Abstract:Dual class shares and the anticompetitive effects of common ownership are the two of the most discussed corporate governance issues of our time. In this Article, we identify a hidden connection between them, which allows us to derive policy implications that are relevant for both.The traditional debate on dual class shares is based on the trade-off between having visionary founders firmly in control of the firm and the risk that they extract private benefits of control. We show that the exclusive focus on this trade-off is rooted on the outdated assumption that all shareholders are firm-value-maximizing (FVM), that is, aim at maximizing the value of the firm in which they have invested. But, as the debate on common ownership acknowledges, diversified institutional investors à la BlackRock care about maximizing the value of their funds’ portfolios, irrespective of what happens to any individual investee company: they act as portfolio-value-maximizing (PVM) shareholders. Consequently, they might prefer a lower level of competition in product markets to maximize the joint value of the competitors that are in their portfolio.In present-day financial markets, dominated by PVM institutional investors, dual class shares can then serve the additional purpose of allowing insiders to silence PVM shareholders, thus mitigating the anticompetitive effects of common ownership. For this reason, we argue against banning dual class shares, or even introducing a mandatory time-based sunset.But that is not the end of the story. The ongoing climate crisis is showing that a relatively low number of major carbon emitters can impose gigantic externalities on the planet. The macroeconomics literature, in turn, has provided ample evidence that a subset of systemically important firms can affect the whole economy. Allowing these companies to have dual class shares without limitations grants FVM shareholders à la Zuckerberg the unfettered ability to inflict systemic harm on society. If limitations were imposed on such shares, PVM shareholders would internalize part of these externalities via their other portfolio holdings, and hence have the incentive to steer individual portfolio firms into being mindful of these externalities.Thus, we suggest that there should be limits placed on the use of dual class shares by systemically relevant firms and show how such limitations ought to be tailored according to a firm’s specific ability to impose systemic externalities.

More is less? Wealth effects of Italian stocks to the increase in allowed voting rights

National Culture and Governance on Bondholder Wealth: Evidence from Joint Ventures and Strategic Alliances Around the World

Insider Stock Pledges and Shareholder Wealth

Dual Class Shares in the Age of Common Ownership

Control risk premium: Dual‐class shares, family ownership, and minority investor returns

Critical dimensions in the empirical measurement of common shareholding

Dual class shares, board of directors’ effectiveness and firm’s market value: an empirical study

Institutional Investor Activism in a Context of Concentrated Ownership and High Private Benefits of Control: The Case of Italy

Gender quotas, board diversity and spillover effects. Evidence from Italian banks

Dual-Class Share Structures, Founder Control and Enterprise Growth:

Estimating the expropriation of minority shareholders: Results from a new empirical approach

Does Diversification of Share Classes Increase Firm Value?

An anti-takeover strategy by limitation of voting rights: A model and a numerical approach

Towards a more ethical market: the impact of ESG rating on corporate financial performance

Governance by One-Lot Shares

The Dark Side of Strengthened Minority Voting Power: an Innovation Perspective

ECONOMIC ESSENCE OF MULTIPLE VOTING SHARES AND THE FEASIBILITY OF INTRODUCING THEM ON THE RUSSIAN FINANCIAL MARKET

Cross-border M&As and Stock Market Performance: Evidence from Medium-Sized US and European Firms

The evolution of intellectual capital disclosure driven by European regulatory change: evidence from the Italian stock market

Nothing special about an allowance for corporate equity: Evidence from Italian banks

Do share offerings increase payouts?