3 ms·

I mean, dividends no? I would wager that most people care more about investment income than voting to approve a board member they probably never heard of.

• mrfredward 6y ago
  For the individual you are correct, which is why companies haven't had much trouble getting people to buy non-voting stock. But for the system as a whole, it's pretty important that the shareholders have the ability to vote for board members who will protect their interests, even if the power doesn't get used very often. That's why the SP committee is pushing back against multiclass shares...if the company's management controls the voting shares then they control the board which is supposed to be overseeing them, removing even a vague threat of accountability in a system that's already far from perfect.
• michaelt 6y ago
  The dividends that Facebook, Google, Netflix, Tesla and so on have never paid? Of course it's rational enough from the CEO's perspective - if your shareholders don't have any leverage over you, why would you give them money?
  • mrep 6y ago
    Facebook and Google have both bought tens of billions of dollars worth of their stock back which is effectively just dividends that are reinvested for you.
• taylodl 6y ago
  Define "ownshership." These are supposedly publicly-owned entities. What does that even mean if the public has no control or say in how the entity is managed?