Controversial thought for the day:
When a company decides to go public to raise money for expansion, etc, only sell 49% of the ownership in your company, retain the other 51% of the ownership to avoid hostile takeovers, etc.
Wall Street & the underwriters may try to persuade/convince the CEOs to give away more ownership to the public (say 75% or more) to get more cash upfront, but it comes with the dangers of a future hostile takeover.
When true entrepreneurs own a company and maintain 51% control of the company, they have the company's best interests in mind. Once a hostile takeover occurs because the company was 'persuaded' to give away its majority ownership control, the company's mission statement may either get corrupted or thrown away as the focus changes to maximizing the chase for the might dollar.
When did this 'persuasion' to give away majority ownership to the public become standard operating procedure? How many true owners/entrepreneurs anticipated the fall out from the numerous 1980s hostile takeovers because they had been 'conned' into giving away too much of their ownership control?
Was the hostile takeover decade planned long ago, and by the 1980s they finally had all the pieces in place to allow massive amounts of hostile takeovers to occur? Is that why some industries have either been decimated or sent overseas because the CEO pay became too high to pay the rest of the workforce, or to even leave enough money to buy raw materials. Is it in the company's best interests & the economy's best interests to have massive layoffs & outsourcing overseas but the CEO pay keeps rising? What has the mission of these companies become?