These Stocks Pack Double Trouble

Before you dive into hot "Web 2.0" companies like LinkedIn (NYSE: LNKD  ) , Groupon, and Facebook, make sure you're fully aware of their major corporate governance downside. The insider-centric, shareholder-stifling policy of dual-class ownership plagues some of the market's hottest, most coveted IPOs.

Double trouble
Companies with a dual-class ownership structure have two separate classes of common stock, often dubbed Class A and Class B, which generally carry a different number of votes. From a corporate governance perspective, this signals big-time danger, because the class of shares management owns generally gives them more votes than the shares investors like you buy. In short, dual-class ownership gives insiders much greater control over the company.

This practice is particularly popular at family-owned companies and founder-led corporations. Defenders can certainly rationalize that dual-class ownership preserves management's freedom to pursue long-term goals when outside investors push for short-term performance. Still, from a shareholder perspective, it also stifles dissent and greatly dilutes outsiders' say over important corporate matters.

Just yesterday, corporate governance expert Nell Minow wrote in-depth about the hidden dual-class danger facing LinkedIn shareholders, as well as those who crave a piece of Groupon when it completes its own initial public offering. Minow succinctly summed up why investors should stay on guard: "[Dual-class ownership] gives insiders the best of both worlds -- the access to capital and limited liability of a public company on one hand, and the control offered by a private company. Great for them; lousy for shareholders."

Worse yet, LinkedIn's recent IPO has drummed up even greater investor interest in the prospect that Facebook might go public. Although Facebook has not released any imminent plans for an IPO, in late 2009 it set up -- you guessed it -- a dual-class stock structure, with insiders' Class B shares representing 10 votes each.

Seeing double and seeing red
This issue has a habit of creeping in and out of the spotlight over time. Back in 2004, my Foolish colleague Bill Mann wrote an excellent piece outlining how dual-class shares result in second-class investors -- namely, you and I.

In 2006, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG  ) had to defend its own dual-class stock structure. A union pension fund shareholder complained about Google's Class B shares, which only insiders Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergei Brin own, giving them 10 votes per share to every one vote for Class A shareholders.

Long-struggling newspaper giant New York Times (NYSE: NYT  ) also faced a major shareholder revolt over its dual-class ownership structure in 2007. A whopping 42% of shareholders withheld their votes for the company's directors at the time, displeased with the company's leadership and strategy.

Shareholders might not have been so angry had the company been flourishing. New York Times has not reported positive annual revenue growth since the year ended December 2006. In 2009, its sales dropped a staggering 17%. Unfortunately, the company's dual-class share structure gave regular shareholders no way to protest beyond selling their shares -- probably at a loss. If management's more powerful shares hadn't helped it maintain the upper hand, outside shareholders might have enjoyed a much better chance of enacting performance-boosting changes at the company.

Don't get two-timed
I don't believe a dual-class ownership structure must knock a company off a watch list, or out of a portfolio. Still, we regular shareholders should at least sharpen our awareness of such unfriendly policies, and take them into account when searching for stocks.

Two of the stocks I purchased for my Rising Stars portfolio, Timberland (NYSE: TBL  ) and the aforementioned Google, have dual-class ownership structures. This is a ding against the strong corporate governance policies I try to promote. However, in the weighing, I concluded that I basically trusted these companies' managements, since both stocks' leaders have a vested financial interest in seeing their companies succeed.

Overall, though, dual-class stock structures represent the significant risk inherent in insiders' concentrated power. If more people know about the dangers of this policy, and speak out against it, perhaps more management teams will begin to pay more respect to the shareholders who provide their firms with capital in the first place.

Check back at Fool.com every Wednesday and Friday for Alyce Lomax's columns on environmental, social, and governance issues.

The Motley Fool owns shares of Timberland and Google. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Timberland and Google. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.

Alyce Lomax does not own shares of any of the companies mentioned. For more on this and other topics, check back at Fool.com, or follow her on Twitter: @AlyceLomax. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (14)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On June 15, 2011, at 6:49 PM, stan8331 wrote:

    I think this is an issue where it's just not practical to try to come up with a hard and fast rule. For the vast majority of companies, I would view dual class ownership as a major red flag. However, for certain high quality, well-run companies I agree that a dual-class structure should not disqualify them as a potential investment. The critical point is that these leaders must have a lot of skin in the game and no feasible way to use their power to profit at the expense of regular shareholders.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1507852, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/27/2014 11:06:49 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement