I have always wondered what the value of common shares really is in a founder controlled voting corporation. For example, SNAP, which is fairly pure, what does

I have always wondered what the value of common shares really is in a founder controlled voting corporation. For example, SNAP, which is fairly pure, what does that share of common SNAP give me? It seems very much a baseball card. It gives me something that while other people see it as valuable it holds value and it also coincidentally refers to something popular in real life. In the end though, if the founders of SNAP wanted to sell SNAP, they'd sell their voting shares. If they wanted to pay dividends, they'd pay dividends to only the voting class. Why would they ever need to bother with including common, what could the common shareholder do, ask a question at the shareholder's meeting? Q: "In the buyout offer from Facebook, Facebook is buying the Preferred Series of shares only, leaving SNAP as a subsidiary of Facebook. Facebook is planning on a tight integration, one that will essentially turn the SNAP app to a rebranded Instagram. What does the common share holder get out of this deal?" A: "Well, the SNAP common shares still exist, they remain non-voting, non-dividend shares in the subsidiary. Next question." Q: "So, the founders get paid, but common doesn't get anything? As a common shareholder, I object and I don't agree to this buyout" A: "To answer your question, if you look at your shareholder agreement, as an owner of SNAP common, you get the right to ask a question. You will still retain that right to ask questions. As for your second statement, please ensure your spoken comments take the form of questions please." I think this goes for all founder controlled companies, but even more so when the class structure is used to move voting rights to just the founding shareholders.