3 ms·
I don't know if I would call it a "moral" imperative, but it's a basic tenet of good corporate governance that the board, which represents the shareholders, sho
by twblalock 10y ago
I don't know if I would call it a "moral" imperative, but it's a basic tenet of good corporate governance that the board, which represents the shareholders, should be able to prevent the management from harming the company or the shareholder's interests.
In the case of Uber, the CEO could run the company into the ground, and nobody would be able to prevent that.
A trend toward worse corporate governance could harm the entire economy eventually.
- smallgovt 10y agoGot it, I can buy into the argument that pro-rata voting rights would lead to better performing companies than founder-controlled companies (in the long run and on average). But, I don't see any reason why founders should be obligated to give away voting rights. In other words, I would argue that if founder CEO's want that level of control, they SHOULD get it. It's sort of weird to even phrase it as "get it". They already have it by default, and I don't see why we should have any right to force them to give it away.
- shostack 10y agoIsn't that the "risk" part of private investment like this? In theory if/when Uber goes public, the market can hammer his share price into submission. His choice then would be to step down and keep his money, or watch his valuation rapidly dwindle as low as the market dictates.
- xbmcuser 10y agoThe investors came into the company knowing he will keep the control it was a risk they were willing to take. Even if he runs it into the ground they don't have a leg to stand on. They were not strong armed into investing it was a choice they made.