3 ms·

The whole point of shareholders is to dilute the investment so much that nobody really has a voice. Pick up some of the books by Frederick Lewis Allen, he wrote

The whole point of shareholders is to dilute the investment so much that nobody really has a voice. Pick up some of the books by Frederick Lewis Allen, he wrote some great financial history books.

thebean11 7y ago
I haven't read any of his work..but surely there is some aggregate voice made up of the shareholders right? Do you think the shareholder votes are meaningless?
- freeopinion 7y ago
  I don't think you and I know each other, but I'm going to guess that you own shares in hundreds of companies. I'm also guessing that you have never voted at the shareholder meeting of most or all of those companies. Again, just guessing, but I'm guessing that the same is true for most of the people who read this site. And this is YC--all about founders and funders.
  - thebean11 7y ago
    > but I'm going to guess that you own shares in hundreds of companies If you count index funds sure > I'm also guessing that you have never voted at the shareholder meeting of most or all of those companies. I generally don't vote, but that isn't because I don't believe in the efficacy of shareholder voting. Just because MY (insignificant) vote wouldn't matter doesn't mean shareholder votes in general don't matter, or that shareholders as a whole don't have control over the company.
    - pnutjam 7y ago
      Exactly, most of the votes don't matter. There may be a big shareholder whose vote does matter, but it's probably the management, look at Google and Facebook. They sold the company and kept all the ownership. "This is still true in most young companies, which need capital to get going, and in many small ones anyhow. But in most successful American concerns which have grown to maturity, and especially in the very big ones which between them do a very large proportion of American business, the stockholders are no longer in control in any real sense: they are subordinate in authority and importance to the management... ...Suppose a stockholder doesn’t like the way the corporation is being run? Only if he is eccentric, or a special sort of crusader, or a politician (union or otherwise) trying to make a stir, does he try to oppose the management of a really big company. What he does, instead, is to sell his stock and get out... ...Looking at this segment of American business, we would almost find it appropriate to call our present economic system “managementism” rather than “capitalism.”." - Frederick Lewis Allen in "The Big Change: America Transforms itself 1900 - 1950"
      - thebean11 7y ago
        Each vote matters equally but bigger shareholders get more votes. By the same token, bigger shareholders get punished more by dilution.

The whole point of shareholders is to dilute the investment so much that nobody really has a voice. Pick up some of the books by Frederick Lewis Allen, he wrote some great financial history books.

thebean11 7y ago

I haven't read any of his work..but surely there is some aggregate voice made up of the shareholders right? Do you think the shareholder votes are meaningless?

freeopinion 7y ago
I don't think you and I know each other, but I'm going to guess that you own shares in hundreds of companies. I'm also guessing that you have never voted at the shareholder meeting of most or all of those companies. Again, just guessing, but I'm guessing that the same is true for most of the people who read this site. And this is YC--all about founders and funders.
- thebean11 7y ago
  > but I'm going to guess that you own shares in hundreds of companies If you count index funds sure > I'm also guessing that you have never voted at the shareholder meeting of most or all of those companies. I generally don't vote, but that isn't because I don't believe in the efficacy of shareholder voting. Just because MY (insignificant) vote wouldn't matter doesn't mean shareholder votes in general don't matter, or that shareholders as a whole don't have control over the company.
  - pnutjam 7y ago
    Exactly, most of the votes don't matter. There may be a big shareholder whose vote does matter, but it's probably the management, look at Google and Facebook. They sold the company and kept all the ownership. "This is still true in most young companies, which need capital to get going, and in many small ones anyhow. But in most successful American concerns which have grown to maturity, and especially in the very big ones which between them do a very large proportion of American business, the stockholders are no longer in control in any real sense: they are subordinate in authority and importance to the management... ...Suppose a stockholder doesn’t like the way the corporation is being run? Only if he is eccentric, or a special sort of crusader, or a politician (union or otherwise) trying to make a stir, does he try to oppose the management of a really big company. What he does, instead, is to sell his stock and get out... ...Looking at this segment of American business, we would almost find it appropriate to call our present economic system “managementism” rather than “capitalism.”." - Frederick Lewis Allen in "The Big Change: America Transforms itself 1900 - 1950"
    - thebean11 7y ago
      Each vote matters equally but bigger shareholders get more votes. By the same token, bigger shareholders get punished more by dilution.