[_delirium]

Wal-Mart might be the most extreme example of this, though their IPO was many moons ago. I can't find a solid number for what percentage Walton owned at the time of IPO (in 1970), but his heirs, 44 years later, still own a combined ~50% of the company. Unless nobody has sold anything in the decades since, I would guess he must've owned in the 70+% range at the IPO.

edit to add: This is an interesting equation though,

> 75% of a $40M acquisition = 3% of a $1B acquisition.

In a strict sense yes, but they differ in some interesting ways. In favor of the $1B acquisition is that it's typically a much bigger deal: in terms of PR and what you're credited for, you get a lot more of it for being the founder of a $1B company than for founding a $40M company, even if your takeaway is the same in both cases. On the other hand, in the 75%-of-$40M case you are usually in a better position to control the disposition of the company, which may be important if you care about it & its product, and want to keep working on it (whereas in the 3%-of-$1B case, you generally will have to be satisfied with the cash, and wash your hands of the company). And the $40M case also probably has better odds of success.

[ensignavenger]

I remember reading about the Walmart IPO in Sam Walton's autobiography (an excellent book!) but I don't think he gave specific numbers. I think he owned pretty close to all of the company, but was in a lot of debt. He wrote that he was very worried about what his wife was going to say when she found out after he signed the deal to do the IPO :). There may have been a few store managers that had a small interest in the company, though.