Not all shareholders are created equal— at least when it comes to voting rights. While some companies take a “one share, one vote” approach to shareholder decision-making, others give disproportionate voting rights to founders or choose to offer multiple share classes, each with different voting power.
Companies have been offering shares with different voting rights for decades. Multi-class shares are common around the world, not just a phenomenon of Silicon Valley.
Strong arguments can be made on both sides of this issue: in favor and against the practice of offering shares with differential voting rights. Ensuring that founders and key decision-makers have extra voting heft might insulate them from short-term market demands, thus helping them focus on long-term goals. Yet, concentrating voting power in a few hands could also become a way for insiders to entrench their positions and suppress legitimate concerns from other owners.
FCLTGlobal is particularly interested in testing the oft-used argument that multi-class shares promote long-term behavior and outperformance. Absent definitive evidence, arguments on this topic often focus disproportionately on the most high-profile, recent examples of companies using multiple share classes, which makes it hard to appreciate the full breadth, history, and market impact of differential voting rights.
To enrich the debate, FCLTGlobal partnered with researchers at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, who have a unique dataset covering companies that issue shares with different voting rights. We found that:
Power Play: The Long-term Impact of Multi-class Shares provides a fuller explanation of these findings, beginning with a broader look at the practice of issuing multiple share class—and followed by a detailed account of FCLTGlobal’s statistical approach and findings.
In the News
12 August 2025 - Why proxy advisors draw criticism from investors and companies, and practical solutions to improve the proxy voting process including pre-disclosure and unbundling services.
In the News
4 August 2025 - Your Lex note on governance issues at Wise, the UK fintech, rightly highlights the need for quality research from proxy advisers (July 30). FCLTGlobal’s recent study of the proxy system reveals a structural problem: investors typically pay for research and operational services in a single bundle, in effect forcing the platform business to subsidise research costs. This undermines research quality precisely when shareholders need a better insight into complex voting matters. If investors want better, more informed insight on key votes, they should insist on — and pay for — unbundled, high-quality research separate from operational services.
In the News
29 July 2025 - New federal law creates $1000 investment accounts for all babies born 2025-2028.