Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Facebook Businesses Social Networks

Zuckerberg Made Instagram Deal Alone 307

benfrog writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook's Board of Directors was all but out of the picture when Mark Zuckerberg struck the $1 billion deal to purchase Instagram, the yet-profitless photo-sharing service. From the article: 'It was a remarkably speedy three-day path to a deal for Facebook—a young company taking pains to portray itself as blue-chip ahead of its initial public offering of stock in a few weeks that could value it at up to $100 billion. Companies generally prefer to bring in ranks of lawyers and bankers to scrutinize a deal before proceeding, a process that can eat up days or weeks. Mr. Zuckerberg ditched all that. By the time Facebook's board was brought in, the deal was all but done. The board, according to one person familiar with the matter, 'Was told, not consulted.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zuckerberg Made Instagram Deal Alone

Comments Filter:
  • by rhook ( 943951 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @07:01PM (#39729275)

    Timeline has not been forced on anyone yet that I know of. You have to click the "Get Timeline Now" button to enable it.

  • Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)

    by euxneks ( 516538 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @07:07PM (#39729337)

    Two billion dollars for a photo sharing social network with no business model /facepalm.

    It's not the tech he's buying.

  • by gstrickler ( 920733 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @07:08PM (#39729347)

    Or click on any one of dozens of apps that automatically enable it (e.g. most/all of the "social reader" apps from sites like the Washington Post, HuffPo, etc.)

  • by CaptSwifty ( 61835 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:21PM (#39730037)

    What will this do to Facebook's future IPO when potential investors see a "maverick" CEO who does what he wants without consulting the board? I can't imagine a lot of fund managers will like the idea of putting billions of dollars at stake with someone like Zuckerberg spending huge sums of money without getting input from people who already own a large percentage of the company.

    How does Zuckerberg own only 28% of the stock but have 57% of the voting rights? Are there really that many non-voting shareholders?

  • by gstrickler ( 920733 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @09:04PM (#39730311)

    Apps that tell you in fine print. Apps that if you don't install them, return you to your FB feed rather than let you read the content.

    There is/was also a "Try Timeline Now" button, that enabled Timeline without telling the user that you couldn't turn it off after you "try it".

    But the point is, users don't have to click "Get Timeline Now" to enable it as the GP stated.

    So, while you are technically correct, you've completely missed the point.

  • by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @09:33PM (#39730467)

    Bad loans were the core of the housing bubble. To understand the reason behind it all, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Why would lenders make loans that are unlikely to be repaid?" Answering that question leads to the answer behind the bubble. It was a bubble in supposedly AAA-rated mortgage debt.

    Here's how it worked:
    1) Securitization of mortgages into MBS (mortgage-backed securities). []
    2) Banks made money from selling the loans to securitizers and getting them off their books, not keeping them and collecting interest.
    3) Demand for these securities skyrocketed, as they were thought to be safe and reliable income streams.
    3) This led to the utter deterioration of loan quality, as banks basically just needed to get warm bodies to make loans to, create the loan and sell it. You started seeing things like NINJA loans (No Income No Job or Assets - NINJA) and option ARM loans made to risky borrowers. All included in securities rated AAA.
    4) Investment companies bought these loans, ratings agencies stamped a AAA rating on them and the securities were then sold off. Buyers hungry for safe and reliable high interest returns couldn't get enough of it. Thus a bubble was formed.

    Basically, for mortgage originators, it was like printing monopoly money, and then turning it in for actual currency. When borrowers started defaulting en masse, the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

    Reading recommendations:
    1) The Economist magazine cover story, "House of Cards", from 2003. [] Check out the multiple links to the separate sub-stories that make up the issue under the "In this special report" heading.

    Viewing recommendations:
    1) The Inside Job - Oscar-winning documentary on the financial crisis. []
    2) William K. Black interviewed on Bill Moyers. []

"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351