So if it were controlled by mutual funds people would want mutual funds to be held responsible? Or would they turn to the CEO?
It also means if the board was comprised by a diverse set of people (which it is) they could oust him if they wanted (they can't). The public could put pressure on those people much easier than putting sole pressure on him.
So if Zuckerberg reinvested thru a mutual it would be ok?
Was the problem with Theranos that’s it’s board wasn’t diverse enough?
I wonder how a Facebook without Zuckerberg perform? Would it zip along for a while before slowing to irrelevance like the times Jobs left Apple?
It has to do with the fact that if you control something, you are directly responsible for it. By having sole control of FB, MZ is completely responsible for it, for better or worse.