Accredited investors did mind for the longest time; dual class shares were banned outright for like 40 years by the NYSE (and they'd declined to list individual companies before that because of investor outcry).
They only allowed them again in the 80s as part of the larger wave of "let's stop regulating capital".
For whatever reason, there are a few very successful businesses with super voting shares. If the alternative was to keep those businesses private, I do not know if that would have been better for the public.
Presumably, the market will price in the risks of super voting shares.
Only very successful CEOs can negotiate super voting shares. In this context "successful" means "runs very profitable company".
If you're crap CEO (your company is not very profitable) then investors won't say "sure, you're crap CEO but we'll give you a complete control so that you can continue to be crap CEO".
Only when you're very successful you can negotiate complete control (which investors don't want to give unless they think they'll make lots of money).
And the best predictor of future success is past success.
Therefore companies run by CEOs with super voting shares were successful in the past and are more likely to be successful in the future.
Why? Accredited investors don't seem to mind, and they should be able to judge the pluses and the minuses.
Accredited investors did mind for the longest time; dual class shares were banned outright for like 40 years by the NYSE (and they'd declined to list individual companies before that because of investor outcry).
They only allowed them again in the 80s as part of the larger wave of "let's stop regulating capital".
For whatever reason, there are a few very successful businesses with super voting shares. If the alternative was to keep those businesses private, I do not know if that would have been better for the public.
Presumably, the market will price in the risks of super voting shares.
> For whatever reason
The reason is not "whatever".
Only very successful CEOs can negotiate super voting shares. In this context "successful" means "runs very profitable company".
If you're crap CEO (your company is not very profitable) then investors won't say "sure, you're crap CEO but we'll give you a complete control so that you can continue to be crap CEO".
Only when you're very successful you can negotiate complete control (which investors don't want to give unless they think they'll make lots of money).
And the best predictor of future success is past success.
Therefore companies run by CEOs with super voting shares were successful in the past and are more likely to be successful in the future.