We have concerns about the structure of the board that the company doesn't seem ready to address, which can lead to risks — reputational, regulatory, and otherwise.
When you combine the dual roles of chairman and CEO, plus that chairman and CEO personally owns a majority stake of that company, that's a toxic brew. It means there's very little room for any kind of descent.
The idea that there should be an autocrat in charge of a gigantic public company, which has billions of dollars of shareholder money invested in it, is an anachronism. It harks back to the 19th century when you had these robber barons who were autocrats and dictators.
We believe that our capital structure is in the best interests of our stockholders and that our current corporate governance structure is sound and effective.
When you open yourself up to more opinions, more independent voices, you're more likely to make better decisions. It's more likely that someone with independent governance would have spoken up about some of these things.
If you continue to see more Cambridge Analyticas pop up on the platform, or Facebook skewing elections, or create hate crimes and ethnic cleansing around the world, then you will see social unrest to the point that regulatory bodies come in and mandate change.
We have the best interests of the company at heart because we are a major investor.
As long-term investors in Facebook, we want to make sure the company is strong.
It's about making sure the long-term viability of the company, and with changes in corporate governance, we can reduce some of the risk.