11–20 of 72 posts
SNAP IPO should herald the death of dual share class listings. They sold billions in equity to the public, but gave the shares 0 voting rights. So now investors have no recourse to push for changes at the board level.
How about Buyer Beware? There's nothing illegitimate about raising money without selling voting rights. You want voting rights, want to play active investor? Buy another stock.
What is Evan doing? facepalm
Better question- why is the Board allowing his incompetence to run this company into the ground?
SNAP IPO should herald the death of dual share class listings. They sold billions in equity to the public, but gave the shares 0 voting rights. So now investors have no recourse to push for changes at the board level.
Dig for securities fraud and encourage the SEC to require voting rights as part of a settlement agreement?
I'm going to be devil's advocate here but the CEO (especially of a troubled company like Snap) needs to take the best decisions for the company and stretch solvency and viability for as long as possible. Of course, it's unpopular to promote someone, then rescind that offer and hire someone else. But in this case, the tradeoff seems reasonable. Hiring a well connected, veteran exec who comes from a company known for i…
If you're looking for a stock to short Snap seems like a good choice - I'd bet on failure in a few years or some sad acquisition on poor terms.
The only other tech company I'm pretty confident will fail is Magic Leap, but unfortunately they're private so hard to bet against.
SNAP IPO should herald the death of dual share class listings. They sold billions in equity to the public, but gave the shares 0 voting rights. So now investors have no recourse to push for changes at the board level.
How about Buyer Beware? There's nothing illegitimate about raising money without selling voting rights. You want voting rights, want to play active investor? Buy another stock.
What is Evan doing? facepalm
Better question- why is the Board allowing his incompetence to run this company into the ground?
I'm going to be devil's advocate here but the CEO (especially of a troubled company like Snap) needs to take the best decisions for the company and stretch solvency and viability for as long as possible. Of course, it's unpopular to promote someone, then rescind that offer and hire someone else. But in this case, the tradeoff seems reasonable. Hiring a well connected, veteran exec who comes from a company known for i…
I think you're probably right, but I'd be very surprised if Snap survives - they've been outplayed by Facebook and Zuckerberg is a better CEO. If you're looking for a stock to short Snap seems like a good choice - I'd bet on failure in a few years or some sad acquisition on poor terms. The only other tech company I'm pretty confident will fail is Magic Leap, but unfortunately they're private so hard to bet against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about Buyer Beware? There's nothing illegitimate about raising money without selling voting rights. You want voting rights, want to play active investor? Buy another stock.
You want to raise money without voting rights? Sell bonds.
Back in the day a long long time ago I remember someone who had taken a job at Sun. Two weeks later he left because Apple came through with an offer and he really wanted to work for Apple. I thought it was really rude because I would have never had the guts to do that. I would have felt obligated to stay at the job that I had because that is the way I was raised. But when you consider that Sun would have let him go at the drop of a hat if it suited their business purpose it actually made sense and I learned from that event and seeing what happened later because he went with Apple.
I'm going to be devil's advocate here but the CEO (especially of a troubled company like Snap) needs to take the best decisions for the company and stretch solvency and viability for as long as possible. Of course, it's unpopular to promote someone, then rescind that offer and hire someone else. But in this case, the tradeoff seems reasonable. Hiring a well connected, veteran exec who comes from a company known for i…
Characterizing her as a "good employee, but ultimately an employee with no new insights or inputs" is probably not accurate.