435
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2026
435 points (99.3% liked)
PC Gaming
15749 readers
1612 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Do they realize that what they really said was: having shareholders destroys businesses.
I was thinking around the same, more specifically that what they're saying is that "in the long run companies managed to produce value for shareholders actually produce less value that companies managed to produce value for a single private owner".
This is actually pretty consistent with what we see in many industries with both kinds of companies and a pretty daming indictment of publicly traded companies as a mechanism for increasing value creation.
Note the exception to the rule is Private equity looking for a place to unload debt and need a fall guy
shareholders in public companies dont care about the health of the business
Lol, this is an unironically awesome takeaway.
Anyone who isn't head deep in Capitalism understands that, yeah.
Private companies have shareholders as well.
That's a new one for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder
But only for companies participating in the equity ownership, right? I'm not fully versed with that, so need to ask here. I don't know how this works with Gabe and Valve. I think the important detail here is, that Valve is not publicly traded and can decide who buys shares from their company and could reject any money. I don't think this is possible with publicly traded companies, right?
Ownership of companies via shares is only for LLCs (which is a possibility but in practice uncommon) and Corporations and both Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships do not have shares.
That said, it is indeed possible for a company to have ownership by shares and not be publicly traded (i.e. not in the stock market) so for example a corporation with no traded shares would be a private corporation.~
This is what I found out for the US by searching for "types of companies" and "LLC shares".
The countries I lived in and owned companies in Europe have similar things but with different names (for example what a Partnership in the US is roughly what's called a "Society by quotas" in Portugal and is actually the most common kind of company).
In my experience people that never had their own registered business don't usually know any of this because they have no need to look into it.
Yeah, often times if a company needs a loan then they open up a stake.
i think in private corporations only a very limited amount of shareholders can have shares
If they are shareholders, they hold at least one share. Every one of them. There's no limit on number of shareholders or shares held. But those shares are not publicly traded.
There are limits on shareholders in private companies.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/5/500-shareholder-threshold.asp
Looks like the number is 2000, but that excludes employees. It used to be 500.
That's only a (USA) reporting limit. A private company can still have more than 2000 shareholders, but it must then publicly report its finances like a public company would.
Fair... but why would any private company do that without going public? Do any?