Mark Zuckerberg Gets to Control Facebook a While Longer

There's also no evidence Bill is a stronger candidate to manage the current conglomerate version of Microsoft than Satya (who appears to be doing a fine job so far). Based on the work Bill did the last several years he was actively involved, he has lost a step or three. Further, Bill's age at this point - 60 - is a serious problem, Satya can run Microsoft for 12 years before catching up to that. Jobs by comparison returned to Apple at a mere 42 years old.

IBM were in the computer business, they still are its just that the industry has changed so now we think of what theybdo as software and what e.g. Dell do as the computer business

I'd actually argue hallelujah that reddit hasn't significantly altered their UI. It may not be pretty, but it doesn't take that long to get used to its quirks, and when you do it is extremely fast and easy to navigate and find meaningful content. I contrast this to slashdot, who proceeded to make their UI WORSE with every update (more "modern" styling and response, but they made it totally broke the usability of their commenting system).

In 1999 during the dotcom craze that bolstered Sun, they were generating about $300 million per quarter in profit. Inflation adjusted, Facebook is already four times larger, and they're growing extremely fast.

Sun was more like DEC. They never had anything in common with Facebook's business position today.

You should have read the article.

Go go transparency

Isn't this true anytime you buy stock for a company where one person owns >50%? You know you can't influence anything with your vote; you're just buying a fraction of the future dividends.

> I'm sure that class C stock will be correlated to class A stock but this sort of sounds like a security who's price is dictated by my ability to find a greater fool to purchase it in the future.

For almost all companies, most of the stock's expected value derives from future scenarios where the company pays out dividends like normal (even if they aren't paying any currently). The expected value derived from the possibility of liquidating the assets and returning all money to the shareholders is nonzero but very small, simply because the chance of this happening is small. So this greater-fool critique would apply to any stock that isn't paying out dividends in the near term, not just those for which there is no voting control.

Like a lot of financial theory, I think this is partly true. However, in my view, one of the side benefits of companies giving dividends is that it acts as a sort of long-term "anchor" to the stock's instrinsic value: the amount the company's stock is actually worth, which is usually wildly different from what it's worth on the stock market.

Let's say through careful analysis I find a company I think to be greatly undervalued in the stock market. I buy a bunch of shares. If they don't pay a dividend, I'm just hoping that eventually the market will "notice" the discrepancy and the price will go up, but I bear a lot of risk because the opposite could happen. But, if that company pays dividends, and those dividends continue to grow, I am getting a real return which is not based on the vagaries of the market.

Thinking that dividends are the only way to realize benefits is short-sighted.

1) Tax evasion, is not the same as tax avoidance.

2) Try putting money into a foundation, acquire the tax benefit of doing so, and then try giving it back to yourself. See what happens.

3) The Zuckerberg Chan Initiative is not a charitable foundation. It's a corporation, an LLC. Please explain how Zuckerberg will be using that to evade taxes. By law they will pay capital gains taxes upon any sale of the stock. How is that evading taxes? If they had wanted to limit taxes, they would have created a traditional foundation. The current structure gives Zuckerberg no added benefit over what he already has.