
Why I'm thrilled Mark Zuckerberg is annoying the bankers - dean
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57431172-93/why-im-thrilled-mark-zuckerberg-is-annoying-the-bankers/?tag=mncol;popPosts
======
phillmv
>"Mark and his signature hoodie: He's actually showing investors he doesn't
care that much; he's going to be him. I think that's a mark of immaturity,"
Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter complained to Bloomberg's Mark
Milian. "I think that he has to realize he's bringing investors in as a new
constituency right now, and I think he's got to show them the respect that
they deserve because he's asking them for their money."

Christ, what an asshole.

It's a negotiation tactic, one many of us use in interviews: by flaunting
social convention and dressing down, you're signaling that you have leverage.
Mark is the one being wooed, and not the other way around.

By whining about it in the press it just makes it sound like this fellow just
isn't used to being the lowest status person in the room.

~~~
sterling312
Regarding to the second quote, the statement just shows how the analyst
doesn't get the situation at hand at all. Traditional firms uses IPO to gain
cash and expand, true. That is because it is very hard to raise money in that
scale using other methods. In the case of Facebook, with over $1B revenue, it
can easily raise cash from other forms of investment (hey, who wouldn't want
to own a piece of Facebook at this point?). Instead, what the IPO really does
it introduce the pricing of Facebook to the market, which in turn hopefully
reduces the volatility of the price. Who gets the most benefit out of this?
The investors! Facebook is going to get cash one way or another; it is the
investors who gets the most benefit out of its IPO. So Zuckerberg can do
whatever he wants. The only ones he has to show respect to are the consumers
that uses Facebook, frankly.

~~~
veyron
Mentioned it a few times in other threads, but it clearly needs to be
reiterated: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3753915>

For posterity's sake let's make this clear: the SEC rule regarding 500 owners
is as follows:

> Companies with more than $10 million in assets whose securities are held by
> more than 500 owners must file annual and other periodic reports. These
> reports are available to the public through the SEC's EDGAR database.

Source: Securities Act of 1934, paraphrased in
<http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml>

It requires firms to file special reports. The reason why people presume that
it means that the firm must go public is simple: there are only a few
additional requirements to go public, and the economic advantages in many
cases outweigh the paltry effort.

For posterity's sake, this is worth repeating: THERE IS NOTHING FORCING A FIRM
TO GO PUBLIC. NOTHING.

~~~
surrealize
You're missing the point. Facebook might not have been "forced" to go public,
but they still don't really need the cash from the IPO. And there are
undoubtedly lots of bankers who would kill to be in on the facebook IPO.

So the banker who expected Zuckerberg to bow and scrape was still badly
mistaken. Zuckerberg isn't really "asking investors for their money" in the
IPO, because he doesn't really need that money. _That's_ the point.

~~~
veyron

        Facebook might not have been "forced" to go public, but they still don't really need the cash from the IPO
    

If they didn't need the cash from the IPO why did they IPO? If they wanted
liquidity for employees and investors, then they need to go public and hence
should at least pay a modicum of respect (guess who is buying those shares
that those investors and employees are selling?)

~~~
surrealize
The people buying the shares are ultimately the public; the bankers are just
middlemen, and replaceable ones at that.

If facebook actually did need the cash, why wait until they hit the 500
investor limit? Hitting that limit is clearly playing a role in the timing of
the IPO, even if it didn't "force" an IPO.

~~~
veyron
Facebook as the corporate entity doesn't need the cash; the investors and
employees need the exit. In light of that, Mark as an investor and employee
does need their cash.

If the exit wasn't important, they would stay private and run the business.

~~~
surrealize
Sure, the extra liquidity is nice for people who hold shares. But, at the same
time, the IPO is clearly not a big deal to Zuckerberg, as evidenced by 1. the
fact that they've waited until now, and, yes, 2. by the hoodie.

What's the percentage of firms with >500 investors that don't IPO?

I wonder if increasing the number of investors past 500 is more about using
equity as a recruiting/retention tool than it is about cash.

~~~
veyron
I think you trivialize a very important point, namely that the IPO is a big
deal for pretty much everyone (as its used as a recruiting tool for employees
and as an exit proposition for VC firms), especially to Zuckerberg (who
invariably spun stories of potential exits as part of the process).

I think we can agree on the two facts, namely:

\- the firm probably doesnt need the cash

\- the members of the firm and investors do want the exit provided by an IPO

~~~
surrealize
OK! </thread>

------
DanI-S
The idea that here, in the 21st century, any successful entrepreneur must garb
oneself in rarely-worn, extremely expensive and generally inconvenient
Victorian-era ceremonial dress in order to arrange a business transaction is
utterly ludicrous.

I'm most effective when I'm at my most confident, and I'm most confident when
wearing the clothing that I am used to wearing every day. That might be a
suit, and it might be the affordable and well-designed utility clothing that
99% of humanity wears.

If it's good enough to wear whilst creating a company worth billions of
dollars, it's good enough to wear whilst selling it.

~~~
oconnore
> rarely-worn, extremely expensive and generally inconvenient Victorian-era
> ceremonial dress

This annoys me. The 'dev-uniform' of t-shirt, jeans and sneakers is just as
constraining as the 'business-uniform' of suits and button downs.

 _You_ rarely wear one, they are not necessarily expensive, and they are not
inconvenient.

Basically, there is nothing inherently better about jeans and a t-shirt, and
nothing inherently bad about suits or anything else that isn't in either
category. The key is to not expect others to comply to your weird ideas about
dress code and let everyone express themselves without stereotyping them.

~~~
krakensden
> This annoys me. The 'dev-uniform' of t-shirt, jeans and sneakers is just as
> constraining as the 'business-uniform' of suits and button downs.

Have you ever tried to run or climb or do anything physical in a suit?

~~~
oconnore
Have you ever tried to run in jeans? It sucks. Generally I do it in athletic
shorts, but feel free to do what works for you.

Also, by similarly irrelevant logic, flip flops should be a developer faux
pas. They aren't.

------
oz
I'm as sartorial as they come. My friends call me 'Swagnificent'; I typically
wore tailored, French-cuff shirts, a fedora and suits to my former job as a
sysadmin at a Big 4 firm. People regularly stop me on the street and ask to
take pictures of me. TL;DR, I'm all for dressing up.

But something about this _delights_ me. Imagine, walking into a room of self-
indulgent, Wall Street pricks, knowing that they're tripping over themselves
to get in on the action. I think I'd be tempted to rub it in. Ordinarily,
someone approaches a bank out of their own necessity. Here, the tables have
turned. And I love it.

Wasn't there a story a few years back about Microsoft calling Zuck for
conference call at 9AM, and he told them he was still sleeping; and to call
back?

~~~
kemiller
Dressing well as a sysadmin is an act of rebellion. ;)

~~~
blasdel
it can also be pathetic: <http://achewood.com/index.php?date=11012004>

------
tomgallard
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I think he's being rude and
arrogant.

Yes, he's in a position of power, and could turn up to his meetings wearing
only a cunningly positioned silk scarf, and it would have no effect on the
banks' willingness to earn lots of money from overseeing the Facebook IPO.

But when you're in a position of power you also have a responsibility not to
be a dick. I realize dress codes etc are a bit different over there in the US,
but at work here I normally dress pretty casually.

However, if someone's coming in for interview, I will wear a suit. As I know
the candidate's going to turn up in a suit, and it will make them feel
uncomfortable if I'm interviewing them in shorts and a t-shirt.

The person in the position of power has a moral obligation not to make
everyone else feel uncomfortable or stupid. A great example of this is Queen
Victoria drinking from her finger-bowl after one of her guests did - in order
to save them from any embarassment or discomfort
(<http://www.bobssermons.com/sermons/archive/030831.htm>).

And yes, bankers have acted arrogantly, and swanned around like they own the
place too long. But its hardly a great example to set to just start doing the
same yourself as soon as the balance of power tilts.

~~~
mbesto
I can't disagree more.

 _But when you're in a position of power you also have a responsibility not to
be a dick._

Say's who? The greatest minds of our day challenge status quo's, not accept
them. "Dress" has historically been a badge of status, which has historically
been inherited. I think the big "F U" that Mark is trying to portray (much
like Jobs) is that his meritocracy wins.

Bureaucrats wear suits, Meritocrats wear hoodies.

~~~
tomgallard
So if the bankers started wearing hoodies they'll become Meritocratic?

Portraying 'not wearing a suit' as challenging the status quo is a bit of an
exaggeration. Maybe Gandhi challenged the status quo with his choice of
outfit, but a billionaire turning up to a meeting in a suit is hardly sticking
it to the man.

I think it works both ways incidentally- if the banker is coming to your place
of work, and you all wear hoodies and shorts, he should make an effort to
dress casually too.

~~~
Duff
A banker would never wear a hoodie to work because that just isn't something
that you do. Banking by its nature is a profession based on who you know,
where you went to school, and conforming to whatever social norms rule the
day. In 1910, that meant you wore a topcoat and hat with a pocketwatch; 1960,
it meant a double breasted suit and fedora; in 2012, a fancy single breasted
suit with tie.

Wearing casual clothing to these sorts of meetings sends a clear signal --
"Fuck you, I'm the guy with the power here."

Zuckerberg can do this because in reality, what's the downside to him? If
Facebook crashes and burns completely, he'll be a billionaire before age 30
who "lost it all" with just a couple hundred million in the bank.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
Injecting formality into a construction site I can see: Steel-toed boots
prevent smashed feet, hard hats stop brain damage, tool belts keep the
floor/ground clear from obstacles.

What does a suit confer other than "you have to wear this because you _do_ "?
What are they, five years old?

~~~
Duff
People respect symbols of authority and perceive you as a bigshot.

I wear a suit for work when I meet with the various luminaries that I need to
deal with (maybe 2-3 times a month). You get more respect. Waitresses are more
attentive, and people listen to you more.

~~~
gsharm
It's interesting you say this. I've been experimenting with/without suits, on
and off at my current place of work (an investment bank front office). What
I've noticed is this:

1) If you're careful, you can get away with wearing jeans and trainers (I
often wear black 501s with nike low nike cross trainers, and various casual
shirts - no one really notices/cares, especially if you're in software).

2) Suits and neat shirt/trousers tend to be the "default" and perhaps signal
safety/predictability more than commanding respect (which doesn't make sense
since everyone wears suits around here, and everyone doesn't command everyone,
so it's a shallow heuristic to use when making quick calls on people - I know
some dumb people who wear suits, and smart ones who don't).

3) I've incidentally worn very casual stuff (jeans, no suit) for interviews
and then actually worn suit/tie/etc on the job later, i.e. more out of
curiosity/wanting to, than obedience. I do think in some ways they can be
nicer to wear. If you go more into studying design concepts, you start seeing
some good elements in play within the standard template of what constitutes a
suit (shirt, blazer, tie, boots, cufflinks, etc). Is there a better
alternative? Not sure - I loved Steve Job's outfit too, though.

Imagine the Barrack Obama whitehouse photo with him in a hoodie. It wouldn't
be unthinkable for him to do this, but I'm not sure it would communicate the
right message to the general public (again, perhaps it's about projecting the
idea of safety, stability, predictability, etc). In that sense, suits are a
good communication facilitator.

A lot of jackasses wear suits, sure, but a lot of jackasses use iPhones, for
example too. It doesn't mean they're a bad thing. The bigger problem perhaps
with wearing a suit is that there are so many people wearing them now, many of
them doing it because other people do it, rather than because they have some
pure conviction to do so, that it has become a "red ocean" strategy, which
naturally goes against the flow of innovation.

~~~
Duff
I don't really see the big deal about suits. I look good in them, and would
wear them more but for the cost of acquiring and maintaining them.

Many folks, particularly in IT, dress like muppets. We have one guy who
routinely wears track suits in the office, for example. It doesn't give off a
good impression.

------
tatsuke95
> _"He's in a position most of us who have scrambled to find obscure documents
> in order to get a mortgage dream about: Telling a bunch of bankers to take
> it or leave it."_

Um, banks are no different than your auto mechanic. They want and are
competing for your business. You can always tell them take it or leave it.

People seem to have this bizarre mentality that you have to go begging to your
bank for money, which is hardly the case. Personal business like mortgages and
chequing accounts, and for that matter things as large as an IPO, are hyper-
competitive. There is a lot of room to shop around.

What is it about banking that people find so intimidating and confusing?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
It sounds like you're rich?

We tried to get a business mortgage - despite being able to show we've paid
double the monthly repayment amount in business rent for 7 years no one will
even give us a ludicrously bad offer nvm actually accept us as a customer.

This seems like madness to me, add a 25% deposit and an insurance requirement
and I think it's impossible for them to lose money on the deal even if we
default and they sell off the building - indeed they probably make a pretty
good profit that way.

No bank needs my money. There are definitely some auto mechanics that do.

~~~
muyuu
Credit crunch.

It's all about timing. Thank the "business cycle" inherent to keynesian
economics.

~~~
waterlesscloud
It just proves that bankers are spectacularly bad at performing their primary
job function- evaluating risk.

They sucked at it in the run up of the lending bubble (which is why there even
was a bubble), and they suck at it in the aftermath.

~~~
muyuu
It's more of a tragedy of the commons situation, except most of the bankers
ran away with the loot. That's their benchmark and they seem to do very well
by it.

Now, if the government(s) stopped running a pump and dump scheme, banksters
wouldn't screw us so routinely and predictably. Adapting to a sensible system
would be painful short-term though, which is why it won't happen without a
collapse.

~~~
rhizome
Was it really that predictable?

~~~
muyuu
I'm going to guess here that you're talking about the recent bubble. I think
so, yes, it was very predictable.

I wasn't being so specific though. It's a fact of life that expansion and
contraction cycles must happen in most Western countries, given the
generalised policy of having a (very) fractional reserve and resorting to "the
printer" regularly to "stimulate" the economy. These cycles have been
happening for many decades and will continue to happen as long as things work
roughly the same way.

------
heyrhett
"My name is Barack Obama, and I'm the guy that got Mark to wear a jacket and
tie." [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/mark-zuckerberg-
wea...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/mark-zuckerberg-wears-tie-
jeans-obama-interview_n_851746.html#s267561)

------
wtvanhest
Zuckerburg is not annoying any bankers or the buyside, I assure you of that.

The only people mentioning it are reporters and sell side analysts.

(The guy he mentions in the article is a sell side analyst)

~~~
TDL
Thank you. No one pays much attention to sell-side analysts. If I were one of
the bankers on the FB deal I would be more surprised if Zuckerburg came to a
meeting with a suit on.

~~~
wtvanhest
Exactly. And if he had come in a suit people would have been saying that he
cares so much about what "Wall Street" thinks that he must be "selling out" or
even worse trying to get a higher than valuation than FB deserves etc.

------
joelrunyon
I'm not a huge facebook fan, but I have to agree. Since when is wall street in
a position to say "we need to be taken seriously" after all the crap they
caused first hand to things for the sake of making money.

Isn't all the faux-positioning and over-reverence to the banks the main
problem with wall street anyway?

~~~
ams6110
Wall Street might take themselves more seriously if we had let them feel some
pain from their mistakes. Instead we bailed them out, like a rich parent bails
his spoiled kid out of jail after a DUI.

~~~
cglace
Insert some comment about how our economy would have fallen into a death
spiral if we hand't have bailed them out.

------
anotherthrow
So Mark Zuckerberg wears the regulation silicon valley uniform to a meeting
with bankers wearing their regulation wall street uniform? I'm not sure what
the interesting content to this story is, but would be happy to be
enlightened!

------
creamyhorror
I like this quote from another CNet article on the Facebook IPO:

\----

In the case of Facebook -- whose T-shirt-wearing, 27-year-old chief executive,
Mark Zuckerberg, is said to appreciate status updates more than stock brokers
-- it's unlikely advisors will be able to command the standard rate.

"These Valley types think this whole process could be automated and they don't
have to pay 7 percent to these flashy, French-cufflink-wearing Wall Street
types," said Eric Jackson, founder and managing member of Ironfire Capital, a
technology-focused hedge fund, who has interacted professionally with
executives at Facebook and other social-media companies.

\----

I doubt the IPO process can be automated to any large degree (unless all the
players somehow started thinking like engineers) but I'd sure be happy to see
people try!

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _I doubt the IPO process can be automated to any large degree_

Why? What's so complicated about it?

~~~
chernevik
Stocks generally don't trade on purely quantitative analysis, but on investor
assessments of their 'story' and how that will play out over time. If you
think corporations are going to invest in networking gear you look at Cisco et
al. You inspect that universe for management (good or bad?) / product (great?
promising new stuff? obsoleting?) / financial stories (leverage? balance sheet
clarity?), and for valuation (P / E, enterprise value to EBITDA). If you think
someone's valuation is low given the stories you believe, you buy.

For seasoned stocks a market consensus about the relevant stories emerge, and
events within those stories drive the trading moves. People making money by
being the first to adopt or drop stories.

But an IPO has no market-consensus stories of its own. So the book-building
process involves explaining the company and getting market feedback on the
credibility of that story.

Now this may or may not make sense. But it does give management some feeling
of relationship with the market, by which they can hear what investors think
and possibly influence those perceptions. Given the importance of stock price
to most managements, it would be a very bold team that went forward without
any perceived tool for managing the process.

------
jbooth
I've got a question for the repeated assertions that "JP morgan / GS / etc
repaid their bailout money"...

They only repaid that money because the bailed-out AIG paid off their credit
default swaps, right? So isn't it only true in the most narrow sense that they
paid it back, considering that the gov't totally ate it on AIG?

~~~
tedunangst
Yes, but if you want to take a narrow view, you can't blame Chase for AIG's
mistakes.

"Bailout" money is tracked in the account of the entity that receives it, but
I don't think it's reasonable to continue tracing it as it moves around.
Bailout dollars are just as green as regular dollars. If someone at Chase buys
a car with bailout dollars, then the car salesman buys lunch with his
commission, are you going to claw back the bailout dollars from the waiter?
Debts are owed by the people who receive the money, not the guy left holding
the hot potato.

~~~
jbooth
Sure you can.

You buy a bond, you're not guaranteed 4% interest, you're gambling that the
entity who's indebted to you will still be around long enough to pay you. Same
with these credit default swaps.

If the government doesn't step in, AIG folds and Chase doesn't get paid for
those CDS contracts. Nobody paid the government back for AIG.

~~~
tedunangst
And the government insured AIG. that doesn't move the debt from AIG's books to
Chase's books.

~~~
jbooth
The government did not back those credit default swaps, until they did of
course. But the fact that the government stood behind other forms of insurance
at AIG doesn't mean that they were obligated to pay back the CDSs. Again,
until they did so after the fact.

------
dasil003
An investment banker annoyed by Zuckerberg wearing a hoodie is equally
impotent to someone who can't wait to see Zuckerberg "stick it to the
bankers".

Focus on stuff that matters.

------
elorant
Even the almighty Steve Jobs when visited a Nobel award ceremony wore a tie.
Bottom line it all depends on the importance of the event. You can't demand
respect, you can only earn it. And the bankers haven't earn it a bit.

~~~
kthakar3
I agree. Zuck wore a tie and suit for the Obama dinner.

------
RyLuke
"Clothing is the outward expression of a man’s state of mind. It is his attire
that tells the world what he thinks of himself." -Pearl Binder

"Dressing conscientiously is exalting in the act of being alive." -Gay Talese

It doesn't much matter what Zuckerberg signals or doesn't signal to Wall
Street bankers by wearing a hoodie. It won't have a material impact on his
company's offering.

Coco Chanel used to say that one shouldn't leave the house without putting
some effort into one's appearance -- if only out of politeness. It is, after
all, the rest of us who have to look at you. The most unfortunate part of this
story is that Zuckerberg fails to realize -- or care -- that a little
sartorial attention imparts respect for the people with whom you are doing
business, both personally and professionally.

Whether he likes it or not, Zuck is now a high profile individual, with all
the attention that follows suit. That's, in my mind, an opportunity to think
critically about how he presents himself aesthetically. Contrary to what most
posters here seem to think, fashion isn't binary: there are more choices than
a hoodie and jeans or a suit. Putting some effort into his appearance doesn't
mean he has to look like, or imply endorsement of, Wall Street bankers. If
anything, purposefully flaunting that convention is the opposite side of the
same coin.

------
ggchappell
There's an unspoken assumption behind all this, that I'm wondering about.

So, FB is having the usual IPO roadshow, but they're not doing it quite as
expected. My question: Why are they having the roadshow at all?

Instead they could have done a few interviews with major business magazines
(which I believe they did), put out what amounts to an annual report, to get
people information, maybe even had a special hotshot-analyst-only webpage for
submitting questions about strategy & what not.

What does the roadshow get them that the above wouldn't have? The only things
I can think of are time & money spent, and lots of headaches.

------
creamyhorror
The Wikioracle tells us:

\---

Western business wear is standard in many workplaces around the globe, even in
countries where the usual daily wear may be a distinctive national costume.

Some non-Western businesspeople will wear national costume nonetheless. A
Saudi Arabian sheikh may wear the traditional robes and headdress to an
international conference; United Arab Emirates diplomats in particular are
noted for attending conventions of the United Nations General Assembly in full
keffiyeh and thawb. Diplomats of the People's Republic of China are similarly
noted for wearing the Mao suit to international events; Indian leaders often
wear Nehru jackets, with Manmohan Singh wearing a suit-like combination
including such a jacket with his Sikh turban. Wearing national costume in such
contexts can proclaim national pride, or just _extremely high status which
allows the wearer to defy convention._

\---

Indeed, maybe that's what's happening here: the corporate chieftain showing
his power among those in the room. Let Zuckerberg peacock; he is within his
full rights to. Does a client have to dress however his banker does?

------
grumps
I don't like either (FB or Wall Street).

I will enjoy watch the two fight it out.

------
hristov
Big f-ing deal. This is basically a puff piece. I don't think he is annoying
the bankers, at this point everyone expects him to wear a hoodie. If he really
wanted to annoy the bankers he would have done google style Dutch auction ipo.
The bankers really hated that.

------
georgemcbay
Anyone who follows the console gaming market will instantly recognize Michael
Pachter as a first-class media troll that says ridiculous things to get his
name mentioned in articles.

It would probably be better to just ignore this guy instead of playing into
him.

------
adrianwaj
To me the big story of this IPO is that Facebook execs are giving tacit
approval to large amounts of pedophilia and hate material that exist on the
site because for them to remove it, they'd have to acknowledge it exists
first, and they feel this could turn off investors.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcs6pIslv1A#t=662s> (Pedophilia Groups Invade
Facebook)

And to think Mark actually single-handedly has the power to do something. Such
poor character. And there's a ton of anti-semitic material too. Ewwww.

------
Tichy
Why do companies put up with the 1-3% share of the bank for an IPO? What is
the service the banks provide, and do they have more work if the IPO is
bigger? Otherwise, why not give them a flat fee?

I suppose Facebook could whip up a trading system for "virtual FB shares" on
top of FB on a weekend, no need for banks and stock markets at all? Some
lawyers to comply with regulations, though :-/

They already have their own currency, so presumably also an infrastructure for
transactions and so on.

------
Mz
This is ridiculous. The whole thing. The way he dressed probably says none of
the things they think. That is typical behavior for a self made man who had to
actually create something of value to make a buck instead of having to do
social jockeying to get hired. Different worlds. The bankers live in a monkey
sphere where pecking order is incredibly important. Mark does not. "There is
always room at the top" and all that.

------
danteembermage
The average IPO proceeds for the past two decades have never exceeded 100
million and have been hovering around 70 for a while. At 3% that means the
typical cut is $2.1 million or less. Facebook plans to raise $11.8 billion,
which at 1% would be $118 million. Compensation of fifty times normal implied
by the 1% figure thrown out in the article still seems pretty high.

------
12uu45dd
Microsoft made him wealthy. People became amazed and dazed, willing to give
him more money.

Good on him for not caring. FU money. He suckered Microsoft and that's enough.
He's set for life.

But it's not the hoodie, it's who's in it.

If he's rejected by investment bankers, it's not because he wore a hoodie.
It's because of who he is. Wearing hoodies to meetings is but one very small
part.

------
bitdiddle
must be a slow news day

------
EternalFury
What he wears should not matter, except he has a dress code for people who
come interview for a job at Facebook. So, he certainly deserves a ribbing for
believing he is above his own rules.

~~~
ojbyrne
I'm curious about where you came up with this assertion. I interviewed at FB
and nobody told me what to wear.

~~~
joering2
thats funny; they told me to come to the prom night and didnt mention a thing
about what to dress, but still I haven't came naked.

just because they havent told doesn't necessarily mean you shouldnt have your
own sense as of what to wear to work. if that would be me, and not seeing
anyone how they really look at work inside fb, i would came with suit and tie
and figure things out the first day.

~~~
gergles
If you would show up at Facebook wearing a suit and tie on your first day,
they should probably fire you on the spot for being so utterly braindead as to
not figure out any of their culture from your interview or from Internet
research or from the "what's it like to work at Facebook" videos and pictures
they have on their career site.

~~~
tomjen3
Actually a person could be wellknown by wearing a suit to work at Facebook.

After all when all the non-conformist looks differently the same way, you need
to do something different to stand out.

------
readme
Awesome. I take this as a sign things are changing. I can't wait to see the
day when technology companies are the top of the food chain, and bankers are
second.

------
zerostar07
Did this guy just type 2 pages about a hoodie? (and 167 people found this
interesting?)

------
rottyguy
Zuck is about to step into (F*ck You Money ^ N) so what else would you expect?

------
SkyMarshal
_We're Facebook. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits._

------
rbucks
Has anyone ever seen Steve Jobs where a suit and tie?

~~~
16BitTons
[http://www.kitguru.net/apple/carl/why-did-steve-jobs-wear-
tu...](http://www.kitguru.net/apple/carl/why-did-steve-jobs-wear-turtlenecks/)

------
septerr
Suits are so passé.

------
antidaily
Aren't people reading a little too much into this? He probably owns one suit
and forgot to get it pressed.

------
excuse-me
Of course if he was a real maverick he would tell the bankers and the stock
market to stuff it.

He has more customers on his site than the Nasdaq has share buyers/sellers. If
he decided to reinvent stock markets and simply sell shares directly to
facebook members then you would see some panic!

After all if shares are all traded electronically why do we need a room full
of scrolling displays pretending to be ticker tape and opened by a bell? Why
not have buying and selling shares in any company a feature of facebook ?

~~~
johnyzee
Exactly. I was a lot more impressed by Larry and Sergei's IPO, where they
really gave a fat middle finger to the Street. Who gives a fuck about a
hoodie.

This is just a branding exercise to show how 'real' Mark Zuckerberg is and I
would be surprised if there wasn't some high-powered PR people involved in
shaping his public image, including the whole hoodie thing and training him in
public speaking (and possibly placing fawning stories like this one).

------
loverobots
The bankers might return the favor with downgrades and other stuff soon enough
(and yes, he will have to care once the stock goes down, no matter what he
says).

Some occasions call for slippers, others for khakis and others for a suit and
tie. Wear an ill fitting suit to show that you're not comfortable in one if
want, but wear a freaking suit. You're asking strangers to buy with their hard
earned money about $10 billion of your $100 billion pie. Show some respect for
the occasion.

------
nerdfiles
Okay, look.

I look like fucking Bob Marley, I just fucking do. This hair is a fucking
baby, but makes me flow like Spike Spiegal. I am not kidding you. I wear what
I wear because, quite frankly, I found most of it. And I'm not letting it go.
It's my "brand" or whatever trash-jargon concept you wish to apply. And I
develop web apps. (these realizations were documented in hindsight to the
following:) (But just a tad before: I actually had a client ask, "So what's up
with the hair?" This "style" occurs naturally. I do what I can with what I've
accepted about my personal image and what I am willing to accept of it.)

I took a job at Waste Management in Houston Corporate Headquaters with KF and
BG. KF a hip, young but distinguished-looking 30-something, and BG another
minority like me. We worked with git and I drew all sorts of nutty information
architecture concepts upon a dry-erase board wall on the 17-th floor. Downtown
Houston. We did front-end development. The teams wiped out now, after about a
year. I believe I triggered part of that. And then they threw SharePoint at
us. We were expected to devise a CSS system around trashy SilverLight modules
and around some SilverLight developers bogus understanding of front-end
considerations. And then the Enterprise CMS with no documentation and no
"technical vision."

Garbage. In a world like this, why should Zuckerberg care? Developers have
seen the dirty laundry of these rotting industries, and they're going to wear
it.

The day it struck me is when I decided to take my morning stroll around the
office, to strike up that Office Space tone for the day. So I could write my
some-number-of-lines-of-code. My coffee was stale and depressing. As I turned
the corner, a VP, along with others, about their own morning stroll, shouts at
me, "Whoa! Hair!"

You just can't fucking win with these fucking suits.

I am preparing to compute in hostile climates (cold and hot climates, urban
noisescapes, parking garages, etc.). I am preparing to compute in space.

------
mkramlich
What Zuckerberg chooses to wear to a meeting with bankers should not matter at
all. If anything it's a kind of reverse IQ test for those he's meeting with.
It doesn't say anything bad about his own. It might about theirs, if they have
a problem with it. If he went totally naked, that would be different. But
younger generations of workers are increasingly casual, and that's a world I
for one welcome. Substance matters most.

------
rajpaul
annoyed by a hoodie? they are going to make a mint from this deal.

bankers win again :-)

