>Can’t you structure things like Zuckerberg or Palantir and just have the founder retain unilateral company control?
Fyi... Zuckerberg didn't "retain" unilateral control. He lost his 65% majority ownership control because it was reduced (diluted) to 40% when Peter Thiel invested in 2004.[1]
What eventually happened was that Zuckerberg later consolidated voting power from other shareholders like Sean Parker and Accel Partners.[2] Why would they give voting power to Zuckerberg?!? Because Zuckerberg was doing a good job running the company.
Yes, Facebook also later set up class B shares with 10x voting power for Zuckerberg. But investors won't accommodate founders with that structure unless the company is a big success.
So in short, MZ lost 65% control, and then eventually got majority voting power back after some business events. Even though he now only owns ~14% of Facebook, an article said his voting share was still at majority of ~58%.[3]
[1] Facebook ownership was divided between Zuckerberg, with 65%, Saverin, with 30%, and Moskovitz, with 5%. After the transaction, the new company was divided between Zuckerberg, with 40%, Saverin, with 24%, Moskovitz, with 16%, and Thiel with 9%. The rest, about 20%, went to an options pool for future employees. -- from : https://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-booted-h...
If the company makes bucketlots of money, the board isn't going to change the CEO, even if he would be a total arse in board meetings. I think it has to be repeated that investors want returns for their investments. Also, if the company happens to make money despite of lousy CEO, the board will highly probably keep the lousy CEO.
All these founder-centric stories makes it looks like board will fire the CEO just for fun, or just because they happen to get the idea out of the blue. Actually it is a lot of pain and work for the board to try to find a new (better) CEO and they probably realize that they will fail (statistically speaking). So, the board will fire the CEO only in a situation where they genuinely believe that average replacement from the market will do a better job running the company. They don't fire on a whim.
Sure... If your company is so attractive that the investors will go along with it. IMHO, Facebook's history is an outlier. Most startups aren't positioned with the leverage they had when raising money. I don't know enough about Palantir's history to comment.
This kind of depends on the interest rates and the Nasdaq (50%). The number of VC in the market(30%) and the allocation of LP to VC (10%).
I see the VC asset class as an arbitrage on private company valuation. As the number of VC increase the arbitrage opportunity disappear and switch sides, from the buyer to the seller. I.e. founders are getting to arbitrage the VCs.
Personally I think that there is a market failure here, where the government protect mom and pop investors from making risky bets on early stage startups, and yet allow them to invest on some crypto scams with no questions.
I envision that, like cannabis, this will be solved soon in the form of some sort of public stock exchange for startups.
This is a bit later than the first few years, but all of Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple were very highly profitable (on gaap, not some xxx-adjusted ebidta bullshit) at their IPO, and for a while before, with hockey stick revenue growth. And the IPOs happened much earlier in the company lifecycle back then. Look up old S-1s.
In theory, yes. But even that is no guarantee. Travis Kalanick had control through supervoting shares at Uber, but the investors forced him to resign and passed governance changes that made all shares equal in voting power. Even with founders having voting power, it's possible for the board or investors to exert other leverage.
> Indeed, Kalanick had some tepid support inside the company. But his vote counting rankled even his defenders. He was also calling executives daily, asking for detailed information about the business. Even worse, he ordered the security team to dig through an employee’s email to see if that person was leaking a potentially damaging story. It all proved too much for the 16-person executive team, which signed a letter to Uber’s board—but clearly directed at Kalanick—asking them to refrain from reaching out to employees or meddling in the company’s daily affairs. Kalanick’s own handpicked executives turned against him.
> Somehow, amid the dysfunction, Uber hired Khosrowshahi, who impressed the board with a thoughtful PowerPoint presentation that included a slide that read, “There can be only one CEO at a time.” Khosrowshahi was all that Kalanick wasn’t or couldn’t be: humble, a good listener, and a diplomat. In a pointed reversal of Kalanick’s mantra, he would say: “We don’t have a PR problem; we have an ‘us’ problem—we have behaved poorly.” And when the city of London revoked Uber’s operating license in September, Khosrowshahi visited, met with taxi regulators, and published an open letter. “On behalf of everyone at Uber globally, I apologize,” he wrote. “We will appeal this decision on behalf of millions of Londoners, but we do so with the knowledge that we must also change.”
He was forced out days after his mother died and his father was in the hospital. There are some life events where you just don't have a whole lot of fight left in you to deal with a hostile board of directors.
