Only in Silicon Valley can a CEO burn billions chasing an AI gold rush, send free cash flow below zero, and then demand a bigger payday for his visionary leadership. The board’s ultimate weapon? Threatening to quit. Corporate governance at Meta is basically a fire alarm that needs Zuckerberg’s permission to ring.
Meta does have some very specific issues with their corporate governance in that regard. Mark’s contact basically makes him impossible to fire as CEO. It’s an unusual situation that should have set off alarm bells for investors years ago.
Only in Silicon Valley can a CEO burn billions chasing an AI gold rush, send free cash flow below zero, and then demand a bigger payday for his visionary leadership. The board’s ultimate weapon? Threatening to quit. Corporate governance at Meta is basically a fire alarm that needs Zuckerberg’s permission to ring.
Meta does have some very specific issues with their corporate governance in that regard. Mark’s contact basically makes him impossible to fire as CEO. It’s an unusual situation that should have set off alarm bells for investors years ago.
They just offered to pay his taxes, they aren’t sick of him or they’d let the company fail
That might be just that they’ve got so much money in Meta that they can’t afford it fail.
Edit: what I mean is that there might be gambler’s fallacy at play
Got an email last week that my FB account had been upgraded to Meta for free? I guess they need to fudge the subscriber numbers?
He has controlling votes in the company, so he likely offered to pay his own taxes…