除了一季度的業(yè)績外，社交媒體公司Facebook還公布了其發(fā)行第三類新股的提議。在該提議中，F(xiàn)acebook現(xiàn)有雙重股（AB股）的持有者將獲得第三類股，即不附帶投票權(quán)的C類股。

這聽起來像是無聊的會計(jì)術(shù)語，但是我們有必要了解一下，像扎克伯格這樣有錢有勢的首席執(zhí)行官們?nèi)绾卫眠@一方式來打造和維持其在公司的控制權(quán)。Facebook A股為扎克伯克提供了“超級投票權(quán)”，即使他已把股份賣給風(fēng)投公司，并在Facebook的公開募股中出讓了股份，但他仍可以掌控公司。谷歌的母公司Alphabet也擁有雙重股權(quán)構(gòu)架。

既然扎克伯格已經(jīng)決定在他有生之年將其99%的公司股份贈予Chan Zuckerberg Initiative（以他和他妻子Priscilla Chan命名的機(jī)構(gòu)，其部分業(yè)務(wù)為慈善事業(yè)），他必須另辟蹊徑，讓自己在失去這些股份的同時(shí)不至于丟掉自己對公司的控制權(quán)。有一個簡單的方法：取消股東對公司治理事務(wù)的投票權(quán)！

在業(yè)績電話會議中，扎克伯格就無投票權(quán)股份進(jìn)行了說明，并援引了此前Facebook在自己沒有控制權(quán)的情況下很有可能會犯的錯誤：2006年，雅虎曾試圖以10億美元收購Facebook，當(dāng)時(shí)，扎克伯克原本可能因壓力而接受這一提議。2012年，當(dāng)Facebook上市后，股東對公司施加了很大的壓力，推動公司開始謀求移動端的商機(jī)。但是，由于Facebook是一家“受控的公司”，讓它得以在追逐短視的廣告營收之前專注于提升用戶體驗(yàn)，扎克伯格說道。最后，借助自己的控制權(quán)，扎克伯格在那一年斥資10億美元收購了Instagram，這在當(dāng)時(shí)是一筆極具爭議的交易，但后來為Facebook帶來了豐厚的回報(bào)。

扎克伯格稱，“一系列果敢的舉措造就了Facebook的今天?！睋Q句話來說，投資者又能把他怎么樣？發(fā)動代理人戰(zhàn)爭，還是提出收購邀約？

他們也只能——援用Facebook最近引入的“反應(yīng)鍵”——哈哈。（即一笑了之——譯者注）

有公司業(yè)績連續(xù)兩年的大幅增長作為后盾，扎克伯格的論點(diǎn)很有說服力。每一個季度，我覺得自己在重復(fù)撰寫Facebook的故事：不管在什么情況下，F(xiàn)acebook的業(yè)績總是一路高歌。即使該領(lǐng)域其他數(shù)字廣告公司本季度的收益不盡人意甚至是慘不忍睹，但Facebook的業(yè)績?nèi)猿隽朔治鰩煹念A(yù)期，其營收同比增長了52%，每股收益達(dá)到了0.77美元。

投資者會反對扎克伯格發(fā)行無投票權(quán)股票的提議嗎？可能不會。即使有人反對，他們也只擁有少數(shù)投票權(quán)。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：馮豐

校對：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.