So Who Really Owns Facebook? (Chart) | Hacker News Reader

So Who Really Owns Facebook? (Chart)

thenextweb.com

125 pointsdomino40 comments

I love how Sean Parker is noted as "Justin Timberlake's character in the movie"

So that is Justin Timberlake. He's always been in my "I know I should know that name but can't quite place him" box.

He's an extremely successful singer, first as part of 'N Sync and later on his own. Up through now he's won 6 Grammy and 2 Emmy awards. He's been in a handful of movies before, but I think the Social Network was the first I recognized him in.

[another pop-culture disconnectee here]: I wouldn't know the name if he had not instigated an infamous "wardrobe malfunction" at a superbowl (not that I actually watched the game/halftime).

He is Brittney's ex. Also remember the 'Cry me a river' song.

I thought the exact opposite, read it as appealing to the lowest common denominator rather than being tongue in cheek.

I think it is more "this is the most remarkable thing you can say about Sean Parker" to answer the question "wait, who is Sean Parker?"

I think Napster was more remarkable.

But who remembers Napster anymore ... it's like that "What are the A: and B: drives for" story yesterday.

Napster is more associated with the other Shawn in people's minds, I think.

The few people who remember Napster, anyways.

Yeah, I remember seeing the FaceBook moving and thinking "Did they fictionalize Shawn Fanning's name or something?"

Same. I knew of Fanning but didn't recall Parker and initially assumed that Fanning had somehow legally prevented the film-makers from using his name.

there was something deliciously ironic about the way every in the audience is thinking "Sean who?" in the Social Network scene where the college girl is excited about "the Sean Parker"

I thought Microsoft bought some Facebook stock, 1.6% for $240 million but I don't see them in there.

It's funny that Bono and his 1.5% made it, but Microsoft and their 1.6% did not.

From the source link (reface.me, which actually got the picture from twitpic): "Not specifically included in the infographic are Microsoft’s 1.6% stake, Hong Kong billionaire Li-Ka Shing’s 0.8%, TriplePoint Capital (though as a debt provider they own nothing), and Accel Partners’ investment."

Bono != Elevation Partners

Many other persons are missing and probably classified as "Other". According to TechCrunch the Samwer Brothers from Germany also invested in Facebook. Would love to know how large their share is if they are still holding onto it.

Microsoft must be in the "Other Investors" group listed as collectively owning 9.7%. I guess Accel is in there too.

and everybody else this sloppy article missed

nice to have a catch-all for your mistakes

(btw the mistake they made is that they are taking pre-dilution percentage figures from 5-6 years ago and adding them to more recent percentage figures, such as Goldman, and then completely forgetting other investors - such as MSFT (preferred stock!), Accel (first VC - preferred stock!). If you add all of these percentages, you would get over 200% - article is completely innacurate)

I'm guessing they're part of the "Other Investors" chunk, along with a lot of others.

There's a Quora topic page with fascinating detail on the subject. It was made more specifically to answer how Mark still controls 26% of the company.

http://www.quora.com/How-did-Mark-Zuckerberg-retain-26-of-eq...

Hmm. The chart states Zuckerberg has 24%, the folks on Quora say Zuckerberg has 26% -- so which is it?

24% ± 2%

25%± 1%

(25% ± 1%) ± 1%

Wow. Look at the jump in valuation from April 2006, when 5% was sold at a $550 million valuation, to October 2007 when Microsoft bought 1.6% at a $15 BILLION valuation.

How many employees does Facebook have? If they have around 5000 employees, then on an average, if they go public for the valuation claimed, every employee gets around $3M!

Or, if you look at it more cynically, if the average stock grant for each new employee was $750k worth of options, then that leaves a pot of about $13.25bn for the rest.

Given dilution, and grants etc, i'm gonna guess that 2000 employees will get 750k (a new house) and 500 (the first 500) will get an average of $26.25m apiece.

Though, i'm sure it's more logarithmic than that...

I would really like to know… do you think your figures are realistic? (let's say compared to what other employees of successful companies may have made in the past, for which I have no info. e.g. Google, eBay, etc.)

Warning: the following will make me look jealous and bitter, but so be it:

That the early employees get a giant pay-day is deserved, but the later you join, the less influential in the overall success you are, in addition to the fact that you're not taking any risks, like you would in an early startup. It seems that joining Facebook a year ago as a developer wouldn't be much different than joining Google or Microsoft in terms of benefits, salary, perks, responsibilities…

I guess I can only blame myself for not working at the right companies, or not making myself marketable enough to be hired at these companies, but I've never had a job that ended up with a bonus in the $500k-$1M range.

I'd guess that current hires would be getting significantly less than existing hires. To make really life changing money you'd need to get in a couple of years ago.

They list 2,000+ on their website: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet

The most surprising thing for me was to learn that Bono of U2 fame owns 1.5% of Facebook.

Well he is one of 5 Elevation partners. They are also famous for very bad investments...

tracing the links back to the source gets you here: http://twitpic.com/3or8of

and before that? nobody knows...

Here's a nice chart that shows the history of different investments, when and how much: http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/facebookgrap...

Just wait for Facebook to file their S-1 Registration with the SEC for the real numbers.

How can Eduardo's shares be accurate if that info wasn't ever released?

I would imagine that his shares are all public record as a matter of the court case. Wikipedia lists the court as having reinstated the 7% initial share; presumably 5% is what that would be after subsequent dilution.

By that logic any court setlement bound by nondisclosure would be public record.

Any court settlement that ended up awarding something that has to be publicly reported. We wouldn't be able to find out what, if any money he was given.

My knowledge is somewhat limited to the "Social Network" but I didn't know Eduardo Saverin held on to his vastly reduced amount of shares after settling...

He won the court case at the end of The Social Network. In the little "where are they now" blurbs at the end, it says that his initial share pre-dilution was reinstated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com