Why don't business owners give themselves preferred stock

>>1328355
Conflict of interest

>>1328357
Explain.

>>1328355

preferred stock almost never has voting rights, you dingus.

most newer technology companies now have these sleazy A/B share classes, where the B shares caring 20x the voting rights of the A shares.

>>1328462
>sleazy A/B share classes
i blame mark zuckerberg

>>1328462
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_stock
>Supervoting stock—a "class of stock that provides its holders with larger than proportionate voting rights compared with another class of stock issued by the same company." It enables a limited number of stockholders to control a company.

>>1328355
preferred stock = no voting rights, but, if the company is liquid/goes under, preferred stock gets paid first

>>1328355
>>1328462

Some do. It's not 'preferred stock', though. That's a different class of shares altogether.
Like the other anon said, company leaders just create separate 'classes' of shares to maintain power (but they're all variants of common stock).

It's a rather... unconventional method, to say the least. Obviously, the upside (for investors) is that no random douche can gain control of the company you have a stake in. Obviously when you're investing in a company, its strategic vision (as most commonly provided by its CEO) is important. And when you buy Facebook shares, for example, you're investing in the vision of Zuckerberg, and you trust him not to turn it into some sort of 4chan deviant the next day.

Of course, the downside is that we don't know how the shareholders may react. It worked for Zuckerberg and UnderArmor (initially) to name a few, but things can quickly go wrong because it goes against the norm.

Here's an interesting read that provides some insight.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/25/finally-under-armour-inc-is-ready-to-issue-its-new.aspx

Basically, it's about how people take the view that you're a d-bag and that your motivation for creating the class of shares is to make a profit, not for the good of the company (and them), which is obviously a detriment to the company image (and in turn, its stock price).

It happens sometimes.

But the regular stocks would be worth less.