5 ms·

Isn't Walmart controlled by the children of Sam Walton? [1] "Sam Walton's heirs own over 50 percent of Walmart through their holding company Walton Enterprises

Isn't Walmart controlled by the children of Sam Walton? [1] "Sam Walton's heirs own over 50 percent of Walmart through their holding company Walton Enterprises and through their individual holdings. " Where does this writer think shares go when someone dies? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart

luckylion 7y ago
The difference is that they actually own those shares. This is about different kinds of shares being issued, i.e. the founder gets some that have 10 times the voting power of normal shares. He now only needs more than 5% of the company to provide the majority in votes.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  510 < 951
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Right, don't ever do math on stream. Thanks for pointing that out, I was mistaken; I wasn't paying attention to the numbers.
- unreal37 7y ago
  But the story is talking about "generational ownership" of companies, that pass control to heirs when the founder dies. Whether through dual class shares, or retaining a large % stake, it's the same. The Ford heirs control Ford. The Walton heirs control Walmart. There are many, many companies in this world controlled by the children and grandchildren of the founder. That's never been a huge problem. I just think this Techcrunch story is poorly written. It's acting "shocked" that a child or grandchild of a founder could still control a company. Nothing to be shocked about there.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    I don't totally disagree regarding "be sure you know what you get into", but I believe the dislike is mostly that one share, one vote is considered to be "fair" as in general elections one citizen, one vote. Anything that skews that is eyed suspiciously. They have more say than skin in the game.
  - phire 7y ago
    > Whether through dual class shares, or retaining a large % stake, it's the same. But is it the same? In one case, the family owns the majority of the company and controls it. In the other case, the family only owns a small percentage, yet still controls the company. Can a family that doesn't own a company be trusted to act in the company's best interests, or can they be trusted act in their own interests, using their control to extract as much money from the company into their own pockets, destroying the company in the process? That's what I think the story is getting at, but it's poorly written.
navigatesol 7y ago
>Where does this writer think shares go when someone dies? I'll bet Sam Walton wasn't fantasizing about his children pushing people around the boardroom a couple years into Walmart...
stjohnswarts 7y ago
I don't know about other countries but the USA is very very lenient on how companies split up stocks and how they condition them. Especially with LLCs. What the Walton's did is perfectly legal and no one is forcing anyone to purchase the public shares. Walmart is actually doing pretty well.

luckylion 7y ago

The difference is that they actually own those shares. This is about different kinds of shares being issued, i.e. the founder gets some that have 10 times the voting power of normal shares. He now only needs more than 5% of the company to provide the majority in votes.

bagacrap 7y ago
510 < 951
- luckylion 7y ago
  Right, don't ever do math on stream. Thanks for pointing that out, I was mistaken; I wasn't paying attention to the numbers.
unreal37 7y ago
But the story is talking about "generational ownership" of companies, that pass control to heirs when the founder dies. Whether through dual class shares, or retaining a large % stake, it's the same. The Ford heirs control Ford. The Walton heirs control Walmart. There are many, many companies in this world controlled by the children and grandchildren of the founder. That's never been a huge problem. I just think this Techcrunch story is poorly written. It's acting "shocked" that a child or grandchild of a founder could still control a company. Nothing to be shocked about there.
- luckylion 7y ago
  I don't totally disagree regarding "be sure you know what you get into", but I believe the dislike is mostly that one share, one vote is considered to be "fair" as in general elections one citizen, one vote. Anything that skews that is eyed suspiciously. They have more say than skin in the game.
- phire 7y ago
  > Whether through dual class shares, or retaining a large % stake, it's the same. But is it the same? In one case, the family owns the majority of the company and controls it. In the other case, the family only owns a small percentage, yet still controls the company. Can a family that doesn't own a company be trusted to act in the company's best interests, or can they be trusted act in their own interests, using their control to extract as much money from the company into their own pockets, destroying the company in the process? That's what I think the story is getting at, but it's poorly written.

navigatesol 7y ago

>Where does this writer think shares go when someone dies? I'll bet Sam Walton wasn't fantasizing about his children pushing people around the boardroom a couple years into Walmart...

stjohnswarts 7y ago

I don't know about other countries but the USA is very very lenient on how companies split up stocks and how they condition them. Especially with LLCs. What the Walton's did is perfectly legal and no one is forcing anyone to purchase the public shares. Walmart is actually doing pretty well.