This is new information, earlier things were like this:
If Mr. Zuckerberg were to leave us or if his employment with us were to be terminated for "cause," under the Current Certificate, he would not be required to relinquish majority voting control. Moreover, under the Current Certificate, Mr. Zuckerberg would be able to pass along his shares of Class B common stock (and potentially his majority voting control depending on sales or transfers by Mr. Zuckerberg, as well as changes in our share count) to his descendants after his death, thus leading to potential multi-generational majority voting control of the company.
The Special Committee and the board of directors believe that attracting a qualified chief executive officer to succeed Mr. Zuckerberg would be significantly more difficult if Mr. Zuckerberg, our founder and (in that event) former chief executive officer, continued to retain majority voting control of us in such a circumstance. The Special Committee and the board of directors also believe that the quality of a chief executive officer who would step into the role under these circumstances is likely to be significantly lower than it would be if we were no longer controlled by Mr. Zuckerberg, which could result in the potential loss of significant value for us and our shares of Class A common stock.
But after this deal Mark cannot retain voting control if he leaves or is fired for cause. He also cannot pass on his current voting rights if he sells is shares or his kids inherit them.
It's a work day. I skim articles. Most people skim. This article was written in such a way that skimmers are very likely to walk away with a gross misunderstanding. I'm far from the only person to do so.
Let's see how it will play out once Facebook reaches MySpace-style decline and shareholders would need to get as much money out of Facebook as they still will be able to.
Facebook is different than MySpace. Entire families, including grandparents, weren't on MySpace. Facebook has gotten very close to achieving their goal of "Becoming the Internet" for many 40 .
I see this criticism come up a lot, but we have to face the fact that Facebook is not going to decline like MySpace. Facebook continues to show significant active user growth still, even though they're much larger than MySpace ever was. And they're in a much more firm place financially than MySpace ever was. They're not comparable past their basic functionality of "users have profiles and a set of friends".
Not too mention facebook completely changes in design and is constantly evolving its look. If FB still looked like how it did in it's early inception I doubt it would be as popular.
Perhaps there is some study to be done where social sites/apps become obsolete if they fail to adapt their UI/UX over the years. I mean look at sites like Fark and SA compared to what is popular nowadays like Snapchat or Reddit.
Reddit? I see lots of comments about how people are amazed Reddit has remained (or, really, grown) as popular as it is while still having a very "low rent" UI.
I'd actually argue hallelujah that reddit hasn't significantly altered their UI. It may not be pretty, but it doesn't take that long to get used to its quirks, and when you do it is extremely fast and easy to navigate and find meaningful content. I contrast this to slashdot, who proceeded to make their UI WORSE with every update (more "modern" styling and response, but they made it totally broke the usability of their commenting system).
I find the problem with Slashdot the fact that they've updated their styling to be in line with what was popular in 2006, with a commenting system from 1995. I can't read their comments any better than I can read mailing lists; they're both horrible, horrible ways of displaying conversations. In my opinion, their commenting system has been broken since I started reading the site back when CmdrTaco was still unmarried.
I left Slashdot because of the rampant censorship; if you ever posted something going against "prevailing wisdom" even if completely true, you might have found yourself unable to access the home page for a day and your submission ended up deleted. On completely factual, verifiable things, not politics/gender/whatever controversy.
MySpace's core business was crappy irrelevant display ads laid out over a crappy CMS, with what we would today call a very small MAU base. MySpace at its peak was around a third of the size Twitter is today in terms of MAUs.
Facebook has algorithmic targeting of ads second to none on the planet (most of which happens entirely outside the purview of ad blockers) and pretty unrivaled view of what customers are doing across devices. On top of which they have several other businesses that could one day grow more profitable than FB itself.
We can talk about whether Facebook's model is sustainable, whether demand for behavioral targeting ads will hold up, or if the likes of Instagram and Oculus can ever turn really profitable - but a MySpace style collapse is more or less out of the question.
Facebook's experience and technology are miles ahead of MySpace. They are a key influencer of the tech industry and it's one of the top places many bright minds head to. There is no way FB will ever end up like MySpace, maybe a different death awaits, but MySpace died because it was a shitty product, bad UX, hacked together, and a very negative connotations attached to the site's community
They were amongst top places to go before IPO, not so much nowadays (similar to Google). They are already panicking that people are sharing less and less personal information and rather posting "cat pictures". If they don't build other profitable businesses, they are one bad "redesign" away from the fate of Digg if a more reasonable competitor emerges from a new generation of enthusiastic people (which I believe it will - not everyone's goal is instant cash like in the case of Instagram, some people want to be "kings"). I don't want to give Facebook ideas, but I can envision a better social network with a more direct, end user-wanted and less obtrusive commerce opportunities for all kinds of businesses without sticking ads into people's faces or selling their private information.
Facebook won, they locked up the market. The match is over, there will be no meaningful direct challenger in the next 10 or 15 years to what Facebook does at its core.
Sun never had a billion daily user network effect protecting its kingdom. Sun never generated the kind of net income that Facebook already is after just a decade. Sun never had the pile of cash that Facebook has. In fact, Sun hardly had any barriers protecting its kingdom, which is why it imploded so quickly after its peak.
In 1999 during the dotcom craze that bolstered Sun, they were generating about $300 million per quarter in profit. Inflation adjusted, Facebook is already four times larger, and they're growing extremely fast.
Sun was more like DEC. They never had anything in common with Facebook's business position today.
The more interesting part here, is that Zuckerberg being 31 years old, and having a life expectancy of 82.3 years, means the people who insisted on this agreement believe there is a significant chance of Facebook still being around 51 years from now. By comparison Yahoo is 20 years old and not precisely in its prime, and Sun Microsystems existed only for 28 years.
That said, it means investors are betting on FB being a long lived (software) company, such as Oracle (39 years and counting), Apple (40), Microsoft (41) or, in the extreme, IBM (105).
"Nintendo was founded as a card company in late 1889...", sure, but then by the next century FB main business model will probably be about gene engineering, not software.
In all fairness, I listed IBM and I can't imagine people referred to it as a "software" company in 1911, even if it was within the 'computing industry' such as it was back then.
Nintendo were in the game business the whole time, the type of game changed due to technology.
IBM were in the computer business, they still are its just that the industry has changed so now we think of what theybdo as software and what e.g. Dell do as the computer business
I think that qualifies. Accurate and efficient storage of values through a machine is of help to the people that were operating them. Or perhaps are you implying they were computing as well as tabulating?
They were doing calculations that could be done by keeping a running total. Which meant that you could take a stack of cards and count, say, how many were men in Chicago between 25-50 years old.
My speculative money is on VR really taking off to the point that Oculus and Oculus content become Facebook's primary source of revenue. The reason tech companies that live for so long become unrecognizable when compared to their original business is because the ones that don't pivot die.
> Yahoo is 20 years old and not precisely in its prime, and Sun Microsystems existed only for 28 years.
> such as Oracle (39 years and counting), Apple (40), Microsoft (41) or, in the extreme, IBM (105).
Of which, how many original CEO's are still at the helm?
To be fair, Bill Gates or Larry Ellison would just need to say the words and they'd get the CEO position back in a millisecond. As would Zombie Steve Jobs.
Microsoft would not replace Satya Nadella with Bill Gates at this point. One of the counter points is very clear: they forced Bill to relinquish his chairman role. The board now would never allow Bill to return as CEO unless the company was in extreme crisis and they needed a temporary leader; they successfully just pried Bill's hands off of a big point of control over Microsoft.
There's also no evidence Bill is a stronger candidate to manage the current conglomerate version of Microsoft than Satya (who appears to be doing a fine job so far). Based on the work Bill did the last several years he was actively involved, he has lost a step or three. Further, Bill's age at this point - 60 - is a serious problem, Satya can run Microsoft for 12 years before catching up to that. Jobs by comparison returned to Apple at a mere 42 years old.
If I was Bill Gates I wouldn't want to go back...he's so rich He can fund any idea he wants. If he goes back to Microsoft he would be under scrutiny of investors. I would say f Microsoft, f investors and do things my way for my ideas.
Arguably, Oracle, Apple, and Microsoft all offer good reasons for why you want to ensure that founders maintain control. It certainly seems that tech companies perform best when under founder control.
I mean, they still exist. They may have sold off their phone division, but as long as Cisco and Netgear are still tech companies, Nokia is still a tech company.
Besides which, life expectancy is an averaged value, not a guarantee. He could get hit by a bus at 40 for all we know. Given how much Facebook is worth, it makes plenty of sense to plan for where the voting power goes.
I thought Zuck's life clock was supposed to start flashing when he turned thirty and he was going to have to go on a Logan's Run, being much to old to run a company any more.
Votes for a board are not tied to % ownership in company. For example, people get hired to serve a board of directors and have voting rights, but may not own shares in the company.
I'm not sure this is good thing. After Bill left Microsoft, the board has gradually replaced pretty much every tech savvy person with investment suits. Wouldn't better arrangement be Zuke transferring voting control to new CEO as opposed to create a vacuum which will be quickly filled by likes of Carl Icans?
Forget the voting rights, last time I checked Zuckerberg's net worth it was about $10B. I remember being a critic of $FB when it was reaching the $19.00 mark after listing. This is impressive!
Hopefully he cedes control (majority voting rights) by selling a bit to diversify his wealth :)
In fact it's not a well known tax evasion scheme. The only thing well known about that, is the bogus claim that it is such.
1) Tax evasion, is not the same as tax avoidance.
2) Try putting money into a foundation, acquire the tax benefit of doing so, and then try giving it back to yourself. See what happens.
3) The Zuckerberg Chan Initiative is not a charitable foundation. It's a corporation, an LLC. Please explain how Zuckerberg will be using that to evade taxes. By law they will pay capital gains taxes upon any sale of the stock. How is that evading taxes? If they had wanted to limit taxes, they would have created a traditional foundation. The current structure gives Zuckerberg no added benefit over what he already has.
I guess these are now universally accepted as technical terms with different meanings, but it really bothers me that two words which are completely synonymous in normal English have been redefined in a particular domain to refer to mutually exclusive things.
Can someone explain why someone would want to own Class-C shares? I did some google searches but did not come up with much information. It seems strange to sell shares of a company where you don't actually have any say in the company you own part of.
I understand that a share gives you a right to ownership in the company, but it's still strange to consider what the benefits are of owning a share in a company that likely won't pay a dividend in the foreseeable future and for which you have no recourse through corporate governance over the direction of the company.
I'm sure that class C stock will be correlated to class A stock but this sort of sounds like a security who's price is dictated by my ability to find a greater fool to purchase it in the future.
> it's still strange to consider what the benefits are of owning a share in a company that likely won't pay a dividend in the foreseeable future and for which you have no recourse through corporate governance over the direction of the company
Isn't this true anytime you buy stock for a company where one person owns >50%? You know you can't influence anything with your vote; you're just buying a fraction of the future dividends.
> I'm sure that class C stock will be correlated to class A stock but this sort of sounds like a security who's price is dictated by my ability to find a greater fool to purchase it in the future.
For almost all companies, most of the stock's expected value derives from future scenarios where the company pays out dividends like normal (even if they aren't paying any currently). The expected value derived from the possibility of liquidating the assets and returning all money to the shareholders is nonzero but very small, simply because the chance of this happening is small. So this greater-fool critique would apply to any stock that isn't paying out dividends in the near term, not just those for which there is no voting control.
In finance theory, as long as a company is able to grow at a rate higher than the rate at which you could reinvest your dividends, you prefer not to receive a dividend. More simply, the idea is that the money staying in the company will grow more quickly than if it's outside of the company so long as the company is doing well.
Like a lot of financial theory, I think this is partly true. However, in my view, one of the side benefits of companies giving dividends is that it acts as a sort of long-term "anchor" to the stock's instrinsic value: the amount the company's stock is actually worth, which is usually wildly different from what it's worth on the stock market.
Let's say through careful analysis I find a company I think to be greatly undervalued in the stock market. I buy a bunch of shares. If they don't pay a dividend, I'm just hoping that eventually the market will "notice" the discrepancy and the price will go up, but I bear a lot of risk because the opposite could happen. But, if that company pays dividends, and those dividends continue to grow, I am getting a real return which is not based on the vagaries of the market.
As a practical matter, voting rights are, by and large, pretty worthless. Even famous activist investors with very deep pockets (Carl Icahn, for instance) are usually limited to causing just enough trouble to get management to make some "go away" changes. Plus, management works hard to put in place measures to entrench themselves: anti-takeover defenses, requiring super-majorities for certain changes (often mergers and buyouts), etc. A lot of these moves were undertaken by management of companies in the 1980s in response to a wave of so-called "hostile takeovers" in the 70s and 80s.
An interesting example is Alphabet/Google. Their class C shares (which have no votes) are trading at $691 right now. Class A shares (which have one vote) are trading at $705, which is 2% higher. That seems like a small difference, considering you're giving up any kind of voting rights. What if management starts to perform poorly?
Well, guess what? Insiders (and only insiders) have class B, which have 10 votes each, so you're not going to have much luck as an activist shareholder mounting a fight against that.
It basically represents a bet that a steady hand on the tiller is better than having the company run by whoever is the darling of whoever's happens to own a big chunk of shares.
It's not an unreasonable view. American public companies have generally become pretty short-sighted, and financial traders are positively myopic. (A friend of mine works for a "medium-term" hedge fund, which he says means they hold shares from hours to days.) If you think a company is better off with a serious long-term focus and a stable power structure, then you're better off betting on something where random stock purchasers don't have control.
Historically, I think this is more common in European family-controlled business empires. But it makes some sense here. Look at how well Amazon, Apple, and Facebook have done with CEOs who have a long-term focus. I'd be happier betting on Bezos, Jobs, or Zuckerberg than J Random CEO, who is much more concerned about hitting quarterly numbers than in maximizing impact on a multi-decade scale.
I think one important difference is that Zynga was always essentially an exploitative company. Amazon and Apple clearly deliver customer value; I'd argue that Facebook and Google do as well. All of them are building multi-decade relationships with their users.
Zynga, on the other hand, was the unholy child of an MLM scheme and a slot machine, a supposed games company that provides very little fun and quite a lot of addiction. So it's not clear to me that anybody there benefits from a long-term orientation.
Non-dividend stock is frequently purchased with one goal in mind - sell it later at (hopefully) higher value.
You're right in questioning the practice - the vote multiples and various share classes bring opacity to otherwise transparent concept of equity investing. Does the board want CEO to have 10x the votes? Issue him 10x the shares.
If you own Class-C shares, I believe you can still sue companies when its trying to implode because of reasons, since you still in theory own parts of the company.
Not quite sure what else to expect though. I guess it's a store of value so you can use it to avoid holding cash?
Well, you can do this if you retained control from the beginning, if your company is doing great, and if your current shareholders won't revolt and drag you to court over it.
Another question that you would want to ask yourself may be "is my company worth 300+ billion dollars". To say that Facebook is "doing good" is a vast understatement, and Mark deserves much more shareholders trust than a typical founder.
All the news I've been hearing lately about Mark Zuckerberg is Wall Street stuff. I'm curious with all this maneuvering around stock splits, share classes and tax havens, does he still have free time to bring any value to Facebook's shareholders as its CEO, beyond what some other Wall Street CEO would?
I think you're on to something, since he's doing all this stuff himself and doesn't have an army of attorneys and accountants looking out for his best interests.
Yes, but then the other shareholders can drag him to court over it, and he will most likely lose, because you can't vote to give yourself more power willy-nilly.
...which is the whole point of this independent committe working through this change. They're making him give up dynastic control, in exchange for the ability to cash out without losing control.
Which is the smart thing to do. He can almost ensure dynastic control through nepotism but he also gets to take value now in case it does go the way of MySpace.
Most philanthropic organizations have extreme goals that are unachievable. It's easier for people to rally behind "End poverty now!" or "Not one more X!" than "reduce poverty significantly more than it would otherwise."
What's wrong with Zuck running the company? He's grown it into a big business, he's steered through many challenges. He may not have always gotten it right, but this headline makes it sound like he needs to go... Why?
It is a taxable LLC. He doesn't get the tax-benefits of setting up a nonprofit, but he has much more freedom in how to use the money (e.g. including making investments vs donations, and including non-tax-deductible political activism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Zuckerberg_Initiative#Com...
I get all of that, but why does the headline say "he gets to run the company a while longer?" That makes it sound like he's a detriment to the company.
124 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 201 ms ] threadIf Mr. Zuckerberg were to leave us or if his employment with us were to be terminated for "cause," under the Current Certificate, he would not be required to relinquish majority voting control. Moreover, under the Current Certificate, Mr. Zuckerberg would be able to pass along his shares of Class B common stock (and potentially his majority voting control depending on sales or transfers by Mr. Zuckerberg, as well as changes in our share count) to his descendants after his death, thus leading to potential multi-generational majority voting control of the company.
The Special Committee and the board of directors believe that attracting a qualified chief executive officer to succeed Mr. Zuckerberg would be significantly more difficult if Mr. Zuckerberg, our founder and (in that event) former chief executive officer, continued to retain majority voting control of us in such a circumstance. The Special Committee and the board of directors also believe that the quality of a chief executive officer who would step into the role under these circumstances is likely to be significantly lower than it would be if we were no longer controlled by Mr. Zuckerberg, which could result in the potential loss of significant value for us and our shares of Class A common stock.
But after this deal Mark cannot retain voting control if he leaves or is fired for cause. He also cannot pass on his current voting rights if he sells is shares or his kids inherit them.
Seems like FB did get something in return.
It says "he would NOT be required to relinquish majority voting control".
And that he WOULD be able to pass his voting shares to children; "thus leading to potential multi-generational majority voting control of the company"
Which is the opposite of what you just said...
"The new arrangement will convert Zuckerberg's high-vote B shares into A shares if he dies, is fired for cause, or resigns."
You should have read the article.
Go go transparency
Control of FB is by bloodline.
Following paragraph reads:
When does the deal close?
Perhaps there is some study to be done where social sites/apps become obsolete if they fail to adapt their UI/UX over the years. I mean look at sites like Fark and SA compared to what is popular nowadays like Snapchat or Reddit.
I'd actually argue hallelujah that reddit hasn't significantly altered their UI. It may not be pretty, but it doesn't take that long to get used to its quirks, and when you do it is extremely fast and easy to navigate and find meaningful content. I contrast this to slashdot, who proceeded to make their UI WORSE with every update (more "modern" styling and response, but they made it totally broke the usability of their commenting system).
Instagram, Oculus, WhatsApp – all extremely valuable, not to mention other products like Messenger.
Facebook has algorithmic targeting of ads second to none on the planet (most of which happens entirely outside the purview of ad blockers) and pretty unrivaled view of what customers are doing across devices. On top of which they have several other businesses that could one day grow more profitable than FB itself.
We can talk about whether Facebook's model is sustainable, whether demand for behavioral targeting ads will hold up, or if the likes of Instagram and Oculus can ever turn really profitable - but a MySpace style collapse is more or less out of the question.
Facebook won, they locked up the market. The match is over, there will be no meaningful direct challenger in the next 10 or 15 years to what Facebook does at its core.
Facebook is Google, MySpace is AltaVista.
In 1999 during the dotcom craze that bolstered Sun, they were generating about $300 million per quarter in profit. Inflation adjusted, Facebook is already four times larger, and they're growing extremely fast.
Sun was more like DEC. They never had anything in common with Facebook's business position today.
That said, it means investors are betting on FB being a long lived (software) company, such as Oracle (39 years and counting), Apple (40), Microsoft (41) or, in the extreme, IBM (105).
In all fairness, I listed IBM and I can't imagine people referred to it as a "software" company in 1911, even if it was within the 'computing industry' such as it was back then.
IBM were in the computer business, they still are its just that the industry has changed so now we think of what theybdo as software and what e.g. Dell do as the computer business
Specifically, in the business of selling items to help "computers", a job title for people who computed values.
Human computers were needed for more complex mathematical operations.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulating_machine#Operation for more.
Of which, how many original CEO's are still at the helm?
There's also no evidence Bill is a stronger candidate to manage the current conglomerate version of Microsoft than Satya (who appears to be doing a fine job so far). Based on the work Bill did the last several years he was actively involved, he has lost a step or three. Further, Bill's age at this point - 60 - is a serious problem, Satya can run Microsoft for 12 years before catching up to that. Jobs by comparison returned to Apple at a mere 42 years old.
And in other lines of work, including finance, it's not rare to continue to be a CEO well into your 60s or 70s...
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/06/the-14-o...
And there are a number of CEOs with multi-decade tenures:
http://fortune.com/2015/05/05/14-longest-serving-ceos/
The Bell System had something like a 70-year monopoly, and it's certainly possible that Facebook has staked out something equally enduring.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11593322
Hopefully he cedes control (majority voting rights) by selling a bit to diversify his wealth :)
1) Tax evasion, is not the same as tax avoidance.
2) Try putting money into a foundation, acquire the tax benefit of doing so, and then try giving it back to yourself. See what happens.
3) The Zuckerberg Chan Initiative is not a charitable foundation. It's a corporation, an LLC. Please explain how Zuckerberg will be using that to evade taxes. By law they will pay capital gains taxes upon any sale of the stock. How is that evading taxes? If they had wanted to limit taxes, they would have created a traditional foundation. The current structure gives Zuckerberg no added benefit over what he already has.
I guess these are now universally accepted as technical terms with different meanings, but it really bothers me that two words which are completely synonymous in normal English have been redefined in a particular domain to refer to mutually exclusive things.
That's all.
The whole point of this change is to allow him to sell almost all his stock without losing any voting rights. Did you even read the article?
I'm sure that class C stock will be correlated to class A stock but this sort of sounds like a security who's price is dictated by my ability to find a greater fool to purchase it in the future.
Thinking that dividends are the only way to realize benefits is short-sighted.
Isn't this true anytime you buy stock for a company where one person owns >50%? You know you can't influence anything with your vote; you're just buying a fraction of the future dividends.
> I'm sure that class C stock will be correlated to class A stock but this sort of sounds like a security who's price is dictated by my ability to find a greater fool to purchase it in the future.
For almost all companies, most of the stock's expected value derives from future scenarios where the company pays out dividends like normal (even if they aren't paying any currently). The expected value derived from the possibility of liquidating the assets and returning all money to the shareholders is nonzero but very small, simply because the chance of this happening is small. So this greater-fool critique would apply to any stock that isn't paying out dividends in the near term, not just those for which there is no voting control.
Like a lot of financial theory, I think this is partly true. However, in my view, one of the side benefits of companies giving dividends is that it acts as a sort of long-term "anchor" to the stock's instrinsic value: the amount the company's stock is actually worth, which is usually wildly different from what it's worth on the stock market.
Let's say through careful analysis I find a company I think to be greatly undervalued in the stock market. I buy a bunch of shares. If they don't pay a dividend, I'm just hoping that eventually the market will "notice" the discrepancy and the price will go up, but I bear a lot of risk because the opposite could happen. But, if that company pays dividends, and those dividends continue to grow, I am getting a real return which is not based on the vagaries of the market.
An interesting example is Alphabet/Google. Their class C shares (which have no votes) are trading at $691 right now. Class A shares (which have one vote) are trading at $705, which is 2% higher. That seems like a small difference, considering you're giving up any kind of voting rights. What if management starts to perform poorly?
Well, guess what? Insiders (and only insiders) have class B, which have 10 votes each, so you're not going to have much luck as an activist shareholder mounting a fight against that.
It's not an unreasonable view. American public companies have generally become pretty short-sighted, and financial traders are positively myopic. (A friend of mine works for a "medium-term" hedge fund, which he says means they hold shares from hours to days.) If you think a company is better off with a serious long-term focus and a stable power structure, then you're better off betting on something where random stock purchasers don't have control.
Historically, I think this is more common in European family-controlled business empires. But it makes some sense here. Look at how well Amazon, Apple, and Facebook have done with CEOs who have a long-term focus. I'd be happier betting on Bezos, Jobs, or Zuckerberg than J Random CEO, who is much more concerned about hitting quarterly numbers than in maximizing impact on a multi-decade scale.
or Zynga http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/14/zynga-s-ipo...
Zynga, on the other hand, was the unholy child of an MLM scheme and a slot machine, a supposed games company that provides very little fun and quite a lot of addiction. So it's not clear to me that anybody there benefits from a long-term orientation.
You're right in questioning the practice - the vote multiples and various share classes bring opacity to otherwise transparent concept of equity investing. Does the board want CEO to have 10x the votes? Issue him 10x the shares.
Not quite sure what else to expect though. I guess it's a store of value so you can use it to avoid holding cash?
[1] except for those cases where you did not succeed to retain control of the company from the beginning...
Superman does good, Facebook's doing well.
...which is the whole point of this independent committe working through this change. They're making him give up dynastic control, in exchange for the ability to cash out without losing control.
Such humility. I really want to punch this kid in the face.
He's setting up a non-taxable charity vehicle that he controls.
I can see how the headline could be interpreted as Zuck being detrimental, but I don't think that was the intent.