Zuckerberg and his peers are insisting on the right to say, “Thanks for your money. Now shut up.”
they sold non voting shares to the asshole innocent public (AIP)
strikes me as exceedingly coherent
now ownership and control can have
a jim crow reality
separate and vastly unequal
why this ?
sourcracken's corny narrative :
"In the postwar era, most shareholders were individual investors who held on to stocks for ages and exerted little pressure on companies. Executives didn’t have to worry about quarterly earnings and had the freedom to invest in long-term research and development."
"n today’s market, by contrast, investors are far more aggressive in pressuring companies to hit their numbers.
"
pro now :
hitting the quad numbers ".. has its benefits—companies are more efficient in using shareholder money, and underperforming C.E.O.s are more likely to be shown the door."
con now:
".. investors now have very short-term horizons. The average annual turnover of a mutual-fund portfolio is a hundred per cent, and for a hedge-fund portfolio around three hundred per cent. When shareholders reckon in months (or weeks) rather than in years, it’s harder for companies to take the long view."
sooooooo
isolate the controling owners from the mere equity creditors
how do you price voting shares ?
lok at take overs of closely held voting share outfits
i really don't care
just like the logic of formalizing these equity creditors
this btw
sourcracken's yuck line
"Public companies aren’t going to disappear,
but we are witnessing a significant shift in power
from shareholders to entrepreneurs and managers"
AIP rentiers onc again threatened with insignifigance
