Honestly, and sadly, I think this shows just how ready he is. He recognized Facebook was at its peak and sold. That's good business. He's got a ton of money to drive Facebook forward. What's the mismanagement I'm missing?
"The danger, Ritholtz said, is that the drooping stock price could tag the company itself with a "stink of failure" that could make advertisers less willing to use Facebook."
I don't decide where to spend my advertising dollars based on the company's stock price. I do a trial run and see if the CTR and conversions come under my customer lifetime value. If it does, then I pump more money into the ads. No where does stock value come into the equation.
I couldn't care less if the company is dieing - as long as I'm gaining more money (in terms of LTV of new customers) for less money than I'm spending on ads, it's a win to my business.
If the company goes belly up...well I just move my advertising budget somewhere else.
Amazon's initial shareholder letters were basically "Yes, we know we're not turning a profit right now, but that's because we believe in our long term plan". They also detailed what they were doing to make sure that their short-term spending was going to result in long-term returns. Amazon's letters and SEC filings were focused almost completely on this message: That we're spending money now to make a LOT more money in the future.
Facebook, perhaps due to the competitive space that they're in, really haven't done anything like that. Their filings have more of a "Deer in the Headlights" feeling than anything else, with mobile revenue being basically 0, and not adequately explaining the massive expense increases for Q2 2012. Those are red flags for investors. It's a completely different message from Amazon's.