Regarding:<p>> Everything we do at Facebook is focused on our mission to make the world more open and connected.<p>I often find that when I follow Facebook links, I get a login page, requiring me to create an account to see the content.<p>And not even for Facebook itself, I tried to look at images on Pinterest the other day, and if I followed more than one link, I'd get an overlay requiring me to login via Facebook. The site was almost unusable if I wasn't logged into Facebook.<p>The only other sites I've visited in a long time, that hide content unless I login, are newspaper sites.
This is a proposed 3:1 stock split which would take the per-share price for Facebook down to the $30s and also give Zuck the ability to donate 2/3rds of his resulting shares without any change to his percentage control of the company.
I admire Zuck wanting to do good for the world, and wanting to sell his FB shares in order to help others, but this still seems like a bad precedent for the financial markets in general. The shareholders are the owners of the company, and the percentage shares they own should represent the percentage influence they should have in the company. It's easy to dismiss "shareholders" as being wealthy capitalists, but in reality, the majority of shares are owned by the middle class, either directly, or indirectly through pension plans and such. The idea that a "ruling elite" can overrule the wishes of company's majority owners, and use the company's resources in any way they want, is conceptually very disturbing. In the long run, it's bound to lead to corruption, nepotism, and abuse of power.
I feel its my responsibility to save the world, kill every disease that exists, cure world hunger. What a load of toss!<p>Something always stinks when you read these 'notes' from Zuckerberg. They all follow the same pattern, 'Im trying to save the world..... So here is a market update stating why I made these changes to improve my position, cause I'm saving the world.'<p>At least Bill Gates has humility and articulates the real world problems he is trying to solve. Gates works on his charity only, he is not the CEO of Microsoft and philanthropist.<p>Maybe you mega corps might want to start paying legitimate tax in foreign countries before you start telling us how you are saving the world, pffff.
> Everything we do at Facebook is focused on our mission to make the world more open and connected.<p>Call me cynical but to me, Facebook's mission is to get the whole planet to create a Facebook account and track them so they can be served ads.
The difference between Silicon Valley and other locales trying to reproduce it has generally not been money. The difference has been <i>smart</i> money. The people who hold the purse strings (founder/CEOs, angels, early-stage investors) have been savvy about what it takes to build and scale a startup.<p>The problem is that there's always a limited money of smart money available to deploy at any given time.<p>The question is then, how do you structure a deal to give unsophisticated investors (aka dumb money) returns, which they want, without giving them control, which would ruin the party.<p>Zuckerberg actually led the way here in 2009 when he got Russian billionaire Yuri Milner to invest $200M in Facebook at a $10B valuation. Everyone thought Milner was crazy then. But he went laughing all the way to the bank.<p>This is another step in that direction, which deserves our applause.
This is a 3 for 1 stock split in that for each share of FB that you own, you will receive 2 shares of the new FB share class that do not have voting rights.<p>If you don't want to own the non-voting rights shares, sell them and buy the regular ones. You will lose a little bit due to the difference in price and the commissions (there may also be tax implications).<p>It is similar to what Google did last year and what Under Armour did a few weeks ago. Here's what Google and Under Armour are priced at end of day today:<p>GOOGL (has voting rights) at 721.46, GOOG at 705.84<p>UA (has voting rights) at 44.80, UA.C 42.16
I like Facebook, and I'm happy to see a gazillionaire get into philanthropy this young, but when I see goals like "cure all diseases by the end of this century" it does make me wonder whether the Foundation might be too disconnected from reality to get good world-changing value for its money.
When Google did this I had to pay capital-gain tax on all the "new" shares I got. About a year later the german tax department changed their view and I got that back. It sill was very annoying.
I'm surprised with how many comments here are focusing on Zuck and not the market play for Facebook.<p>I've worked at large companies that claim to be innovative. More often than not, short-term demands made by Wall Street guide business decisions in increasingly poor ways (reducing employee benefits, stymieing R&D, etc.)<p>This announcement obviously helps Zuckerberg personally, but it does also provide a signal to the market for Facebook's direction.
I'm kinda torn on this. On one hand it's noble and nice to see a rich guy who's interested in things like this as opposed to kickin it on his yacht with models all the time. On the other hand, I hate saying this but the use of the word "responsibility" with regards to "cure all diseases" <i>reeks</i> of egotism and a guy who's kinda living on a different planet. "Haha, only <i>I</i> can remedy what you mere mortals stand no hope of ever doing!" I realize I'm being hyperbolic about it...I really shouldn't criticize I guess.
"More open and connected" = more money when you lower your guard and give us access to personal data that we sell for millions of dollars to corporate interests.
> To maintain our focus on this mission, we have always been a founder-led company.<p>...<p>> Today, Facebook’s board of directors is announcing a proposal to create a new class of stock that will allow us to achieve both goals. I’ll be able to keep founder control of Facebook so we can continue to build for the long term, and Priscilla and I will be able to give our money to fund important work sooner<p>This letter sounds like he is preparing to step down as CEO in the next 5 years. Any bets?<p>He'll maintain "founder control" but doesn't say he'll remain as CEO
Interesting that he's going to start giving away shares now. Makes me wonder if he doesn't see much more financial upside to FB, at least at current price levels.<p>If there's a lot more value to to accrue to his FB stock (even on a time-discounted basis), wouldn't he want to rationally wait for the future value of those shares to materialize to have maximum impact?<p>Alternatively he could just think that the value to society of funding the right causes (in his mind) is just that much greater than the time-discounted future value.
Related post at <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11584109" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11584109</a>.
I wonder if before they announced the 99% plan they didn't realize the implications and after they started implementing it, the case of founder ownership came up and they needed to scramble to make a plan - hence the post.<p>No good deed goes unpunished and all of that.
OT, but ...<p>I'm bothered by how HN mods come down like a hammer on clickbaity titles ("The one thing that can ensure a safe future"), but when it's some official tech company/founder announcement, they're fine with extremely vague submission titles that force you to click on it for any hint on what it's about.
He's 'donating' his money to the non-profit that was created last year. It sounds noble, but I believe one of the other motives is that he will be able to keep his money in the family for generations.<p>He will be able to get around the death tax and pretty much any other taxes that could take away his fortune. Pretty much every billionaire has done this.
tl;dr: Mark Zuckerberg is proposing to restructure Facebook's stock in a way that trades his future dividends for present-day spending money. He plans to spend this money philanthropically, through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
Facebook takes a 40% rake from advertisers. Ouch!<p>$2B income from $5B in ad revenue.<p>Hopeful businesses just keep running ads and lining Facebook's wallet. If Mark really wanted to give back, he'd give us more clicks per $.
If he wants day-to-day control as a founder but doesn't want to keep an ownership interest, then he can sell his shares and apply for the job of CEO. But that means he can be fired. So he wants to be CEO, not own the company, and yet nobody can fire him. The Romans had a word for that: Tyrant, with tyrannicide being a virtue. This scheme is doomed. The sooner he realizes it the fewer heads will roll during the cleanup.
><i>Everything we do at Facebook is focused on our mission to make the world more open and connected.</i><p>1st thought: Then what's with all the passwords? (tongue-in-cheek)<p>2nd thought: Open and connected for who? SIGINT?<p>3rd thought: Well, if that's really the case, then why doesn't FB resemble /b/ a lot more?<p>4th thought: I'm definitely not the target market here, but I hope people who try to invest in FB can afford the risk of the investment.<p>5th thought: Who am I kidding with #4?