3 ms·
It matters quite a lot. There are specific jobs that board members and officers have. Just having 'the most shares' often isn't enough to do everything you wan
by sonnyblarney 8y ago
It matters quite a lot.
There are specific jobs that board members and officers have. Just having 'the most shares' often isn't enough to do everything you want.
Moreover, he only owns 20% of the company.
Being 'busted down' is a huge political blow, he would be seen as weak, it would be hard for him to do his job.
He could resign as Chairman and save face, and then say 'Ima do Engineering full time' or something but it'd be hard for him to go as CEO.
- adventured 8y ago> Moreover, he only owns 20% of the company. There's nothing only about owning 20% of a public company. 20% and the largest shareholder, is more than enough to turn any public company inside out. Hedge funds do it all the time with dramatically weaker positions of single digit ownership. Carl Icahn routinely does it with a few percent. It's an immense position in the public markets in terms of wielding power.
- cagenut 8y agoI've seen that pattern too but I don't get it. Why would single digit percentages matter that much?
- sonnyblarney 8y agoIt matters when it's a big chunk and the fund leads a movement among shareholders many of whom may be tiny, dispersed, or possibly passive.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago20% is not enough, you need to wrangle the remaining votes which is not a sure thing. 'Hedge Funds' do this by forming a cabal with other funds and institutional investors. This is totally unlike Alphabet or Facebook etc. where there is real and direct power. I don't doubt is shareholders really wanted him gone they could punt Musk.
- matchagaucho 8y agoAppointing the 2 additional board members now means Musk can be outvoted. His 20% holding doesn't give him majority vote.