LoginSignup
image de profil
Tenbagger2024
@Tenbagger2024
8Mo·

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 (+1,18 %) where the founder is still CEO.

Or where $MUM (+1,24 %) where the founder still has shares.

3
13 Commentaires
image de profil
Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024
8Mo
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 🙈?
•
3
•
Patrick@Pithh
8Mo
@Tenbagger2024 With founders, you have the advantage that they invest their heart and soul. The question is the next generation. Do they exist? Do they run the company in the spirit of their parents, grandparents... without losing sight of the future? What have the founders done to secure the company? Do they also have the skills of the founders? It can therefore even make sense to buy in external managers, as some start-up companies have already done. As far as Elon is concerned, genius and madness may be close to each other. For me personally, he is just getting bogged down and has not done himself any favors with X.
•
1
•
Patrick@Pithh
8Mo
@Pithh There was a tussle at Aldi over the inheritance. The leader of the black group is still alive. Let's see if things go better there.
•
1
•
image de profil
Dennis@GordonGekko83
8Mo
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. 👍
•
1
•
image de profil
Maximilian@Max095
8Mo
I don't pay attention to it at all.
•
1
•
Patrick@Pithh
8Mo
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.
•
1
•
image de profil
Felix@Investor_in_Jogginghose
8Mo
In my case, 7/25 of the companies are founder-managed.
That's actually always a good thing.
•
1
•
image de profil
Soprano@Soprano
8Mo
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.
••
image de profil
Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024
8Mo
@Soprano
Very interesting. Do you know of any companies where this was the case?
••
image de profil
Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024
8Mo
@Soprano
There was a family struggle at Porsche for many years
••
image de profil
Soprano@Soprano
8Mo
@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.
•
1
•
image de profil
Vinc3🚀@BlockBard
8Mo
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.
••
image de profil
Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024
8Mo
@coinvince
Here Dennis takes a look @GordonGekko83
••
Participez à la conversation
S'inscrireConnexion