Dual Class Shares The Ultimate Corporate Power Play

A dual-class stock structure is a strategic tool that allows companies to issue two classes of shares with distinct voting rights and dividend schedules. This setup is particularly advantageous for founders and executives who wish to retain significant control over the company while still accessing public capital markets.

Typically, these structures involve Class A and Class B shares, where Class B shares are endowed with more voting power. For instance, a company might issue Class A shares to the public with one vote per share, while Class B shares, held by insiders, might carry ten votes per share. This disparity in voting power ensures that those with Class B shares can maintain control over corporate decisions, even if they hold a smaller portion of the company’s total equity.

The dual-class stock structure is prevalent among technology companies, where founders often seek to preserve their vision and strategic direction without being swayed by short-term market pressures. By maintaining superior voting rights, these founders can make bold, long-term decisions that might not be immediately popular with the broader shareholder base. This structure, while controversial, has been instrumental in the success of several high-profile companies, allowing them to innovate and grow without the constant pressure of quarterly earnings reports.

The Mechanics of Power: Understanding Dual Class Structures

Dual class shares are surprisingly straightforward in concept but revolutionary in effect. They create a corporate caste system where not all shareholders are created equal. At their core, dual class shares mean a company issues two (or more) types of stock with dramatically different voting rights and dividend payments.

The typical structure works like this: Class A shares (often sold to the public) might get one vote per share, while Class B shares (held by founders, executives, and family) might get 10, 20, or even 100 votes per share. The class available to founders and executives usually has more voting power than the class offered to the general public. This seemingly simple math trick creates corporate kingdoms where founders can maintain absolute control while owning just a fraction of the economic interest.

As one stark example, Mark Zuckerberg controls approximately 57% of Meta's voting power despite owning only 13.6% of the company's equity. Similarly, the Ford family maintains 40% control of voting power at Ford Motor Company with a mere 4% economic stake.

Types of Dual Class Structures

Dual class shares aren’t a one-size-fits-all proposition. They come in several varieties:

1. Standard Dual Class: The classic two-tier structure with different voting rights (typically 1:10 ratio). Facebook has a dual class structure for common shares, with Class B shares having ten votes each. Berkshire Hathaway is another example of a company with a dual-class stock structure. Class B stock in Berkshire Hathaway is only $200 a share, while Class A stock is around $299,000 a share.
2. Multi-class: Three or more classes with varying rights, like Google’s Class A (one vote), Class B (ten votes), and Class C (no votes).
3. Loyalty Shares: Voting rights that increase based on holding period (common in Europe)
4. Sunset Provisions: Enhanced voting rights that expire after a predetermined period or event



In many dual-class structures, one class is typically offered to the public with fewer voting rights.

A critical note for investors: there’s no standardized naming convention. While Class A shares are typically superior to Class B in most contexts, some companies reverse this labeling, making it essential to read the fine print rather than assuming Class A means “better”.

The Rise of the Dual Class Empire

A Brief History

Contrary to popular belief, dual class shares aren't a Silicon Valley invention. Their modern rise dates back to the 1970s in Canada, when media and telecommunications companies used them to comply with foreign ownership restrictions while raising capital.

However, the watershed moment came in 2004 when Google's IPO featured a three-class structure that preserved founder control. This bold move, initially criticized, set the template for a generation of tech entrepreneurs who wanted public market capital without surrendering their vision to quarterly-obsessed investors. Many technology companies have since adopted dual-class structures during their IPOs to retain control over the company.

The Global Revolution

What began with Google has become a worldwide phenomenon. By 2023, approximately 44% of tech companies listing in the US had dual class structures, compared to around 22% of non-tech IPOs. The trend extends beyond America's shores, with exchanges worldwide changing their rules to accommodate these structures:

• Hong Kong (2018)
• Singapore (2018)
• Shanghai (2019)
• India (2019)
• UK (2021)

Companies with dual-class structures, like Alphabet Inc., have faced exclusion from certain stock indexes.



As one market observer noted in the search results, this regulatory competition stems directly from exchanges' fears of "falling behind their Asian and US competitors" in attracting high-growth listings.

The Case For: Why Founders Love Them (And Why Some Investors Should, Too)

Protection From the Quarterly Tyranny

Perhaps the most compelling argument for dual class shares is their ability to shield companies from what Jeff Bezos calls "the tyranny of the quarterly earnings call." Supporters of dual-class shares claim they protect long-term interests against short-term investor pressures.

Consider Berkshire Hathaway under Warren Buffett's control (enabled by dual-class shares). Berkshire has never paid a dividend; instead, it is reinvesting earnings in a manner that has proven to be 30 times more financially accretive for shareholders than if the company had simply followed its dividend-paying peers. Without dual class protection, this long-term approach might have been impossible.



The Instagram Test

In 2012, a month before Facebook's IPO, Mark Zuckerberg unilaterally decided to purchase Instagram for $1 billion. He didn't even consult his board. The price was widely criticized as exorbitant for a photo-sharing app with no revenue.

Fast forward to today: Instagram is worth an estimated $300+ billion and forms the backbone of Meta's future. Had Facebook been structured with equal shareholder voting at its IPO, this acquisition might never have happened due to short-term shareholder pressure. This exemplifies what we might call "The Instagram Test" - can a company make bold, initially unpopular moves that pay off in the long run?

Media Independence

For media companies, dual class structures can protect editorial independence from both government and shareholder interference. The New York Times navigated the challenging print-to-digital transition far better than many peer newspapers because its dual class structure allowed heavy investment in digital infrastructure despite short-term profit pressures.

Avoiding the Activist Playbook

Dual class shares effectively immunize companies against activist investors and hostile takeovers. Without them, Canadian Pacific would not have lost a 2012 boardroom battle to the Pershing Square hedge fund - a fight that, ironically, ended up benefiting CP shareholders as the new management improved performance.

The Case Against: Democracy Denied

The Entrenchment Problem

The fundamental criticism of dual-class shares is that they shield management from accountability. Without the discipline of potential removal by shareholders, poorly performing executives may remain entrenched despite abysmal results.

The cautionary tale here is Hollinger International, where Conrad Black controlled 73% of voting power with just 30% of equity. Under his control, the company spiraled into financial chaos, eventually declaring bankruptcy in 2007. Black was later convicted of fraud.

Not all kings deserve their crowns. For every Sundar Pichai steering Google through AI upheaval, there’s a WeWork Adam Neumann burning billions on kombucha taps and “community-adjusted EBITDA.”



The Fairness Question

At their core, dual class structures create what critics call a "limited class of shareholders" with fundamentally different rights. This raises profound questions about fairness in public markets. Dual-class stock structures have been controversial due to concerns about the risks of concentrated control.

As Andrew Coyne asked in The Globe and Mail, "If non-voting or subordinate voting shares are such a bad idea, why are people so eager to buy them?" The answer might lie in information asymmetry - retail investors often don't fully understand what rights they're giving up when buying the "cheaper" class of shares.

The Governance Gap

When voting rights and economic interests diverge, the potential for self-dealing increases dramatically. Controlling shareholders might make decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of public shareholders - from excessive compensation to related-party transactions.

Dual class stock structures can impact corporate governance by creating unequal voting power among shareholders. This can lead to a lack of accountability and transparency in decision-making.

As one result notes, dual class companies "can be more burdened with debt than companies with a single-class shares" precisely because the controlling shareholders don't bear the full economic consequences of their financing decisions.

The Family Succession Problem

What happens when brilliant founders pass control to less brilliant offspring? While Steve Jobs might deserve special voting rights, there's no guarantee his children would warrant the same trust. This "regression to the mean" problem becomes particularly acute in family-controlled businesses where voting control passes to subsequent generations.

Dual Class Advantages and Disadvantages

Regulatory Environment for Dual Class Stocks: A Global Patchwork

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) initially banned dual-class stock structuring but reinstated it after facing competition from other exchanges. The NYSE originally banned dual-class structures in 1940 but reinstated them in the 1980s due to competition.

Institutional Investors and Dual Class Stocks

Institutional investors have a complex relationship with dual-class stock structures. On one hand, they recognize the potential for these structures to concentrate voting power in the hands of a select few, which can lead to a lack of accountability and transparency. The unequal distribution of risk and the potential for conflicts of interest between different classes of shareholders are significant concerns. For instance, institutional investors worry that the interests of public shareholders might be sidelined in favor of those holding superior voting rights, leading to decisions that do not necessarily benefit the company’s total equity.

However, it’s not all negative. Some institutional investors appreciate the stability that dual-class stock structures can provide. By allowing founders and executives to maintain control, these structures can enable companies to pursue long-term strategies without being derailed by short-term market pressures. This is particularly relevant for technology companies, where innovation and long-term vision are crucial for success. The ability to shield the company from activist investors and hostile takeovers can also be seen as a positive, ensuring that the company’s strategic direction remains consistent.

As dual-class stock structures become more common, especially among high-growth technology companies, institutional investors are playing an increasingly important role in the debate. They are pushing for regulatory changes and enhanced governance practices to ensure that the interests of all shareholders are protected. This evolving landscape suggests that while dual-class stock structures offer significant benefits, they must be carefully managed to balance control with accountability.



The Performance Paradox: Do They Work?

The empirical evidence on dual class performance reveals a fascinating pattern:

1. Initial premium: Dual-class firms tend to trade at higher valuations around their IPO compared to single-class peers.
2. Time decay: This valuation premium typically dissipates over time, while the gap between voting power and economic stake of controlling shareholders tends to widen.
3. Industry matters: A recent US study found that between 1980 and 2022, dual-class companies outperformed single-class peers, with particularly strong results in technology.
4. Going public benefits: Dual class firms tend to be larger at IPO and use higher-quality underwriters, suggesting they face "a higher burden of proof when first accessing equity markets".
5. Institutional interest: Surprisingly, institutions hold a larger fraction of publicly traded equity in dual-class firms (28.2%) compared to single-class peers.



The Compromise: Sunset Provisions and Safeguards

As dual class structures proliferate, markets have developed compromise approaches:

Time-Based Sunsets

Time-based sunsets automatically convert super-voting shares to ordinary shares after a predetermined period (typically 5-15 years). The UK initially required a five-year sunset period for premium listings, though this requirement may be removed under new proposals.

Event-Based Sunsets

These provisions trigger conversion upon specific events:

• Founder's death or incapacity
• Founder selling a significant portion of shares
• Founder no longer serving as an executive

Enhanced Disclosure

Regulators increasingly require dual class companies to provide clear disclosures about:

• The numerical gap between economic ownership and control
• Material risks associated with the structure
• Potential exclusion from certain indices

Practical Guide for Investors: Navigating the Dual Class World

Questions Before You Buy

When evaluating a dual class company:

1. Who controls the votes? Assess the character, competence, and track record of the controlling shareholders.
2. What's the sunset provision? Understand if and when the enhanced voting rights expire.
3. How divergent are economic interests? The larger the gap between voting power and economic stake, the greater the potential conflict.
4. What safeguards exist? Look for provisions that protect minority shareholders on specific matters.
5. What's the succession plan? Understand what happens to voting control if the founder leaves or dies.

The Magna Example: When Dual Class Structures End

The Canadian auto parts giant Magna International provides a fascinating case study in unwinding a dual-class structure. Despite opposition from some institutional investors, Magna eliminated its dual class structure in 2010, paying the controlling Stronach family a significant premium to give up control.

After the court-approved transaction, Magna's market capitalization increased by $1.36 billion - suggesting that for mature companies, eliminating dual class structures can unlock shareholder value.

The Future: Where Dual Class Shares Are Headed

The Regulatory Pendulum

The clear global trend is toward greater acceptance of dual class structures as exchanges compete for listings. However, this may be accompanied by enhanced disclosure and governance requirements as regulators seek to balance innovation with investor protection.

The next frontier appears to be developing standardized "best practices" for dual class companies - such as maximum voting ratios, mandatory sunset provisions, and enhanced minority protections for certain critical decisions.

The Lifecycle Theory

Perhaps the most intriguing development is what we might call the "lifecycle theory" of dual class shares: they may be beneficial early in a company's life but become problematic as companies mature.

Research examining dual-class firms from 1980 to 2017 found that their initial valuation premium dissipates over time. This suggests that the optimal approach might be temporary dual-class rights that expire as companies reach maturity.

Conclusion: Democracy or Dictatorship?

Dual class shares represent the ultimate corporate governance paradox - allowing visionary founders to execute long-term strategies while potentially enabling entrenched management to ignore shareholder interests.



The empirical evidence suggests a nuanced reality: dual class structures can deliver superior returns in certain contexts (particularly innovative, high-growth sectors) but may become problematic as companies mature and founders' interests diverge from those of public shareholders.

As Andrew Coyne noted, the key question may be whether investors truly understand what they're buying: "No, they don't get to vote at the company's annual meeting. But they do get to collect their share of the profits. They also have less defense in the event the company's controlling shareholders lose their minds. But it seems a risk many find worth taking. Who's to say they're wrong?"

The dual class debate ultimately reminds us that corporate governance is not a science but an art - balancing accountability with vision, short-term discipline with long-term strategy, and founder control with shareholder rights. As with most powerful tools, dual class shares can be used brilliantly or disastrously. The difference often lies not in the structure itself but in the character of those who control the votes.

Author's Bio

Maxim Atanassov is a strategic advisor, transformation leader, and investor with over 20 years of experience scaling businesses across sectors. Based in Calgary, Maxim blends deep financial insight with emerging technologies to unlock growth, manage risk, and build future-ready organizations.

As a serial entrepreneur and tech founder, Maxim has led complex transformations that turn vision into execution—helping companies modernize operations, architect new capabilities, and outperform their industries. His approach fuses AI integration with strategic governance, enabling clients to capitalize on disruption and scale with confidence.

At Future Ventures, Maxim partners with founders, executives, and investors to drive bold change—offering hands-on guidance from idea to impact. Known for his clarity in strategy design and ability to operationalize innovation, he plays a pivotal role in shaping the ventures and ventures-to-be that define tomorrow.