3 ms·
> but this still seems like a bad precedent for the financial markets in general. Isn't this sort of thing really common? http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/
by gherkin0 10y ago
> but this still seems like a bad precedent for the financial markets in general.
Isn't this sort of thing really common?
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/share_class.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/share_class.asp
- slededit 10y agoWhack is making an argument about "what should be", not "what is".
- bmm6o 10y ago"setting a bad precedent" implies it's different from "what is". If it's doing what everyone else does, it's not a precedent.
- slededit 10y agoThis is significantly more common than it has been in the past, and Zuckerberg is part of that trend. Google like most companies in the past were not founded with a dual share structure and only split very recently. That isn't to say this was never done. Bombardier for example has been tightly controlled by the same family through a dual share structure since its founding.