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.
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.
••
@Soprano
Very interesting. Do you know of any companies where this was the case?
Very interesting. Do you know of any companies where this was the case?
••
@Soprano
There was a family struggle at Porsche for many years
There was a family struggle at Porsche for many years
••
@Tenbagger2024 Paramount Global on the subject of selling the company and for many other points you could also cite Tesla. First of all, I have to say that I really like Elon now. But he has also repeatedly manipulated share prices to his advantage and gets paid handsomely for his work for Tesla. He is largely responsible for the company's success, but he always implicitly "threatens" that he expects to receive a lot of bonus payments, otherwise he might lose interest in Tesla. He certainly doesn't treat the company like a baby. It was similar with Jack Dorsey. At some point he just said screw Twitter and let the company rot because he was only concentrating on Square or Block.
•
11
•