The problem with this idea is that increasingly company founders are opting for dual(or even triple) share structures by issuing massive amounts of non-voting stock to outsiders.
It is all a game of musical chairs when you buy GOOG(not GOOGL), FB (class A) Facebook shares which have 1/10 voting power of Zucker class B shares.
The list of these abominations goes on and people keep buying and trading them.
If you are a company founder and can get away with this (Zynga had some trouble but still got away with it) you'd be selfishly stupid not to do it.
And don't get me started on Chinese stocks where you are buying ADR of some entity in Bahamas which has no say at all over the Chinese parent.
EDIT: Why is it wrong for a company founder to have full voting control? It is wrong when he/she has less than 50% ownership that's what's wrong. If you have 20% of the company but have the super-voting shares you can decide to take the company into a bad direction and the 80% have no say.
It is all a game of musical chairs when you buy GOOG(not GOOGL), FB (class A) Facebook shares which have 1/10 voting power of Zucker class B shares.
The list of these abominations goes on and people keep buying and trading them. If you are a company founder and can get away with this (Zynga had some trouble but still got away with it) you'd be selfishly stupid not to do it.
And don't get me started on Chinese stocks where you are buying ADR of some entity in Bahamas which has no say at all over the Chinese parent.
EDIT: Why is it wrong for a company founder to have full voting control? It is wrong when he/she has less than 50% ownership that's what's wrong. If you have 20% of the company but have the super-voting shares you can decide to take the company into a bad direction and the 80% have no say.