Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has lost $7 billion since May

In May 2012 Facebook went public, holding its IPO (Initial Public Offering). At the time Facebook stock was floated for US$38 per share. Based off the fact that Zuckerberg owns 503 million shares of Facebook, Zuckerberg was estimated to be worth roughly US$19.1 billion at the time. Ever since May, Facebook’s share price has slid and lost value, currently floating at around US$24. That means Mark Zuckerberg is now worth roughly US$12 billion. In other words, Mark Zuckerberg has lost US$7 billion since May.

Of course Zuckerberg didn’t literally lose $7 billion out of his pocket. It could be said Facebook was overvalued at its IPO and its current share price reflects Facebook’s true worth. As such, Zuckerberg’s net worth was overvalued in May and his true net worth is $12 billion. And taking into account lockup periods that prevent company insiders from dumping shares immediately after an IPO, it is not like Zuckerberg could have sold all his 503 million shares in May and made away with $19.1 billion. So since he couldn’t have cashed out in May, the loss of net worth since May isn’t the exact same as losing literal dollars. However, the debate between paper money and real money is all semantics. Bottom line is because of Facebook’s underwhelming performance as a public company, Facebook’s share price has declined. If Facebook shares didn’t lose a third of their value, Zuckerberg wouldn’t have lost a third of his value, and $7 billion is a lot of value, even if Zuckerberg’s current $12 billion puts him among the 72 richest people in the world.

Similar to Zuckerberg, other Facebook insiders have lost value since May, too. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg has lost roughly $700 million; co-founder Dustin Moskovitz has lost $1.6 billion; and former executive Sean Parker has lost $1 billion. Let’s all have a moment of silence for these poor souls.

[via CNN Money | Image credit: Frame maker]

Share this post

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

20 comments

  1. sl0j0n

    Hello, “Alan W”.
    You wrote: “Why do we get so sensitive about this stuff?”
    I could go into great detail, but suffice it to say that most of us are not really so “sensitive”, as we are impatient.
    That are a great many things that most of us would like to see changed.
    Unfortunately, ‘The Great List’ will likely remain uncorrected, because its things that we really can’t address.
    So, then here comes this ‘little pet peeve’, which most of us seem to have.
    When one of them sets us off, we can hardly wait to jump on it, ASAP, to either complain, or to actually change it.
    Yet, its been my experience, that if we will just give it a rest while we do something else for a few,
    that urge to ‘attack the offending error’ will fade,
    at least enough that most of us can ignore it for the time it takes for it to cease that insistent prodding to action.

    Have a GREAT day, neighbor!

  2. Marm

    @GrammarGal:

    One person’s “grammar Nazi” is another person’s savior of the English language. Sure English is a living language but the net (especially Google Translate) seems full of serial killers determined to slaughter it beyond recognition.

    Sorry if that offends the illiterate among us, but illiteracy is an offensive thing. Write in your native language or educate yourself in English.

  3. Mags

    Do I care that MZ lost 7 Mil. NOT

    And I don’t like FB

    I apologize to Ashraf in advance for my next comment.

    I’ve been waiting for the Grammar Police (a bit more polite than Nazi) to write another comment so I could post my own comments about them. Yes I like to see correct grammar and spelling. HOWEVER, I have not and will not point it out in public, nor have I done so in private. To me that is like being a TROLL. If you feel you must point something out then send an email of a PM. Don’t pollute a forum or comments area with this dribble.

    Ashraf, Locutus and all the others who provide us with informative articles or info on free S/W deserve our thanks, not criticism.

  4. Ashraf
    Author/Mr. Boss

    Thx GrammarGal for picking up on my mistake and thx everyone else for standing up for me. Now lets all end the whole grammar issue. Ive fixed it, end of story. No harm, no foul.

  5. jayesstee

    @GrammarGal: I’m a Brit. and very keen on correct grammar, but this hardly a hanging offense. Given the the amount of written (and management/maintenance) input Ashraf gives to this site, in spite of other commitments, I think his grammar is more than acceptable.

    @Ashraf: Are you starting a “hardship fund” for Mark Zuckerberg?

  6. Kraal

    @GrammarGal:
    You know, I don’t know if I’m pulling false memories from somewhere, but I swear I remember Ashraf mentioning english was not his native language. If I really am remembering correctly, then I think the writing is in great shape.
    Until the writing is so bad it makes it difficult to understand what is being said, then back off. This is not a major news corporation. There is also a difference between pointing out “Oh, there’s this mistake.” and being a grammar nazi.

    As for facebook, can’t say I’m concerned for Mark. Heck, I WISH I had the chance to lose 7 billion and still have 12 billion lying around.

  7. Rob (Down Under)

    @GrammarGal:
    There is a terrific British TV series called QI.
    It consists of a panel of 4 guests and Stephen Fry as the host.
    Alan Davies is a permanent guest, and each week the other three guests are chosen from comedians or TV celebrities (EG Rob Bryden, Jimmy Carr, Jo Brand).

    Stephen is always lightning quick to correct people that ‘canny peak ite’
    ( Cannot speak right [correctly] )
    Perhaps they haven’t been learned properly by their teachers ?

  8. GrammarGal

    Re: “So since he couldn’t of cashed out in May”

    Since when is it correct and proper to say ‘couldn’t OF’ instead of ‘couldn’t HAVE’?

    Off topic, I know but it’s a major pet peeve of mine when I see this in print. People are printing what they think they are hearing instead of what they actually mean. People hear ‘could of’ instead of ‘could’ve’ (short for ‘could have’) and so it ends up in print.

    I think someone who writes for a living should do it correctly, that’s all.