3 ms·
I think there is something to increasing voting preference based on tenure of shareholding. Giving more control to longer-term shareholders leads to long term t
by tyre 10y ago
I think there is something to increasing voting preference based on tenure of shareholding. Giving more control to longer-term shareholders leads to long term thinking aim governance.
Something like vesting for stock voting would be interesting. What if we had the number of votes equal to the number of years the stock was held by that investor (with some max)?
On the other hand, I don't agree with CEOs having board control. That prevents any company oversight (which is exactly the point of the board.) No one should be immune from reproach. The article gives examples of great CEOs being fired, but there are at least as many examples of poor CEOs retaining power.
- Chaebixi 10y ago> I think there is something to increasing voting preference based on tenure of shareholding. Giving more control to longer-term shareholders leads to long term thinking aim governance. While I like any idea that would encourage longer-term thinking, wouldn't the founders be the longest-term shareholders with the most voting power, in this case? So, many of the problems of super-voting shares would still apply?
- tyre 10y agoThat's why there should be a max. So, for example, you get one vote per year up to a maximum of five votes. Anyone holding a share for longer than that (6, 10, 100 years) gets the same 5 votes per share.