扎克伯格不打算放弃对Facebook的控制权

除了一季度的业绩外，社交媒体公司Facebook还公布了其发行第三类新股的提议。在该提议中，Facebook现有双重股（AB股）的持有者将获得第三类股，即不附带投票权的C类股。

这听起来像是无聊的会计术语，但是我们有必要了解一下，像扎克伯格这样有钱有势的首席执行官们如何利用这一方式来打造和维持其在公司的控制权。Facebook A股为扎克伯克提供了“超级投票权”，即使他已把股份卖给风投公司，并在Facebook的公开募股中出让了股份，但他仍可以掌控公司。谷歌的母公司Alphabet也拥有双重股权构架。

既然扎克伯格已经决定在他有生之年将其99%的公司股份赠予Chan Zuckerberg Initiative（以他和他妻子Priscilla Chan命名的机构，其部分业务为慈善事业），他必须另辟蹊径，让自己在失去这些股份的同时不至于丢掉自己对公司的控制权。有一个简单的方法：取消股东对公司治理事务的投票权！

在业绩电话会议中，扎克伯格就无投票权股份进行了说明，并援引了此前Facebook在自己没有控制权的情况下很有可能会犯的错误：2006年，雅虎曾试图以10亿美元收购Facebook，当时，扎克伯克原本可能因压力而接受这一提议。2012年，当Facebook上市后，股东对公司施加了很大的压力，推动公司开始谋求移动端的商机。但是，由于Facebook是一家“受控的公司”，让它得以在追逐短视的广告营收之前专注于提升用户体验，扎克伯格说道。最后，借助自己的控制权，扎克伯格在那一年斥资10亿美元收购了Instagram，这在当时是一笔极具争议的交易，但后来为Facebook带来了丰厚的回报。

扎克伯格称，“一系列果敢的举措造就了Facebook的今天。”换句话来说，投资者又能把他怎么样？发动代理人战争，还是提出收购邀约？

他们也只能——援用Facebook最近引入的“反应键”——哈哈。（即一笑了之——译者注）

有公司业绩连续两年的大幅增长作为后盾，扎克伯格的论点很有说服力。每一个季度，我觉得自己在重复撰写Facebook的故事：不管在什么情况下，Facebook的业绩总是一路高歌。即使该领域其他数字广告公司本季度的收益不尽人意甚至是惨不忍睹，但Facebook的业绩仍超出了分析师的预期，其营收同比增长了52%，每股收益达到了0.77美元。

投资者会反对扎克伯格发行无投票权股票的提议吗？可能不会。即使有人反对，他们也只拥有少数投票权。（财富中文网）

译者：冯丰

校对：詹妮

Alongside Facebook’s FB 9.57% first quarter earnings, the social media company announced itsproposal for a new third class of shares. In the proposal, owners of Facebook’s existing dual-class stocks will be issued shares in a third, “C” class of stock. The C class will have no voting rights.

It sounds like boring accounting tedium, but it’s important to understand how rich, powerful CEOs like Zuckerberg build and maintain control at their companies. Facebook’s A-class shares give Zuckerberg “supervoting” power that allow him to maintain control over the company, even as he sold shares to venture capitalists and in Facebook’s public offering. Alphabet GOOG 0.69% , Google’s parent company, also has a dual-class share structure.

Now that Zuckerberg has decided he will give away 99% percent of his Facebook shares within his lifetime to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (the partially philanthropic entity named after him and his wife, Priscilla Chan), he has to figure out how to siphon those shares without losing his controlling stake in the company. One simple way: Take away shareholders’ right to vote on issues of corporate governance!

On the earnings call, Zuckerberg made the case for no-vote shares by offering examples of missteps that Facebook could have made if he had not controlled the company: In 2006, Yahoo offered to buy Facebook for around $1 billion, an offer Zuckerberg probably would have been pressured to take. In 2012, when Facebook went public, shareholders applied intense pressure on the company to start earning money on mobile. But because Facebook was a “controlled company,” it could focus on making the user experience great before going after short-sighted ad revenue, Zuckerberg said. Lastly, Zuckerberg’s control allowed him to drop $1 billion on Instagram that year, a controversial deal at the time that has paid off handsomely for Facebook.

“Facebook has been built by a series of bold moves,” Zuckerberg declared. In other words, what are investors going to do about it? Mount a proxy war? Court takeover offers?

To quote one of Facebook’s recently introduced “reaction” buttons: Haha.

Zuckerberg’s argument is easy to make on the back of the company’s two-year winning streak. Every quarter, it feels like I write the same story about Facebook: All it can do is win, win, win, no matter what. Even as the other digital advertising companies in its sector reported dismal todownright ugly earnings, Facebook this quarter managed to beat analyst expectations, growing revenue by 52% over the same period last year and earning $0.77 per share.

Will investors protest Zuckerberg’s proposal for powerless, no-vote shares? Probably not. But even if they do, as far as voting goes, they’re already in the minority.