4 ms·
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 r
by 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 agoI 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.