Powerless investors vote overwhelmingly to oust Mark Zuckerberg as chairman

Re:Powerless investors vote overwhelmingly to oust Mark Zuck... by ineedasername on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @10:46AM (#20095517)

Yes, they can decide not to invest, but that doesn't preclude pushing for a change, and saying they don't think the current structure is in the best interest of the company or shareholders. (I'm not sure they're right though. Zuck's track record isn't stellar, but I shutter to think what a completely mercenary company chasing every last cent might do. Much bad as we've seen, I don't think we've seen things as bad as they could be)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Powerless investors vote overwhelmingly to oust Mark Zuck... by TuringNYC on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @10:56AM (#20095611)

I’m a willing investor in FB, but not everyone is. If you are a pensioner, quite likely your money is invested in index funds containing FB....so it isn’t that easy.

That said, these voters should try to change the SEC guidelines, no use hating the player, change the game.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Powerless investors vote overwhelmingly to oust Mark Zuck... by ineedasername on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @01:39PM (#20097335)

I figure there's no need to choose. They can try to change from within the company and also push the SEC for reform. Personally I don't like the idea of a Zuck autocracy, but I'm also not convinced that anythinng else would better. I know, hardly a decisive opinion, but I don't think we've yet seen a FAANG level company go completely balls to the wall monetizing ever last bit of personal data, so it's a tenuous balance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Powerless investors vote overwhelmingly to oust Mark Zuck... by AstralStorm on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:58AM (#20101849)

Why should SEC limit or ban dual share stock? You know exactly what you're getting, a semi-public company.

[ Parent | on HN ]