> Look at Facebook, and the CEO special shares. Do you think you are an owner of Facebook or a passenger along for the ride?
That's not a great example, because in Facebook's structure, Zuck has special class shares which give him 10x the voting power of regular shares, per share. So he actually does have the majority of the shareholder power, irrespective of any rationale of the responsibility of directors.
And why did he do that? Because he founded Facebook as Director/Owner and want's to drive the company the direction he wants. Once more, it's about the governance of the company the priority. He did not put first optimization of the shareholders profit. That hopefully will come.
Or to give another variation on my argument. Let's assume that with his decisions on governance, he embarks on a road that provides for a steady stream of profits, on a new domain of guaranteed margin and high entry barrier for competitors.
A business model that will provide steady, slow, stable, but minimal grow.
That will be good for the company on the long term, but not that good for shareholders returns. The lack of grow is unlikely to create a stock price increase.
You don’t seem to understand. If Elon buys 100% of shares, it will become a private company. It won’t be traded on a stock market any more, and won’t have a share price.
If he buys 100% of the shares the company can still be traded and shares will have a price. Shares can traded over the counter or via private deals. Just not through the Nasdaq.
The point here is that he does not own the company yet, and directors are the managers of the company and free to run it as they see fit.
That's not a great example, because in Facebook's structure, Zuck has special class shares which give him 10x the voting power of regular shares, per share. So he actually does have the majority of the shareholder power, irrespective of any rationale of the responsibility of directors.