mokwit

I don't think you have any idea how things work in practice vs theory. You are clearly unfamiliar with what in finance is called "agency" conflict where management is supposed to be running the company for its shareholders but can manage it for its own benefit. Board Directors are appointed often appointed by the CEO in practice e.g Dana White in this case, and things are rubberstamped by his tame board. there are similar issues with independent directors not being independent. Again theory vs reality. Ideally a major shareholder or CEO would select a Board who can bring expertise, and in some case that seems to be what Zuckerberg has done. Management has NO legal obligation to 'manage the company to legally maximize the financial return for the shareholders'. No statute states this, it's just what you mistakenly think. Shareholders, ostensibly represented by the board might want it managed in a way that controls risk taking. So you posted an AI generated answer which if you read you did not understand in the hope of salvaging your making a fool of yourself with your initial post. You clearly know nothing about political shareholder activism and the reality of class actions. These type of suits are brought all the time against companies as a money making venture. Most large regulated companies have in house law teams dealing with ongoing regulatory issues/actions. They expect it, It is routine, and just a cost of doing business. As for this: 'My original point is that any number of the major minority investors can block Zuckerberg if they can show his actions will harm them as per the reasons listed above. ' I think you will find it is rather harder to do that by major/minority shareholders than you think. see below YOUR examples). https://www.kramerlevin.com/en/perspectives-search/court-dismisses-stockholder-suit-against-meta-affirms-a-firm-specific-model-of-corporate-management.html https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-tosses-case-involving-securities-fraud-suit-against-facebook-2024-11-22/ You went from saying shareholders controlled META to changing tack after being proved wrong and saying lawsuits controlled it. You don't know what you are talking about. I know about how things work in practice vs theory from having a high level financial qualification which required us to study things such as the agency conflict and have also worked as an analyst on the sell side and buy side. I have sat in on meetings of shareholders with management, including a fund I worked for that was a major shareholder in companies. I reiterate You don't know what you are talking about. I think you proved that admirably with your initial post: 'Meta is a public company owned by its shareholders. Zuckerberg is puppet and does not control Meta. On the contrary, anyone who has a mutual fund participation through the largest mutual funds in the USA has control. It only takes 2 of the mutual funds to out vote the spineless Zuckerberg.' Puh Huh Huh leeeze. Zuckerberg controls approximately 61% of the voting power, ensuring his influence over corporate decisions, even though he owns around 13% of the company's shares through a 10:1 vote ratio with a dual class share structure. If this were no big deal why was there such pushback against this structure at the time of the IPO and with other companies that have felt they were sucfficiently desired as investments that they could force this on shareholders? Some could pull it off. The AN webboard members can decide for itself, I can't be bothered further with someone pretending to know more than they do by googling and who won't admit they are wrong because he just googled/AI'd everything and thinks that things work in practice according to the regulations.

There will be a lot of musk in the oval office initially, but i suspect it will be too overpowering and someone in particular won't like too much of it, sooner or later it will just be the 'great smell of Trump' in the oval office.

I just don't know how they will be able to fumigate the stench of corruption from the Whitehouse that he leaves behind. We'll probably see all the windows open in January.

Surely Soros's interference would be a better place to start, no?

Why don't you just admit that you don't know what you were talking about, rather than come back and claim a couple of frivolous class actions of they type all companies are subjected to somehow override majority voter control.

He probably could have got some tips from wiki on censorship and describing anything the Left doesn't like as a conspiracy theory. Wiki has fallen

Was that a poor attempt at humour to me trying to give serious advice?

Never go in a bar with a gang of male security guards. The slightest dispute and you will get a kicking. Take your business elsewhere.

He controls the company through a dual-class share structure where he holds Class B shares, which have ten votes per share, compared to Class A shares that have only one vote per share. This structure gives him significant control over the company despite owning a relatively smaller percentage of total shares. Through this mechanism, Zuckerberg controls approximately 61% of the voting power, ensuring his influence over corporate decisions, even though he owns around 13% of the company's shares.

Relax, you need never worry about misplacing your glasses. Maybe patent your invention.

This is why I despise them/him.

I'm not a FB user, have an account but no activity. There is no way I am ever going to use FB after they censored before and there was the mic drop where Merkel asked him what he was going to do about posts against her mass immigration decision and to hurry up about it. I wouldn't give FB the drippings from my nose. I am also able to use Grok to much better effect than Google search and welcome not having to use that politically censored woke search engine anymore. If anybody wants, I'll tell you how I really feel.

You might be just as well off wiring direct to Kassikorn - onshore Thai bank rates are better than offshore rates. Is there any reason you can't? Are wise spread plus fees so much better? Remember, with FX it is the SPREAD where a counterparty makes it's money.

Brilliant marketing by the Swiss watch industry to the new market of neuveau riche Asians. You don't buy a watch you have to have a 'portfolio' of watches.

Eventually?

How puerile the Left are

I'll remember this and hold you to it in future.

Natural evolution of a thread. You seem to think a thread has to stay within your parameters set by you to suit your tactics and inability to make an argument. It doesn't. You told me to get a grip for calling Starmer XXXXX so I pointed what a wh@ckjob you were calling Johnson the extreme right wing. The board can judge for themselves. Oh look, someone's laughing at you already.🤣

From the poster who referred to the Boris Johnson Government a "the extreme right wing". I'd tell YOU to get a grip but you lost it years ago.

Who posted a photo name of this person? I was just commenting on the type of person you were seemingly admiringly posting a photo of here. he signed his name on an artillery shell destined to be used in an area where there may have been (evidence suggest has been) women and children.

By their very nature artillery shells are indiscriminate. What kind of person would sign their name on such indiscriminate ordnance designed to kill, what kind of person?

Can you point out the racist and hateful parts please (and then you can tell K. Thaksin how racist and hateful he is. note: include your visa and passport number so that he can get back to you on this).

Remind me, was it secretary Blinken filmed signing his name on indiscrimate ordnance artillery shells?.

Is he telling off his grandchildren in that photo? He can't be on the campaign trail, surely?