I dont understand why this is a corporate governance issue ‘against’ the minority shareholder.
Lets say you invest with a partnership where one partner is 80% and other 20%. There is some mis-understanding between the partners and now the junior partner wants a bigger share. The main partner has two options
a. Pick a fight on principle as the junior partner is going back on his work and see the value of the company suffer. So instead of have a 3X in 5 years, one is left with a 1.5 X
b. Be rational and give away 10% of the partnership, but ensure that we have a slight smaller piece of a larger pie.
As a minority shareholder, rationally thinking, what should we prefer ? option a ‘feels’ better, because it is equivalent to what we sometime go through when a hire an auto where after the reaching the destination the driver asks for more money 
on top of this the management has shared their thinking and have asked for approvals. This episode does not leave a good taste and creates an apprehension in mind (will this happen again ?). but how is this is a corporate governance issue ?
| Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter |
