Mark Zuckerberg's Swing to the Right, Brings Dana White onto Meta Board

[mokwit]

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

The reality is that Zuckerberg does not and is subject to a board that must approve all  of his grand initiatives.

I don't think you have any idea how things work in practice vs theory.

 

22 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Management has a legal obligation to manage  the company to legally maximize the financial return for the shareholders. A failure to do is a breach of fiduciary duty by the board members and they are liable in the event of a successful shareholder  action.

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. 

 

 

[candide]

That's business,

 

Meta's Threads has siphoned X users and is already second  behind X. This has been prtly caused by liberal users fleeing X after Musk's public positions. In order to become first,

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/threads-twitter-clone-reaches-300-million-users/735724/

 

It now needs to attract more RW users. Of course, there is a risk to loose some liberal users but Musk will remain repellent for them and BlueSky is too small and not associated with other networks such as Facebook or *Instagram.