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 We show that the exclusive focus on this trade-off is rooted on the outdated assumption that all shareholders are firm-value-maximizing (FVM), that is, aim at maximizing the value of the firm in which they have invested.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.

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

Do Private Equity Investors Conspire with Ultimate Owners in the IPO Process?

Dual Class Shares in the Age of Common Ownership

Disproportionate Ownership Structure and IPO Long-Run Performance of Non-Soes in China

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

Share Structure and Entrepreneurship in UK Biotechnology Companies: An Empirical Study

Controlling Shareholders and Sustainable Corporate Governance: The Role of Dual-Class Shares

Disproportional Control Rights and the Governance Role of Debt

Dual-class share structure and dividend smoothing

The Multi-BMBY Mechanism: Proportionality-Preserving and Strategyproof Ownership Restructuring in Private Companies

Dual Class Ownership and Tax Avoidance

Does Diversification of Share Classes Increase Firm Value?

Startup Governance

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

Common Ownership, Institutional Investors, and Antitrust

Start-Up Investor Governance Case

Insider Stock Pledges and Shareholder Wealth

The Class of Shareholdings and Its Impacts on Corporate Performance: A Case of State Shareholding Composition in Chinese Public Corporations

On the Effectiveness of Restricted Share Purchase by a Limited Company

Development of a Protection System Against Hostile Mergers and Acquisitions

Entrepreneurial Finance Meets Government Investment at Initial Public Offering: the Role of Minority State Ownership