Not claiming to know more than the experts at USA Today who suggest that given Facebook’ stock drop and continuing blues, Zuck’s job as CEO may be in jeopardy. O rly?
I would love to see it: a board of directors which fires the company CEO who also happens to be its largest investor (holding just above a fifth of the company stock) c’mon! Corporate America would like us to think the capitalistic system strictly operates in the interest the little shareholder, but unfortunately we learned through many examples that this is not true.
So, little shareholder, you got shafted – better eat it.
If anyone should be fired it’s Facebook’s CFO, David Ebersman, who mismanaged the share issuance and the lock-up period operations. But he won’t be, because what he in reality did was to provide Facebook with a very, very cheap source of financing; true, he won’t be able to pull off a second one, but the first one was pretty large.
However, the pearl that I like the most in the USA Today article is this:
After Apple jettisoned Steve Jobs in 1985, it struggled in the 1990s with a succession of CEOs, culminating in the disastrous reign of Gil Amelio. Jobs reclaimed the company he co-founded in 1997.
Eric Schmidt did a sterling job as Google CEO before Larry Page was brought back in last year. Yahoo has had a procession of CEOs with two stints by co-founder Jerry Yang, who is now largely out of the picture.
I will admit being thick headed, but I just do not see the underlying thesis. Is having the founder as the CEO a good thing or not? Larry Ellison is doing just fine at Oracle, thank you, and SJ is the hero we all worship, but what exactly does the Schmidt / Page swap tell us?
I think those who try to extrapolate trends from a series of unrelated, exceptional events are trying to read tea leaves.