It basically represents a bet that a steady hand on the tiller is better than having the company run by whoever is the darling of whoever&#x27;s happens to own a big chunk of shares.<p>It&#x27;s not an unreasonable view. American public companies have generally become pretty short-sighted, and financial traders are positively myopic. (A friend of mine works for a &quot;medium-term&quot; hedge fund, which he says means they hold shares from hours to days.) If you think a company is better off with a serious long-term focus and a stable power structure, then you&#x27;re better off betting on something where random stock purchasers don&#x27;t have control.<p>Historically, I think this is more common in European family-controlled business empires. But it makes some sense here. Look at how well Amazon, Apple, and Facebook have done with CEOs who have a long-term focus. I&#x27;d be happier betting on Bezos, Jobs, or Zuckerberg than J Random CEO, who is much more concerned about hitting quarterly numbers than in maximizing impact on a multi-decade scale.