Where's the governance at Meta and Tesla?

Zuck and Muck say they're going to fight each other in a physical cage match.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-surgery-mark-zuckerberg-fight-3598da84?mod=djemwhatsnews

Does this strike you as a smart way to retain and build shareholder value?

It’s the role of the board to evaluate the CEO’s behavior and provide guidance (or stronger medicine) if a senior executive is about to do something stupid.

Getting into a cage-match is stupid. CEOs who do it are demonstrating a lack of breadth of intelligence. Or a perverse sense of showmanship.

Where’s the boards? Look at Zuck and Muck (formerly known as Musk). Zuck has too much control and Muck (also known as Musk) has too little, it seems.

Mark Zuckerberg controls something like 57% of the voting power at Meta despite only having an overall shareholding of 13.6%. That’s what you can get with a dual-class stock — powerless boards and outside investors. (For a more in-depth look at dual-class structures, see https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/perpetual-dual-class-stock-case-against-corporate-royalty.)

Elon Musk has CEO responsibilities at several different firms, including a few public ones. Where the heck is corporate governance at any of these firms? (Other than squeezed into near oblivion in Elon’s mighty grip.)

Who out there thinks these jokers should actually engage in a cage fight? Who benefits? Who gets hurt?

Hmmm…what do you, the reader, own that would generate more returns for you if one or both of these characters gets seriously injured in this folly? [Yes, I’m looking at you and trying to figure out your motivation.]

Share your motivation and insights here.

Which one of these characters will back down or quit first? Will this result in changes in the nature and structure of multi-class ownership?

Or is this just a lame joke by people who should be spending their time in more constructive pursuits?