|
|
|
|
|
by lotsofpulp
1157 days ago
|
|
> When a large fund has exited a successful public company, they will use their influence on the public company to convince the successful entity to purchase the failed ones. Why would a fund have any influence on a public company that it does not own shares of? |
|
1) Some individuals may retain significant amount of voting rights, that is not proportional to their shareholding interest.
2) Institutional fund holders may not vote in favour of their shareholder's interest 3) Close relationships 4) Corruption 5) Pressure Probably many other ways.This is why some acquisitions are total non-sense or over-priced, the same way that some employees are simply overpaid for no reasons other than being close to the board.
You see the same mechanisms with governments purchasing useless businesses.
A less extreme example than an acquisition that still gives you an idea of misalignment of interests between shareholders and board members, you can see in a video here:
https://www.quimbee.com/cases/espinoza-v-zuckerberg (the video is actually cool and easy to understand)
"We now grant RSUs to new directors who aren't Facebook investors or employees" ...
Just one example among many.
I like this topic, because it pushes you to do better due diligence on public companies, as some companies are really wasting company money, that it could feel intentional.