| ▲ | dbbk a day ago |
| Market cap isn't real money |
|
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Then they may as well pay out 10% of the stock. |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent | next [-] | | What % of META (shares) are owned by Meta Platforms Inc.? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for e.g. Zuckerberg personally to be ordered to hand over all his shares as any given penalty, but as stated what you describe sounds like a way to avoid paying a penalty. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent [-] | | Meta Platforms Inc. can create shares out of thin air. Diluting existing shareholders by 10% would send a much stronger message than whatever's happening now. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent [-] | | The message being "screw the rules, I have money". The shareholders already can't remove Zuckerberg, he has 57% of voting control. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent [-] | | It amounts to taking 10% of his wealth too, through dilution. And by diluting all shareholders it depresses the price in the future. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent [-] | | That's like a court ordering 10% of your home be put on the market in a way that never forces you to pay rent, when you're likely to live in it for the rest of your life. The wealth you're talking about is almost entirely bound in owning and controlling facebook, bounces up and down a lot regardless of penalties, and it isn't a liquid asset becase he can't sell without giving up that control… Except worse than that, because he could probably order the business to print more shares and give them to him do at any time because of his voting control. See e.g. Musk and his BS trillion dollar performance carrot at Tesla where the board is suspiciously arranged in his benefit, or Musk and his BS voting control structure with SpaceX. IIRC Meta's dividends are pathetic and Musk's nonexistent, so you're proposing an even smaller slap on the wrist than the penalty you deride. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent [-] | | > it isn't a liquid asset becase he can't sell without giving up that control… And that doesn't matter. If Meta is forced to issue 10% more shares to the plaintiff the value of all shareholders' shares fall 10%. And if the plaintiff dumps all the shares on a single day, they fall even harder. Zuckerberg's 57% control of a $1.6t company means a lot more than my 50% control of Triceratops Inc. Not because 57% > 50% but because $1.6t > undefined. > he could probably order the business to print more shares and give them to him do at any time because of his voting control Unlikely. Meta is still headquartered in Delaware and such an action would be subject to shareholder lawsuits. And again the stock price falls, so does Zuckerberg's net worth and also the RSU grants of all his employees. To retain them Meta has to spend more money - cash or further share dilution. You either don't understand finance or are being deliberately obtuse. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent [-] | | > And that doesn't matter. If Meta is forced to issue 10% more shares to the plaintiff the value of all shareholders' shares fall 10%. And if the plaintiff dumps all the shares on a single day, they fall even harder. And why should Zuckerberg care? You can observe by looking at what he's doing that the only thing he wants to own with 99% of his wealth is Meta itself. If Meta stocks were to literally and permanently devalue by 99%, he's still a multi-billionaire and keeps his various mansions and so on, modulo whatever loans he has. > Meta is still headquartered in Delaware and such an action would be subject to shareholder lawsuits. So was Tesla until it wasn't: https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/money/business/2024/06/1... > To retain them Meta has to spend more money - cash or further share dilution. The recent fire-rehire scheme, the one where the firing was blamed on AI even though he got many of them back again, appears to be in aid of breaking the requirement to give out all those stock options. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | inigyou 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's equivalent to saying they should give 10% ownership to the government. First, that would be communism, and second, what would the government be able to use that for? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | cryptonym a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Money isn't real, yet that's how we size a lot of things. |
|
| ▲ | micromacrofoot a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| it's funny how it's real money when it's useful and fake money when it's not |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The sibling comment, talking about Schrödinger, is correct for the wrong reason. The share price is essentially always fake, because the ticker price of any given symbol is in a superposition of all possible values until it gets traded. The bigger the trade you try to make, the bigger the shift you directly cause to the value while you're attempting to make the trade. | |
| ▲ | kingleopold a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | well that is Schrödinger's finance for you, they decide whether to say its fake or real based on their own benefit. |
|
