Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Unless it actually has vote rights, it should be called what it is, corporate bonds.

The distinctions between stocks and bonds are fairly fluid, in practice.

High finance & legals are sophisticated. Stocks and bonds are ultimately contracts and if you're not trading them on a market with standards, they can be written however you want. You can have bonds with all the practical implications of stock and the reverse. Voting rights and fixed interest. No voting rights, but with dividends, etc.

That's not what a bond is.

Google's GOOG shares shareholders do not have the right to vote, it is being traded at $1,236 per share, while GOOGL shares have the right to vote, it is being traded at $1,241 per share, that 0.5% difference is the market pricing of the right to vote.

In the context of GOOG vs GOOGL, the voting rights are basically moot. Larry and Sergey's super shares dominate the votes anyway.


I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Google situation, but in any case you're right. A proper share does not require the holder be entitled to vote. What matters is that the share is the property of its owner. It's not merely a contract, like an option to purchase shares in the future, or employment, or an agreement to be paid royalties or profit. A share is property that is owned in perpetuity or until the corporation is dissolved. It can be bought and sold as though it is just another thing.

If Huawei wants to redefine that then we have to evaluate what a corporation is and what is even means to be an "owner" of such a thing.

"which are canceled when an employee leaves the company"

This however makes for quite a big difference. How the hell do you sell the damned things? If you accrue many "shares" what's to stop you being fired to nullify them?

Hard to see these as valuable without a secondary market and maybe with no liquidity at all...

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact