Tenbagger2024 (@Tenbagger2024) on getquin

Tenbagger2024

@Tenbagger2024

6Mon·

Tenbagger SHARE TABLE!

Constructive discussion round.

Hello my dears,

Today's discussion is about the question.

To what extent do you look at which CEO is running the company when entering into an investment?

To what extent is it important to you whether the company founder is still on the management board or sits on the supervisory board?

To what extent is it important to you who holds shares in a company and whether the founder still has shares in the company?

As in the case of $CSU (+2.4%) where the founder is still CEO.

Or where $MUM (-0.38%) where the founder still has shares.

13 Comments

Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024

6Mon

Personally, I think it's a good point when selecting shares.
For the founder, the company is like a baby.
And many of the founder-led companies are very successful.

Many large stock corporations often went downhill later when the founder left.
Often CEOs came in who made the wrong decisions and were given a farewell bonus.

Metro was once the largest retailer in Europe. Bad managers made the company invisible.
It was the same with Karstadt/Quelle. Quelle could be the Amazon of Europe today, but the management overslept the Internet.
Look at Aldi and the Schwarz Group, where the founders are still involved. They are successful here.

Look at how Bayer destroyed a successful pharmaceutical company. Carl Duisberg would be turning in his grave.
Take a look at Medpace, a small pharmaceutical service provider where the founder is CEO, where corporate decisions are made very differently because the CEO built up the company.

Even in many of the big tech companies, the founder is still active or involved in the background
Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, what happens if the creative founders disappear completely?

Or would Tesla do even better without Elon 🙈?

•

View all 2 further answers

Dennis@GordonGekko83

6Mon

Wow... there is a lot of discussion here!;-) I find it an interesting question though!
Personally, I don't look at it first, but it's at least a plus for me to know if the founder is still invested. 👍

•

Maximilian@Max095

6Mon

I don't pay attention to it at all.

•

Patrick@Pithh

6Mon

I don't pay attention to that. For me, the company, the products and whether they are sustainable are more important than the owner. The question of the owner is probably more important for smaller or medium-sized companies. You can tell whether the management is good by the development of the company.

•

Felix@Investor_in_Jogginghose

6Mon

In my case, 7/25 of the companies are founder-managed.
That's actually always a good thing.

•

Soprano@Soprano

6Mon

It can absolutely go both ways. So if the company is still doing well, then it's basically always very good that the founder is still there. He simply understands where the success originally came from and ensures that it is continued, e.g. by prohibiting diversity hiring.

But it can also go the other way. If the company is not doing well, the founder may prevent necessary changes. It can also sometimes be that a key investor has completely different goals than the normal shareholder, e.g. that he dilutes the shares because he is naturally not that itchy. Or that too much share-based compensation is paid out to management. A founder can also sometimes plunder the company's coffers because he doesn't feel as committed to the shareholders. There are also cases where the company is to be sold and the founder does not sell the company as a whole, but only his private shares, while the shareholders are left holding the bag.

••

View all 3 further answers

Vinc3@BlockBard

6Mon

I don't pay attention unless the CEO is so popular that you can't get past him (like Musk, for example...).
Are there any statistics on what you write? I'd be really interested to know.

••

Show answer