ie8 fix

ISS to Facebook: Mark Zuckerberg has too much power

By | February 14, 2012, 11:45am PST

Summary: The Institutional Shareholder Services has told Facebook that its co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has too much power; he has voting control over at least 57.1 percent of Class B shares.

The Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), an organization that provides corporate governance services, has complained that Facebook is employing a dual-class stock structure when it goes public sometime in May. Facebook plans to have two types of stock: Class A (worth one vote, and available to those who want to buy the company’s stock on the open market) and Class B (worth 10 votes, and only available to select individuals and investors). More specifically, the ISS has criticized the world’s largest social network for giving co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg too much control.

As I noted when Facebook filed for its $5 billion initial public offering (IPO) earlier this month: the numbers published by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission show Zuckerberg has a 28.4 percent stake in the company. That being said, he also has voting control over at least 57.1 percent of Class B shares through a chain of agreements with other shareholders. Zuckerberg bought voting control shares from multiple parties for $100 apiece.

“Facebook appears to have taken the same outdated dance lessons as many other recent tech sector debutantes,” the ISS wrote in its report titled “The Tragedy of the Dual Class Commons,” a copy of which was obtained by The Wall Street Journal. The firm calls the dual-class structure “an autocratic model of governance” that makes Facebook “less viable if a competitor whose governance gives owners a voice proportionate to the economics they have at risk.”

The ISS has criticized other companies, such as LinkedIn and Zynga, for having dual-class stock structures, but it doesn’t have any power to convince them otherwise. Facebook will thus likely ignore the group’s disapproval. With more than 50 percent of the power, Zuckerberg can single-handedly make all board decisions, acquisitions, and merger approvals, regardless of what other Facebook shareholders want.

For its part, Facebook has acknowledged that Zuckerberg’s voting control is a risk factor. Here’s the relevant excerpt from its SEC filing:

Our CEO has control over key decision making as a result of his control of a majority of our voting stock.

As a result of voting agreements with certain stockholders, together with the shares he holds, Mark Zuckerberg, our founder, Chairman, and CEO, will be able to exercise voting rights with respect to an aggregate of shares of common stock, representing a majority of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock following our initial public offering. As a result, Mr. Zuckerberg has the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, Mr. Zuckerberg has the ability to control the management and affairs of our company as a result of his position as our CEO and his ability to control the election of our directors. Additionally, in the event that Mr. Zuckerberg controls our company at the time of his death, control may be transferred to a person or entity that he designates as his successor. As a board member and officer, Mr. Zuckerberg owes a fiduciary duty to our stockholders and must act in good faith in a manner he reasonably believes to be in the best interests of our stockholders. As a stockholder, even a controlling stockholder, Mr. Zuckerberg is entitled to vote his shares, and shares over which he has voting control as a result of voting agreements, in his own interests, which may not always be in the interests of our stockholders generally. For a description of these voting agreements, see “Description of Capital Stock—Voting Agreements.”

Just last week, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) told Facebook that a board of directors of seven members is unacceptable, not only because it is small but because it only features men. Facebook did not comment on my last article regarding CalSTRS and likely won’t comment on this one regarding ISS, but I have contacted the social networking giant and will update you if I hear back.

See also:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Emil Protalinski has covered the tech industry for five years for multiple publications.

Disclosure

Emil Protalinski

Emil has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Emil Protalinski

Emil Protalinski has covered the tech industry for five years for multiple publications, including Neowin for two years and Ars Technica for three years. He has written 1,000s of articles for both, with a particular focus on scrutinizing Microsoft products and services. Recently, Emil has expanded his coverage to non-Microsoft technologies, including the social networking giant Facebook.

29
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

How many shareholders have the skill to govern ...
dougsyo@... 15th Feb
... a corporation of this size, for anything other than short-term revenue increase? Too often, companies can't exercise long-range vision because of the need to satisfy the "owners" every quarter.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not too much power
happyhappe 14th Feb
So what's the problem? Why shouldn't the genius who single-handedly changed the web and social interaction as we know it be able to control HIS company? It's worked quite well so far.
@happyhappe
....to do as he pleases with??? Good luck.
@Userama ...with his company. Dont buy the stock if you dont like it. or sell your Highly profitable shares 6 months after the IPO.
@happyhappe
Please, please, please let this comment be sarcasm.
@lippidp +1
@happyhappe He can structure his company any way he wants, but I wouldn't invest in him. The same factors that make you successful starting a company are usually traits that act as hindrances to keeping it that way. Even jobs had his ego hurt Apple more than once in their history. I would argue that had he the control Mark Z. has with Facebook we'd all be using the LISA and the Newton right now instead of iPads and Macs.
@Socratesfoot LISA was taken away from Jobs, Newton was Sculley's baby. When Jobs came back he took a failing company and brought it on top. Yes, a founder can bring his company to the top.
Even Apple had to shitcan Jobs before they got good again.
@trust2112@... Apple fired Jobs that was like the doom to Apple..
@trust2112@... Apple got good again when Jobs got control of Apple again.
I trust Mark Zucherberg to know what's best for his company.
0 Votes
+ -
@themarty And with the correct spelling of his name appearing in the title, you still managed to spell his name wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
International Space Station
goingbust 14th Feb
Why did the International Space Station call Zucker?
@goingbust NASA needs money.
@goingbust LOL, yeah that's what I thought at fist too. I definitely think "International Space Station" whenever I see ISS.
0 Votes
+ -
He screwed everybody who had a significant part of the inception or development of Facebook, including his best friend -- indeed, the company was founded on work he was supposed to be doing for hire -- and his chutzpah is such that he'll screw his entire body of stockholders on a whim or any hint that his Absolute Authority is being challenged. He is, essentially, unstable and power mad. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
@NeverLift

boo hooo hooo cry me a river. I don't care much for using Facebook myself, but Zuckerberg is no doubt smart at what he does. He took advantage of opportunities (and yes people too) given to him and made and had a hand in creating something huge. Good for him. Everyone else can stop wasting their time crying over spilled milk. What's done is done.
That's like saying that Steve Jobs had too much power at Apple for them to be successful. Hello, these academic theories don't mean anything - the proof that Facebook's management is fine is that they're doing extremely well for themselves. If the market didn't think Facebook was fine, they wouldn't invest. If Institutional Shareholder Services doesn't like Facebook's management, nobody is forcing them to invest. A lot of people really like to dump on Mark Zuckerberg's character, and while he may or may not be of questionable ethics, he really has done a fabulous job running Facebook. The upcoming Facebook IPO is going to set their value at over ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS in my opinion. For a company that's relatively young, that's incredible. They've gained a lot of goodwill and favor from the business community: look at how many big brands promote their Facebook URLs on TV ads, look at how many companies are listed at http://www.facebookfansreviews.com that do nothing other than promote business pages. And they're nearing a billion active users as well. Zuckerberg may not be a saint, but he's a heck of a businessman and deserves a lot of credit for Facebook's continued success. Pure nonsensical grandstanding from ISS.
@RedE I agree that business is showing great support by using FB to promote just about everything - but that is sheer eyeballs, not to do with good or bad business practice at Facebook. The ISS position is not nonsensical - it is entirely logical and a fair warning to those investing - as a shareholder you will have no control, not individually or collectively as you do not hold a majority voting interest even as a whole. That is a very sound warning - albeit Facebook were decent enough to declare it in their own filing - so it's not exactly news.

So as an investor you have to decide - are you OK with that level of control. (none). I think a very large number of Yahoo shareholders would have liked to see it purchased by MS and realized the offered value - if such a situation arises for Facebook (with a controlling interest who likely 'does not need the money') you are very unlikely to see that realized value either - unless it suits his whim at the time - seems very unlikely from the 'world domination' messages which come from Zuckerberg.
As with Netflix all it takes is one bad decision to have catastrophic results. Spreading the power out helps to prevent one person with a big ego or who's not in the right frame of mind making a decision that will ruin a company.
there is something they call 'market' and those class B shares are sold in the market at the market price.
if this dual-class stock structure excessively devalues class B shares (which I agree it does) then the buyers should pay the depreciated value for those shares, nothing more.
if the market price ends up anywhere above the 'fair' value, then it's the investors fault and their loss. Zuckerberg is not to blame (at least here) since the dual-class stock structure is transparent and known to the investors.
0 Votes
+ -
why does the ISS look like a stooge
walkerjian@... 14th Feb
a front organisation for the economic aristocrats that rule us all? Zuckerberg is controlling the controllers and they don't like it... they will have to work harder to subsume the facebook into their tapestry of evil. Zucks better watch his back...
@walkerjian@

"Zuckerberg is controlling the controllers and they don't like it."

Exactly. This sentence says it all. If I were in his position, I'd be doing the same thing. Give the controllers the taste of their own medicine.
Facebook has to much power, forcing people to be part of FB to join in contest and other venues. I refuse to be a pawn of the FB label , after being hacked and friends and family were spammed in my name, NO thanks
0 Votes
+ -
... but he founded the company ... he should have the right to control it.
It won't be HIS company. He will OWN only 28.4 % of the company. The rst belongs to others. But can't blame him for cashing out while the getting is good.
0 Votes
+ -
@annoyed2L@

yes he has 28.4% ownership but 57% of the voting rights which means he can out-vote other shareholders on all major decisions. He still retains a lot of power. To pull that off gives you a taste of his negotiating capabilities. That is no easy feat.
Frankly, I think the idea of shareholders and the stock market is fundamentally broken. The only voice that ever exists is the voice of money, and nobody cares about the customers or the products.

Meh, I think Facebook is broken regardless. Zuckerberg never cared about the customers to begin with.
... a corporation of this size, for anything other than short-term revenue increase? Too often, companies can't exercise long-range vision because of the need to satisfy the "owners" every quarter.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix