Twitter Board of Directors Own Almost No Shares of Stock in Company, Elon Musk Notes “their economic interests are simply not aligned with shareholders”

April 16, 2022

In the ongoing public battle over Twitter as a speech platform, one actual user of Twitter, Chris Bakke, wanted to see who exactly these Board of Directors are, who are attempting to stop Elon Musk from purchasing it.

Chris Bakke then noted how little of the actual stock is owned by the company’s Board of Directors. Sans Twitter Founder Jack Dorsey, the combined ownership of the entire board equates to 77 shares of stock , worth around $3,200 bucks.

The Board of Directors [SEE BoD LINK HERE] consists of academics, tech executives, business and policy wonks, and a random baroness who doesn’t even use the service. These are the people who are making fiduciary decisions for all Twitter stock owners without any financial stake in the decisions they make for the company.



https://twitter.com/ChrisJBakk.../1515377028295389186

BOARD MEMBERS – (2) Bret Taylor, Independent Board Chair; Co-CEO, Salesforce (former Google exec). (3) Parag Agrawal,CEO, Twitter. (4) Mimi Alemayehou, Senior Vice President for Public – Private Partnership at Mastercard. (5) Dr. Fei-Fei Li, Professor at Stanford (former Google exec). (6) Egon Durban, Co-CEO, Silver Lake. (7) Robert Zoellick, Former Chairman of the Board of Directors of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (8) Patrick Pichette, General Partner, Inovia Capital; Former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Google. (9) Martha Lane Fox, Founder and Chairperson, Lucky Voice Group; Former Co-Founder and Managing Director of lastminute.com; Crossbench Peer, House of Lords. (10) Omid Kordestani, Former Executive Chairman, Twitter (former Google exec). (11) David Rosenblatt, CEO, 1stdibs.com, Inc. (former Google exec). (12) Jack Dorsey, Co-Founder, Twitter; CEO and Co-Founder, Square.

https://theconservativetreehou...holders/#more-231844

It's odd enough that the other Directors collectively own effectively zero shares, but isn't it especially abnormal for the actual CEO of a company to hold none of their own stock?

Seems like their compensation is usually comprised partly of company stock, as an incentive for them to make good business decisions that increase the value of the company.

As it stands, all of these directors - including Twitter's CEO Parag Agrawal - have basically no skin in the game...

They prob have a ton of stock options that are as yet unexercised and thus ownership appears low.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
It's odd enough that the other Directors collectively own effectively zero shares, but isn't it especially abnormal for the actual CEO of a company to hold none of their own stock?

Seems like their compensation is usually comprised partly of company stock, as an incentive for them to make good business decisions that increase the value of the company.

As it stands, all of these directors - including Twitter's CEO Parag Agrawal - have basically no skin in the game...

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jones:
They prob have a ton of stock options that are as yet unexercised and thus ownership appears low.

Doubtful that they ALL have unexercised options…

But let’s say they did, that’s an issue too as they have not guided the company to a place worth cashing them in!

This whole thing stinks…I’m glad, if nothing else, that this is casting light on the real issue of politically controlling the narrative while hiding behind a company that is supposed to be making shareholders money.

I wouldn't be surprised if that were one of Jack's goofy ideas - I can see him thinking that directors without skin in the game might be more apt to run the service as something Dorsey would consider a public good.

Anyone else think it's funny that Dorsey got out when he did?

Company makes (essentially) no money. That surprised me.

Board owns shares worth a tall latte. That surprised me.

Board rejected a bid that would have made shareholders a bunch of money. That surprised me...until now.

I may be slow to catch on but this isn't a business it's a grift. I'm guessing, becauseI'm not going to look it up, that the board makes a pretty fair fee for running a political censor machine. Ya know, when you show a light on the cock roaches under the linoleum it makes them scatter for their disgusting little lives but it sure isn't pretty to watch.

Ordinarily about now I'd say you can't make this shit up, but I guess Orwell actually did, pretty close anyway.

If true, that information about the board members holdings of Twitter shares can really deepen the cut should they be sued for breaching their fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders. Essentially the shareholders are in a position to get guaranteed profit based upon the current price if Musk's offer is accepted. The board members won't profit from the sale because they don't have the shares (nor should that matter anyways) and stand to lose their compensation for serving on the board (which doesn't matter to the shareholders). If they reject the offer to keep their positions on the board, that alone is a pretty damning grounds for a lawsuit. Add in the fact that if the offer is refused Twitter's price is likely to tank increasing the likelihood of lawsuits against them for breaching their fiduciary duty.


Everything about Musk suggests that he's quite intelligent, driven and thorough. I wouldn't be surprised if he factored the boards' Twitter holdings before making his bid. This keeps getting more and more interesting. I can't wait to see how it ends.

Elon is an incredibly intelligent and driven creature. I was quite wrong with my past assumptions and absolutely would not want to find myself in his crosshairs.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Anyone else think it's funny that Dorsey got out when he did?

Nope.

Twitter and other social media titans have been increasingly in the crosshairs of Congress, state governments, the EU and other countries. Like the break-up of Ma Bell in the early 80's, Dorsey could see the writing on the wall and pop'd smoke when he did so he could put distance between him and the eventual anti-trust investigations. Dorsey is old enough to know when its time to leave and his interests today are in finance mainly through Block (formerly Square) and political advocacy of UBI; Google founders Page and Brin I understand have creative ownership structures which distances themselves from company officers regarding legal matters. Zuckerberg over at FB besides being the youngest of the bunch, is also the most egotistical; he'll likely to go down fighting with the ship.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Anyone else think it's funny that Dorsey got out when he did?

From what I've read Dorsey was all but pushed out the door because he was useless at that point.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Anyone else think it's funny that Dorsey got out when he did?

Nope.

Twitter and other social media titans have been increasingly in the crosshairs of Congress, state governments, the EU and other countries. Like the break-up of Ma Bell in the early 80's, Dorsey could see the writing on the wall and pop'd smoke when he did so he could put distance between him and the eventual anti-trust investigations. Dorsey is old enough to know when its time to leave and his interests today are in finance mainly through Block (formerly Square) and political advocacy of UBI; Google founders Page and Brin I understand have creative ownership structures which distances themselves from company officers regarding legal matters. Zuckerberg over at FB besides being the youngest of the bunch, is also the most egotistical; he'll likely to go down fighting with the ship.

That's pretty much what I was insinuating in a sarcastic way. He saw what was coming.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Anyone else think it's funny that Dorsey got out when he did?

From what I've read Dorsey was all but pushed out the door because he was useless at that point.

I hadn't heard that.

Elon Musk announced that if his bid succeeds and he takes over ownership of the social media giant, board members will not be paid anything.

"Board salary will be $0 if my bid succeeds, so that’s ~$3M/year saved right there"


https://www.westernjournal.com...m_content=2022-04-18

I don't think it matters much if he actually takes over the company.

I like the idea that he has the ability to be a disruptive force and that he is on our side.

He’s showing himself to be a force that can offset the malevolence of a Bloomberg and a Soros.

For that he deserves our support. Full disclosure. I don’t have a twitter account and I’m not a huge fan of Musk after his Starlink system has the potential to ruin 35% of the night sky for astronomers.

But kudos to him for this adventure in free speech

Nothing new there. That's been the media business since Guttenberg.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
This whole thing stinks…I’m glad, if nothing else, that this is casting light on the real issue of politically controlling the narrative while hiding behind a company that is supposed to be making shareholders money.

Who Really Owns Twitter?

Twitter’s CEO is abusing investors’ positions to maintain his lock on compensation and further his social justice crusade.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/0...really-owns-twitter/

A public company captured by it's entrenched management and their hand picked lackeys on the board? Say it isn't so.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Who Really Owns Twitter?

Twitter’s CEO is abusing investors’ positions to maintain his lock on compensation and further his social justice crusade.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/0...really-owns-twitter/