Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The idea of giving supervotes to founders is always going to come back and haunt investors. Uber is stuck with Travis. Facebook is stuck with Zuck.

Selling the stock is meaningless, since the crux of the problem is that the problematic individuals control the majority of the votes, while holding a minority of the shares. Look at FB. Zuck personally has 3.98 billion votes. All the other shares only have 2.4 billion votes. So everyone sells, drives down the price of the stock, and then what? Control doesn't transfer. Literally nothing changed. Hell, it might even get worse, if Zuck decides to purchase Class A shares himself.



...but Uber isn’t stuck with Travis?


> So everyone sells, drives down the price of the stock, and then what?

Then those people aren't shareholders in a company whose management they find unacceptable. Problem solved, from a certain point of view.


It's in Zuck's personal interests to maintain a high share price, because his lifestyle is predicated on borrowing money against the current worth of his shares.


Zuckerberg is worth 66 billion dollars.

Do you really think his lifestyle is going to change if he was suddenly worth a mere 660 million? (That’s a 99% reduction.) I don’t think you really have a grasp on just how obscenely wealthy this man is, and how little it actually effects him.


That depends tremenously on how his wealth is tied up, what is liquid, and how collateralised it is.

And wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power.


All of that is moot. It’s writing off 99%. I can see no situation where he couldn’t protect 1% of his wealth, or even just 0.1%.

And anyway this is missing the point. Even if Facebook got delisted. He still controls Facebook. The cost of the shares means literally nothing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: