[roel_v]

Unknown risks are priced in. You just can't really tell how much you should discount because the risks are, well, unknown. If that DNA company from last week would have been public, with one class of shares, and I had bought shares two weeks ago - well, I price them with one of the components being 'there might be some colossal skeleton in the closet' (or take Enron two weeks before the SHTF). It's not like I 'priced it wrong', at least not in any common meaning of the term; because it would basically redefine 'correct pricing' to 'higher realized profit at some point' and would make the concept of 'price' something that can only be assessed ex post.

It doesn't mean that the non (or lesser) voting shares are priced wrong; in fact, by definition, they are priced at what the market values them.

Also, different classes of shares aren't exactly 'new' or 'unusual'. http://www.slideshare.net/nimishhalkar/a-brief-history-of-pr... claims that the first preferential shares were issued in 1836 (yes, it's a different kind of 'preferential' than what we're talking about, but it's still a species of the genus 'share differentiation') E.g. they're a very common vehicle for structuring profit sharing in several civil law jurisdictions I happen to know of.

[glesica]

People like Warren Buffet talk about things being "mis-priced" all the time, that's how people like him make money. So yes, some risk might be priced in, but how much, and how accurately? In some cases, investors may have a very good idea of how much risk a venture entails, in other cases they may think they have a good idea but be completely wrong. The market price is, yes, the market price, that's a tautology. Whether the market price reflects a sustainable reality is an entirely different matter.

The parenthetical in my original comment was important. If everyone thinks they know what is going on, and they're all wrong, then the price isn't a good reflection of reality.