Comments on: Multiple-voting shares: good or evil? http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/28/multiple-voting-shares-good-or-evil/ ... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:07:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: mathewi http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/28/multiple-voting-shares-good-or-evil/#comment-339465 mathewi Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:45:03 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2371#comment-339465 Totally agree, David. Totally agree, David.

]]> By: Ddonat http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/28/multiple-voting-shares-good-or-evil/#comment-339464 Ddonat Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:14:36 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2371#comment-339464 I absolutely 100% agree with you, Mathew. Once you are in the public market dual class voting shares are ripe with danger. To support them, I think you are implying that you believe in Benevolent and slight Omniscient Founder(s)/Management - that simply is naive. Control in the market system, means delivering 'the returns', not having preferred voting shares. If you are doing well, no one is going to be able to wrestle control from you. <br><br>But, if a take over comes along that is offering a 40% premium to where your stock presently is trading that is a reflection on present management which is performing poorly. Why would you ever want to put MORE votes in the hand of founders and managers that are performing poorly? Who's interests does that serve? It certainly is not the public investor. I absolutely 100% agree with you, Mathew. Once you are in the public market dual class voting shares are ripe with danger. To support them, I think you are implying that you believe in Benevolent and slight Omniscient Founder(s)/Management - that simply is naive. Control in the market system, means delivering 'the returns', not having preferred voting shares. If you are doing well, no one is going to be able to wrestle control from you.

But, if a take over comes along that is offering a 40% premium to where your stock presently is trading that is a reflection on present management which is performing poorly. Why would you ever want to put MORE votes in the hand of founders and managers that are performing poorly? Who's interests does that serve? It certainly is not the public investor.

]]>