Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Johnny555 1468 days ago
Controlling a company requires shares, and shares are networth, it is good that companies are controlled by people who most understand them, and those are the people who started/built them.

Voting shares don't have to have monetary value. Rememeber Google's IPO where the founders had stock with 10 votes per share, or Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock with 1/10000th the voting rights as class A?

So a founder could retain control of a company without becoming personally rich.

3 comments

Aren't those classes of stock with voting power worth a lot more? I'm not sure how you'd possibly avoid being rich on paper if you have a majority voting power for Google.
Not necessarily, for example Facebook supervoting shares were setup to convert to normal shares if transfered, making them only more valuable to the original holder.
Okay, interesting. I'm guessing those people typically had many normal shares too, right? Otherwise if they're given a fairly small financial stake, and have no skin in the game -- I'm guessing that most investors wouldn't like that?
> Voting shares don't have to have monetary value.

I would think the power to control a large company would be worth at least something even if it is decoupled from the right to get part of any money they decide to give to stockholders.

> Voting shares don't have to have monetary value.

:facepalm:

If you control a company worth $1T, someone is going to be willing to buy your share. If you're implying that voting shares don't have to be transferable, the question becomes how do you pick the next leader? The current owner gets to appoint the next in line? That's basically monarchy. The history I was taught says that only those at the top thrive under monarchy.

How is that different than the current situation? If I own a controlling share of a company, I don't have to sell my shares to the highest bidder, I can decide to transfer them to my grandmother. Why does it matter if money is exchanged or not?