist shareholder Trillium Asset Management, which had grown tired of the "mishandling" of scandals including the Cambridge Analytica data breach. Responding to the proposal in the SEC filing, Facebook called on investors to vote it down. "We believe our board of directors is functioning effectively under its current structure, and that the current structure provides appropriate oversight protections," Facebook said...
The chance of it becoming a reality is extremely slim, despite it being backed by investors that control around $3 billion of Facebook stock. A similar proposal in 2017 was popular among independent investors but was crushed because of Zuckerberg's voting power. This is because of Facebook's dual-class share structure. Class B shares have 10 times the voting power of class A shares, and it just so happens that Zuckerberg owns more than 75% of class B stock. It means he has more than half of the voting power at Facebook....
Facebook will almost certainly get its way. But the two investor proposals mark continued dissatisfaction among shareholders about the way Facebook is run following a year from hell for the company. It also shows that investors continue to believe that Zuckerberg has too much power.
The chance of it becoming a reality is extremely slim, despite it being backed by investors that control around $3 billion of Facebook stock. A similar proposal in 2017 was popular among independent investors but was crushed because of Zuckerberg's voting power. This is because of Facebook's dual-class share structure. Class B shares have 10 times the voting power of class A shares, and it just so happens that Zuckerberg owns more than 75% of class B stock. It means he has more than half of the voting power at Facebook....
Facebook will almost certainly get its way. But the two investor proposals mark continued dissatisfaction among shareholders about the way Facebook is run following a year from hell for the company. It also shows that investors continue to believe that Zuckerberg has too much power.
Too much power? It's his company, and yours to choose whether to invest in it or not. Now I despise FB and everything it stands for as much as the next guy, but good on Zuck for having retained a controlling interest in his company. Maybe I've seen too much of the other extreme, with VCs asking for too large a piece of the pie in exchange for a pittance.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
slim.
Class B shares have 10 times the voting power of class A shares, and it just so happens that Zuckerberg owns more than 75% of class B stock.
Right, I'm sure he'll just oust himself. This is news why? Because Trillium Asset Management is bored?
Trillium Money Grabbers more like. I'm no fan of facebook - don't use it - or zuckerberg, but its his baby, he created the company and these parasites have him to thank for the increasing value of their investments. If they don't like it they're free to take their dirty gold elsewhere.
How has the scandal been mishandled? It looks like a textbook response of attempting to avoid and shift all blame while doing the bare minimum to appease 3rd parties.
What do they prefer? Full ownership and action? That is the BP / VW way (except for the action bit) and is now a case study in business textbooks of what not to do.
Why would any sane investor do that except at a substantial discount?
Because most investors are interested in making money, and not in "having a say".
I have never, not once, cast a vote for a board member or sent in a proxy form. I just toss them in the trash. So why should I care if I have voting rights, when I don't exercise them?
Imagine what investor-centric FB would look like. Maximum ads, maximum data selling, maximum profiling. As much as I dislike Zuck and everything he stands for, I think opening floodgates to predatory capitalism on this isn't going to improve things.
Cambridge Analytica wasn't a data breach.
Every piece of data they gathered was allowed by the site rules
Trillium is an activist investor, in this case "activist" meaning they want to push their social agenda on corporations.
To let that person know if the course isnâ(TM)t corrected, a mass sell-off might happen, devaluing his stock prices.