If they are fed up, they can just sell the shares and move on. Honestly, what is newsworthy about shareholders being upset with a CEO? There are shareholders upset with every publicly traded company.
Considering the stock is up nearly 60% in the last 4 months, it seems like most shareholders aren't upset at all since the stock is being bid up by investors regardless of the "survey/poll" by one of the proxy sponsors.
The author ends with "Of course, they knew that when they bought their shares, so what do they really have to complain about?"
Exactly. Shareholders, especially funds like Trillium Asset Management, knew of the share and voting structure of FB. It's pretty much shareholders share in the profits while Zuckerburg controls the company. So why write an entire article ( much of it blatantly anti-zuckerburg and anti-facebook ) about it? What an odd article. It, like most facebook related articles recently, comes off as biased hit pieces with no substance.
> Zuckerberg owns or controls 88.1% of Facebook’s Class B shares, which each have 10 votes at the annual meeting — 3.98 billion votes overall. There are only 2.4 billion Class A shares, which are the only shares ordinary investors can buy. So any proposal Zuckerberg doesn’t like will fail by nearly a 2-1 margin, assuming all Class A investors vote together, which never happens. (Zuckerberg owns 0.5% of the Class A shares.)
when did this powerful structure come into existence in the history of Facebook and who was responsible for it? was its origin with Peter Thiel's initial investment and was it his idea to make it so the founder would preserve their power?
My impression is, they need to make so many pieces per day, and each piece needs to be a certain length, so they make that many pieces whether they really have anything to say or not.
Considering the stock is up nearly 60% in the last 4 months, it seems like most shareholders aren't upset at all since the stock is being bid up by investors regardless of the "survey/poll" by one of the proxy sponsors.
The author ends with "Of course, they knew that when they bought their shares, so what do they really have to complain about?"
Exactly. Shareholders, especially funds like Trillium Asset Management, knew of the share and voting structure of FB. It's pretty much shareholders share in the profits while Zuckerburg controls the company. So why write an entire article ( much of it blatantly anti-zuckerburg and anti-facebook ) about it? What an odd article. It, like most facebook related articles recently, comes off as biased hit pieces with no substance.