7 ms·

>Adam controls the majority of voting right to the company This alone should be a massive turn-off for investors, nevermind this kind of personal eccentricity

• erikpukinskis 7y ago
  I don’t think majority ownership is necessarily a turn on or a turn off. There are cases when a bunch of minority shareholders would be chaotic and prevent the company from making long term bets. There are also cases where minority ownership would allow for stability while cycling through executive turnover and experimentation. Which situation you are in, and whether shareholders would be turned off by majority ownership, is context specific. For example, I think SpaceX would be a less attractive stock if there were only minority stockholders, and having Elon as the majority holder makes it more likely to succeed at going interplanetary, rather than just milking a traditional orbital business model. If your investment thesis depends on a bold bet like that, a single majority shareholder you trust would be a comfort.
  • codeisawesome 7y ago
    SpaceX isn’t a public stock though?
    • erikpukinskis 7y ago
      It still has investors, and shares.
  • Breza 7y ago
    For the SpaceX example, I actually think they'd be better off focusing on the orbital launch market. The dream of affordable and reliable access to space dates back to the 50's and still hasn't been fully realized. In my opinion, that's a bigger deal than trying to get SpaceX to put a payload beyond orbit. I agree with your larger point though.