Per-investor, yes — but multiple institutional investors can get involved with little intervention unless the founder holds at least a plurality. This is exactly why we're starting to see companies like Facebook and Uber issue class A shares. Travis Kalanick was, in theory, untouchable — he just didn't have the energy in him to fight the board after a personal tragedy.
> For that matter, Elon Musk only owns 21% of Tesla right now[1], so if 51% of the board think he's a net-negative, he could go immediately. They clearly do not.
Yes, and if he is forced to liquidate any more of his holding, he ceases to be a plurality. That's the point.
Now yes, because he owns 21%, there are fewer other shareholder votes to oust him than there would be if he owned 10% (still a plurality). But they could do so in theory.
Also, I'll be upfront. I don't think a wealth tax is a good idea because it'll inevitably lead to people dodging taxes by putting the money into stuff like artwork or IP. And to counter that, the government will need to know every single item of value every person owns and have to create a large, intrusive bureaucracy to track all that. It sounds horrific.
But I don't think a wealth tax discourages entrepreneurship or working hard, and PG's blog post is disingenuous in saying so.
If an "activist" investor actually bought 51% of the company (aka an "acquisition" or "takeover"), they would also own 51% of the downside of any CEO changes. At that point they have every right to decide what's in the company's interest. The company's shareholders can also vote on whether to accept the acquisition offer, which means dissenters who lose the vote can sell and get out if they disagree with the new owner's direction.
For that matter, Elon Musk only owns 21% of Tesla right now[1], so if 51% of the board think he's a net-negative, he could go immediately. They clearly do not.
1. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052616/top-4-...