11–20 of 97 posts
$270M loss on $3.7B in revenue. If they can get opex down, there's some serious money to be made and a lot of growth left here. In my neighborhood I'm seeing more and more houses go up for sale with Compass signs.
I see Compass signs all over the place. What makes them interesting here? Are they doing something that every other large real estate company isn't also doing?
They also have also have a nicer tech platform and recommender system, from what I understand.
> On the date of this prospectus, Robert Reffkin, our founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, will hold all of the shares of our Class C common stock > Each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. Each share of Class C common stock is entitled to 20 votes per share I'm surprised no one has proposed laws trying too crack down on founders have super-control of their company through stock…
And yet Zucc has increased the value of the company sevenfold since IPO. I don't love Zucc either but there is definitely something to be said for allowing the CEO to execute on their vision without being beholden to the tale of the hour and the spectacle of quarterly earnings.
> On the date of this prospectus, Robert Reffkin, our founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, will hold all of the shares of our Class C common stock > Each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. Each share of Class C common stock is entitled to 20 votes per share I'm surprised no one has proposed laws trying too crack down on founders have super-control of their company through stock…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet Zucc has increased the value of the company sevenfold since IPO. I don't love Zucc either but there is definitely something to be said for allowing the CEO to execute on their vision without being beholden to the tale of the hour and the spectacle of quarterly earnings.
And I agree that Zucc's been an incredible CEO. But for every Facebook, there's about 50 companies that were run into the ground and pilfered by management on the way down because of inadequate corporate governance.
> On the date of this prospectus, Robert Reffkin, our founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, will hold all of the shares of our Class C common stock > Each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. Each share of Class C common stock is entitled to 20 votes per share I'm surprised no one has proposed laws trying too crack down on founders have super-control of their company through stock…
I actually came here to ask why this is setup in this manner and I already find a partial answer! To extend a bit further - what possible motivation could there be to prompt someone to exchange more valuable Class C shares for Class A shares at a 1:1 basis?
> On the date of this prospectus, Robert Reffkin, our founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, will hold all of the shares of our Class C common stock > Each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. Each share of Class C common stock is entitled to 20 votes per share I'm surprised no one has proposed laws trying too crack down on founders have super-control of their company through stock…
There's probably been proposals, but I guess the fundamental argument remains that as long as it is clearly documented, investors know what they are getting into, and it hasn't gone wrong loudly enough yet (I think most high-profile examples are doing quite well, financially) to sway opinions otherwise. (EDIT: And the main group being "forced" to invest and can't just skip such companies are index funds, who generall…
> On the date of this prospectus, Robert Reffkin, our founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, will hold all of the shares of our Class C common stock > Each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. Each share of Class C common stock is entitled to 20 votes per share I'm surprised no one has proposed laws trying too crack down on founders have super-control of their company through stock…
It's super complicated and I'm glazing over a lot of the details, but my understanding is that the founders have "founder's shares" and no matter how many of these they have, whether it be one or one million, these shares control 49.9999% of the votes. They are allowed to designate which of their shares are and are not "founder's shares" and alter this pretty much on a whim.
Because it's so complicated, and because the amount of common shares changes depending on how many shares are designated as "founder's shares", they also don't ever have to tell people how much voting power common shares have, even as a vote is happening.
It's actually funny reading all the legalese that just boils down to, "we're can do whatever we want".
https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/21/palantir-is-not-a-democrac...
> On the date of this prospectus, Robert Reffkin, our founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, will hold all of the shares of our Class C common stock > Each share of Class A common stock is entitled to one vote per share. Each share of Class C common stock is entitled to 20 votes per share I'm surprised no one has proposed laws trying too crack down on founders have super-control of their company through stock…