Unless you have a seat on the board, your investment in a company should reflect your implicit belief that what they are doing is worth your investment. To buy stock and then jump up and down in public trying to move your investment up or down seems inappropriate.
How could a company break its stock up into a 'dividend stock' and a 'capital appreciation' stock?<p>Valuing the 'dividend stock' would be pretty easy, but what about the 'capital appreciation' stock? What value does that take on? I'm assuming that voting rights would still be split between the two - otherwise the company's board wouldn't concern itself with dividend issues.<p>But really - without dividends or the future promise of dividends, how would anyone value the 'capital appreciation' stock?
For those interested in this kind of thing, I think David Einhorn's book is excellent.<p>It tells a story of when Einhorn realized a company was more-or-less fraudulent, and his fight against the SEC and the company to release the truth. He had the incentive for this fight because of his short position. Einhorn was ultimately proven correct, and the company collapsed. The book is equally interesting, informative and infuriating.<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fooling-People-Complete-Updated-Epilogue/dp/0470481544" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Fooling-People-Complete-Updated-Epilo...</a>
Is this just an investor looking out for his fund or doing his duty pressuring companies to get their act together? The two examples, GM and Tesla, certainly seem to have a "wrong" stock value.
"Einhorn, whose Greenlight Capital owns 3.6 percent of GM, was equally tough in the letter he sent to shareholders..".<p>Someone help me understand how come a person/entity who merely owns 3.6% of a company has the right to be this aggressive about the future growth and policy-making of the company?