WHY would a owner not hold majority interest in his/her own company has always been really beyond me. Maybe somebody can explain it to me the benefit of not owning your company when it's incorporated?
If you want to take it public sometimes you got to give up ownership. Also you assume he had 100% of the company before going public. What about angel investors, funds and other sources of money he needed to grow the business before he went public. You think Sergey owned 100% of Google before it went public? Also if he was able to make $50 million on the IPO and still have 26% of the company and be CEO then not a bad deal. Of course he fucked it up.
Well, the more you sell out to the public, the more money you have to try and make money, the more money you have to have a juicy CEO/President employment agreement with the company with lots of bonuses for good performance of those now larger sums of money, etc. But, ya, I don't think I'd ever sell down below 51% if I had a goose that laid the golden egg haha.
Looks Papa John is not the only owner who's losing their own company: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/top...-zuckerberg-as-chairman/ar-BBL7qkJ?li=AAggNb9
You're assuming he'd have the same level of success if he didn't get the funding that often comes from relinquishing partial ownership. The problem is he put the company in a position that require the deals that made him relinquish 51%+. I wouldn't mind making those sorts of deals if the company I was making was in it to make a buck and was not a passion project. May not agree w/the guys on a lot of things, but I have great respect for the Kochs for keeping it completely private and having better level of success than most public companies. How much of that was done gaming the system and greasing politicians? Hard to tell.