What are dual-class shares and why do founders fight to keep them?

Full Explanation

Google, Facebook, and Snap all use dual-class structures, allowing founders to retain control even after raising billions. Dual-class voting is controversial: investor advocates argue it reduces accountability and allows entrenched founders to make poor decisions unchecked. Founder advocates argue it enables long-term thinking (avoiding short-term Wall Street pressure) and protects against activist investors. Regulators are split: US exchanges permit dual-class; many European exchanges do not. For IPO-bound companies, dual-class voting allows founders to cede economic stakes to investors (founders might own 5% equity but 50% votes) while retaining control. This conflicts with institutional investors' preferences, but founders of fast-growth companies (especially in tech) often succeed in negotiating dual-class clauses into their fundraising rounds as covenant-like protections. For VC-backed companies, dual-class voting is rare pre-IPO (VCs typically require proportional voting rights), but comes back into play at IPO if the company insists. For founders negotiating Series A, dual-class is a negotiation point: VCs will typically resist, but some will accept it in exchange for valuation adjustment or performance-based sunsets (dual-class expires in 5 years).

Related Questions