In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture • Hacker News Board

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#21

Post by nikcub » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:03 AM UTC

CaveTech wrote: post #16

spullara wrote: post #14

"Mr. Systrom was just hours from signing a deal for a $50 million venture-capital investment that would put a $500 million value on his company" So this started before the deal was closed. Did the funding round close?

Yes, the round closed the day before the acquisition, iirc.

that makes the IRR a crazy 1.33x10^3175% [1]

funny that they would only need to let their investment ride into equivalent investments for another 21 days before reaching a return of 209 Trillion dollars, which is in excess of the total value of all stocks, bonds and currency in the world.

[1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%3D+%281+billion+-+500+...

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#22

Post by staunch » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:03 AM UTC

ealexhudson wrote: post #20

I would really be surprised if this didn't affect the IPO. Why would people put money into a business with corporate governance this poor?

You can't say yet whether it was a poor choice. Instagram was a very credible threat to Facebook. Its growth curve and primary use bear a strong resemblance to Facebook's.

People laughed at Google for buying YouTube for $1.65 billion. Now every single big company wishes they had done it instead.

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#23

Post by JoachimSchipper » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:07 AM UTC

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #15

andjones wrote: post #11

Full article: https://www.google.com/search?q=In+Facebook+Deal%2C+Board+Wa...

Doesn't work for me; WSJ must have shut it down. Though Google cache pulled through, at least for now: http://bit.ly/IIBabu

There is no need for shortened links on HN.

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#24

Post by JoachimSchipper » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:08 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #18

hartror wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deal? Or is this an artifact that Google doesn't index content behind a paywall so WSJ has to display the whole article to the Google spider and anyone who's refer is Google. If WSJ (or anyone else) doesn't want to lose the search engine traffic they're force to do this.

No, they don't have to do this for anyone who's referer is Google. They could do it for just the Googlebot.

Doing that will get you removed from Google's index, or at least severely penalized.

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#25

Post by staunch » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:11 AM UTC

I love what this says about Zuck. It takes real conviction to make decisions this big and this fast. Most people would feel the need to build a faux consensus of people around them for moral support.

Same thing that let him say no to his own $1 billion acquisition offer I suppose.

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#26

Post by dasil003 » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:22 AM UTC

Schwolop wrote: post #10

jasondc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To view any WSJ article, search Google News for the exact title. WSJ has a deal with Google to let visitors view the entire article.

Is this only true for US visitors? It still doesn't work for me.

Works for me from London.

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#27

Post by nikcub » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:22 AM UTC

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #17

hartror wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deal? Or is this an artifact that Google doesn't index content behind a paywall so WSJ has to display the whole article to the Google spider and anyone who's refer is Google. If WSJ (or anyone else) doesn't want to lose the search engine traffic they're force to do this.

Right, and as of right now (past midnight MT) that trick isn't working any more.

do it through Google News:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=au&tbm=nws&#3...

try running the search manually yourself.

I had a feature in on of my chrome extension that would do this automatically but it was too flaky to release - but I did find that referrals from the news site worked most of the time.

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#28

Post by ealexhudson » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:38 AM UTC

staunch wrote: post #22

ealexhudson wrote: post #20

I would really be surprised if this didn't affect the IPO. Why would people put money into a business with corporate governance this poor?

You can't say yet whether it was a poor choice. Instagram was a very credible threat to Facebook. Its growth curve and primary use bear a strong resemblance to Facebook's. People laughed at Google for buying YouTube for $1.65 billion. Now every single big company wishes they had done it instead.

You're missing my point; I'm not questioning the decision but the process, the governance. The board is there to represent shareholder interests, if they get bypassed like this on a decision this big, then what is the point of them being there?

I think it was Sergey Brin who recently said something about an investment in Google being a long-term bet on his/Page's decision making. It's like the world has suddenly forgotten why businesses are structured the way they are.

To make an unrelated, more controversial, point: if a CEO can take arbitrary, unilateral decisions, it's difficult to see why they should benefit from the protection of corporate liability.

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#29

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:39 AM UTC

AVTizzle wrote: post #13

Interesting. Kind of touches close to a thought I had when I first heard about the deal... Board aside, what kind of signal did the acquisition send to Facebook's rank-and-file? There's plenty of extremely talented people who joined the party too late to have any significant options. Now everywhere they go (including home, private, and social lives...) they can't escape hearing about the gold mine that was just dropp…

[deleted]

Re: In Facebook Deal, Board Was All But Out of Picture

#30

Post by dasil003 » Wed, Apr 18, 2012, 7:42 AM UTC

ealexhudson wrote: post #20

I would really be surprised if this didn't affect the IPO. Why would people put money into a business with corporate governance this poor?

Zuckerberg obviously doesn't give a shit what public investors think, and rightly so. You can't lead a world-changing company in growth stage by kowtowing to what "the market" thinks. Instead he will do what he thinks is best for Facebook, and if it works, the stock price will go up, if it doesn't, it will go down.