Wow, $300K for a director salary does not seem like much, given the connections and experience they have.
IANAL, but that seems like a crazy lawsuit.
Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document
111–115 of 115 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume some people are holding them for purely speculative reasons--planning to sell when the price goes up.
But why would the price go up if they have no intrinsic value? The original question was where does that intrinsic value come from.
People speculate on worthless commodities all of the time under the "there's always a bigger sucker" principle. As long as you aren't the last person left holding the bag you can make a bunch of money.
Besides, Apple started paying dividends again back in 2012.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a ton of reasons for the price to be "wrong" if a particular practice is unusual or new. Markets only function as well as the people involved in them. If the people are all acting (unwittingly) on incomplete, incorrect, or insufficient information, then one would expect there to be risks that haven't been "priced in".
Unknown risks are priced in. You just can't really tell how much you should discount because the risks are, well, unknown. If that DNA company from last week would have been public, with one class of shares, and I had bought shares two weeks ago - well, I price them with one of the components being 'there might be some colossal skeleton in the closet' (or take Enron two weeks before the SHTF). It's not like I 'priced…
People like Warren Buffet talk about things being "mis-priced" all the time, that's how people like him make money. So yes, some risk might be priced in, but how much, and how accurately? In some cases, investors may have a very good idea of how much risk a venture entails, in other cases they may think they have a good idea but be completely wrong. The market price is, yes, the market price, that's a tautology. Whether the market price reflects a sustainable reality is an entirely different matter.
The parenthetical in my original comment was important. If everyone thinks they know what is going on, and they're all wrong, then the price isn't a good reflection of reality.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Key term: "disinterested majority" In this case Zuck could not be part of the disinterested majority since it was his salary up for vote. Consequently, his shares (and the accompanying votes) should have been ignored.
The article says that the vote only concerned the salaries of the six directors who are not employed by Facebook in some other capacity, so Zuckerberg wasn't voting on his own salary.
Well, seems to me like he was too greedy and careless.
If he would have kept >50%, everything would be fine.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg Signed the Wrong Document
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's turned that way because of onerous regulations (Sarbanes-Oxley). We made it way too painful to go public, and now we can't benefit from most of the tech growth
The average cost of compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley was 0.043% of revenue by a 2006 survey.
How is average defined? If it's aggregateDollarsCompliance / aggregateRevenue for all companies then small companies are going to pay a much higher percentage versus big companies. Apparently it can be as much as ~1.5% of revenue (http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acspc/appendi.pdf Table 10 shows audit through 2000-2004)
Definitely not an insignificant cost for small companies, especially when you factor in the enormous management overhead