T H E O R I E S T H A T S T U D Y CG

THE AGENCY THEORY

In 1776, Adam Smith exposed the agency problem, noting that managers of other people's money do not take the same
care as the owner himself. Later in 1932, Berle and Means highlighted the existing separation between ownership and
control of the company and its consequences (diversification of investment, low concentration of ownership), as well as the
divergent interests between directors, managers and proprietary investors. In the same sense, Jensen and Meckling (1976)
defined an agency relationship and how the principal can limit the divergences with respect to his interests by establishing
appropriate incentives for the agent. Agency problems are controlled through decision systems (decision processes) that
separate management decisions (implementation and application) and control decisions (ratification and monitoring) at all
organizational levels (Fama and Jensen, 1983). This theory focuses on: information asymmetry, adverse selection and pre-
contractual opportunism and moral hazard or post-contractual opportunism (Van-Slyke, 2006). This theory is the most used
in corporate governance research and shows a continuous increase (Huang and Ho, 2011).
The initial analysis related to the opening of capital of the entrepreneurial company, in this model originated in an
analysis by Jensen and Meckling (1976) that focused on two objectives. The first objective was to propose a contractual
theory of the firm seen as a team of productive inputs (Alchian and Demsetz, 1972), inspired by the theory of property rights
and focusing on the concept of the agency relationship. The second objective was to illustrate the explanatory power of this
theory with respect to the problem of the capital structure of the company.
At first, Jensen and Meckling (1976) considered the company as a nexus of contracts, associating the company and the
entire group of resource contributors (the input team ...), their limited objective of explaining the capital structure led them to
build a more simplified model taking into account only two agency relationships. The first linked the manager to the
shareholders and the second linked the company (represented by the administrators and shareholders) to the financial
creditors. This initial modeling, which gave priority to the analysis of the relationship between the manager-entrepreneur
who opens his capital and the new shareholders who played the role of principal and the administrator the agent, whose
approach to the shareholder still dominates the research and normative reflections in the actuality.
The theory offers insight to explain the phenomena of corporate governance, particularly the agency-principle problems
of conflicts between external investors and managers and the expropriation of minority shareholders by controlling
shareholders (Eisenhard, 1989). The main contributions of agency theory to thinking about and reforming corporate
governance are the ideas of risk, uncertainty of results, incentives and information systems. The study of conjectures that
applies agency theory to corporate governance issues continues to grow, because it frequently tries to explain real events that
occur in the world.
Finally, agency theory represents one of the most serious attempts to formulate a general theory of the firm in the
framework of social relations (Jensen and Meckling 1976). These authors define the agency relationship as a contract under
which one or more people ("principal") hire another person ("agent") to perform some service for the benefit of the principal,
which means delegating authority over the agent. decision making. The approach that supports this theory is associated with
the so-called agency costs: the “agents”, directors or managers of the companies, may be tempted to act for their own benefit
and make management decisions driven by their own interests. In any case, the agency theory has been the most applied in
corporate governance research (Tricker, 2009).
THE RESOURCE DEPENDENCY THEORY
To explain corporate governance, the resource dependency theory is also used in some academic papers (Pfeffer and
Salancik 1978). This theory interprets organizations as interdependent with the context in which they operate. Organizations
will depend, to ensure their survival, on the resources and information provided by other companies and the agents of the
context in which they are immersed. In these circumstances, organizations compete with other entities that use those same
scarce resources.
These theories are limited to analyzing the relationships between partners, professional managers, the governing council
and the environment, establishing the most important aspects of corporate governance, but do not take into account other
interest groups such as customers, workers, business associations, and / or suppliers, among others. Thus arises the theory of
stakeholders (Freeman, 1984) which considers that organizations should be responsible to a set of interest groups in the
company and not only concern themselves with shareholders, since all these groups can affect the achievement of objectives.
objectives of the organization and, consequently, the achievement of business success. it is necessary to apply agency theory.
This is because the differences between shareholders and executives could be reduced through the existence of more
efficient boards of directors.
SHAREHOLDER OR STOCKHOLDER THEORY
Is Friedman (1962) in the book Capitalism and Freedom, expresses that the only social responsibility of companies is to
use resources in the development of activities that increase profits, obviously within the rules of free enterprise. The
companies do not have moral obligations or social responsibilities with others that are not the shareholders, it is sought to
maximize the profit for them.
In the shareholder approach, it is considered that the shareholders are the only ones with the right to participate in the
income created by the company, therefore, in this case the value created is measured by what they receive.
 This approach implies that corporate governance is oriented to the relationship between shareholders and managers who
control and manage the creation of value, and only the interests of shareholders are taken into account. The goal of
management is to maximize shareholder value.
THE STAKEHOLDERS APPROACH
The basis of this theory is attributed to Edward Freeman (1984), and he postulates that the organization must be
developed taking into account the interests of the interest groups (employees, clients, suppliers and creditors) without
contradicting the ethical principles on which the organization is based. capitalism, which is criticized by Mansell (2013) who
argues that stakeholder theory undermines the principles on which the market economy is based by applying the concept of
social contract to the organization. The legitimate claim on the signature is established through the existence of an exchange
relationship. Stakeholders include shareholders, creditors, managers, employees, customers, suppliers, local communities,
and the general public (Hill and Jones, 1992). Stakeholders are any group or individual that can affect or be affected by the
achievement of the company's objectives (Freeman, 1984).
The stakeholder approach considers that all participants in the creation of value have the right to participate in the value
that is added in the development of the value chain. This approach implies that corporate governance is oriented to safeguard
and manage that the remuneration of all participants occurs, taking into account their opportunity cost. The interests of all
participants and stakeholders in the company who are affected by the decisions and actions that occur in it, as well as their
participation in corporate governance, are considered. The company is a nexus of contracts between the different
stakeholders-shareholders, but also with creditors, employees, administrators, clients, suppliers, authorities, others, or an
agreement according to which the company constitutes a cooperative game between the different stakeholders (Aoki, 1991).
In the stakeholder approach, corporate governance is affected by the relationships between the agents that intervene in the
corporate governance system. As the OECD (2004) points out, these relationships are subject, in part, to laws and
regulations, but also to voluntary adaptation and, more importantly, to market forces.
THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED APPROACH
The process of creating value through the emergence of the investment opportunity set, which, in particular, is still
neglected. To understand this process, we must turn to theories based on the knowledge of the company. In this approach,
the creation of value depends mainly on the identity and skills of the company, seen as a coherent entity (Teece et al, 1994).
Its specificity is linked to its ability to generate knowledge and, therefore, to its long-term profitability, while maintaining a
dynamic concept of efficiency, knowledge-based theories include numerous perspectives that favor knowledge-based
arguments. Three main perspectives can be identified: a) The behavioral perspective introduced by Cyert and March (1963):
the firm is a political coalition and a cognitive institution that adapts itself through organizational learning. b) Neo-
Schumpeterian evolutionary economic theory developed mainly by Nelson and Winter (1982), which gave rise to a very
important line of research. The firm is defined as an entity that coherently unites activities, a repository of productive
knowledge (Winter, 1988), an interpretive system (Loasby, 2001), which favors the concept that competition is based on
innovation. This theory replaces, in particular, the representation of investment options as a pre-existing menu with a
conception in which the menu is built from knowledge acquired by learning and stored in organizational routines. c)
Strategic theories based on resources and capabilities (the Resource-based View - RBV) that results mainly from the theory
of the growth of the company proposed by Penrose (1959). The company appears to be a set of resources and a knowledge
accumulation entity guided by the vision of the managers and based on the experience they have acquired. The origin of
sustainable growth lies in the ability to learn and in the specificity of the accumulated stock of knowledge. This theory is at
the origin of an extensive current of research that considers the knowledge-based theory of the company in strictus sensus
the knowledge-based view.
In summary, the company, when seen as a processor or repository of knowledge, is based on the following applications of
knowledge: (1) orientation of the activity according to the opinion of the administrators; (2) the creation of knowledge as a
basis for innovation and all investment opportunities, this knowledge is tacit and social whose character makes it difficult to
imitate; (3) protection of the knowledge database; (4) the coordination of the productive activity that involves aspects such as
construction, exploitation and transfer of knowledge that go beyond the simple transfer of information. (Hodgson, 1998); and
(5) conflict resolution, which goes beyond conflicts of interest to be taken in a knowledge-based aspect.
The company's knowledge-based approach leads to a reconsideration of the role of corporate governance. This should
support the identification and implementation of profitable investments within a dynamic efficiency perspective. According
to Demsetz, (1969), to understand the influence of the institutional framework and therefore of the QA system, in efficient
dynamics, one must strive to balance three objectives: (1) a wide multiplicity of experimentation must be encouraged; (2)
investment should be channeled into promising varieties of experimentation and away from unpromising opportunities; (3)
the new knowledge that is acquired must be used extensively.
Prahalad's (1994) critique of the CG financial vision supports this approach: this vision should be broadened to consider
the quality of the relationship between managers and investors and its potential to increase the efficiency of the company, to
identify and generate growth opportunities. In a broad perspective, the knowledge-based approach results in the study of the
systems of their influence on the different cognitive aspects of the value creation process.
 The knowledge-based approach also implies a reconsideration of the financial approach to corporate governance, in
which the relationship between the company and investors is limited to the contribution of capital and where the sole
objective is to secure financial investment by disciplining the best possible the managers. Therefore, as suggested by several
authors, finance also includes a cognitive aspect. Consequently, Aoki, (1991) believes that, in the CG model associated with
venture capital, it is not the ability of the venture capital investor to contribute funds that is the most important factor, but its
ability, based on its knowledge and experience, to select the most promising projects and reject the financing (or refinancing)
of the less interesting projects.
This analysis, which promotes the disciplinary aspects (of control and incentive), is unable to integrate the cognitive
aspect of the creation of organizational capital. On the contrary, the works of O'Sullivan, 2001) focusing on the CG of
innovative companies and the more ambitious works of Aoki can be considered, to some extent, as approximations to a study
to build a theory of corporate governance where disciplinary aspects and cognitive acting simultaneously.
STEWARDSHIP THEORY OR MANAGEMENT THEORY
Known as Management Theory (Donaldson, 2008). In it, it is considered that there is no conflict of interest between the
owners and the managers and that it seeks to find an organizational structure that allows coordination to achieve greater
efficiency. Managers are non-opportunistic agents, according to this theory, but good managers (Donaldson and Davis,
1991).
Given the limitations raised and as a reaction to the agency theory, at the beginning of the nineties, the “management
theory” stewardship) emerged (Donaldson and Davis 1991; Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson, 1997), under a vision
psycho-sociological of corporate governance. This theory considers managers as good servants of the organization, assumes
that professional managers of any company want to do a good job and will act as effective managers of its resources.
This explanation does not imply that the manager lacks personal objectives, but, on the contrary, is aware of the
relationship that exists between his individual goals and the aims of the organization, and considers that the best way to
achieve his purposes is work towards collective goals. However, it is considered that the stewardship theory has a limitation
when studying the governance of companies and that is that it only takes into account the partners (owners of the company)
and the steward (the manager), not paying no attention to the other interest groups (stakeholders) that affect or are affected
more or less directly in society.
Managers are not motivated by individual goals, but rather are managers whose motives are aligned with the objectives of
their principals (Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997). Organizational managers tend to be benign in their actions
(Donaldson, 2008). Stewardship theory is a theory that indicates that if managers are left to their own devices, they will act
as responsible managers of the assets they control (Hilb, 2005).
This theory assumes that long-term contractual relationships develop based on trust, reputation, collective goals, and
participation, where the alignment of interests is a result that derives from relational reciprocity (Van Slyke, 2006) . The
interests of the managers are aligned with those of the shareholders, there is no conflict of interest that must be overcome
with mechanisms such as financial incentives (Donaldson, 2008). Directors must recognize the interests of legitimate
customers, employees, suppliers and other stakeholders, but under the law their first responsibility is to shareholders.
Conflicts of interest between stakeholder groups and the company must be resolved by the pressure of competition in free
markets, supported by legislation and existing legal controls to protect customers, employees, suppliers and society (Tricker,
2009).
ANALYSIS OF THEORIES IN GENERAL
In 2004, Gérard Charreaux concluded that the objective of corporate governance theories is not to study how managers
govern, but rather how they are governed. This perspective is closer to the concept of control than to the concept of
management (de Andrés-Alonso and Santamaría-Mariscal, 2010).
Table 2.
Analysis of GC theories

Prepared by the author based on related authors.

 The main theory that has affected the development of corporate governance and has provided a conceptual framework for
it is the agency theory. However, companies are increasingly aware that they cannot operate in isolation and that, in addition
to considering shareholders, they must take into account a broad set of stakeholders (Mallin, 2010).
Referring to the first theory called agency theory, he points out that managers of other people's money do not take the
same care as the owner himself, the second focuses on the fact that social responsibility should fall directly on people, and
not on institutions, that is That is, it establishes that social responsibility does not correspond in any case to an obligation for
the company, nor a benefit for it, in the third it is postulated that the organization must be developed taking into account the
interests of the main interested parties (employees, clients, suppliers and creditors) without contradicting the ethical
principles on which capitalism is based and the stewardship theory known as Management Theory. In it, it is considered that
there is no conflict of interest between the owners and the managers and that the aim is to find an organizational structure
that allows coordination to achieve greater efficiency.
The agency theory refers to an existing relationship that arises between two parties: on the one hand, there is the
managerial level that includes the executives of the company; and the owners as directors and shareholders on the other hand
according to the study by Jensen and Meckling (1976) and with the agreement of later studies (Tate, Ellram, Bals, Hartmann,
and Valk, 2010). They argue that this relationship is based on implicit and explicit contractual conditions to ensure that all
parties can operate as efficiently as possible for owners to maximize their wealth by delegating authority and assigning
certain activities to the management level of a company. company, as the owners are not sufficiently trained to manage and
undertake the required tasks. Therefore, the agency theory and its hypotheses have an effect on Corporate Governance Tirole
(2010) supported this position by showing that generalized academic thinking about CG is due to the prevalence of research
that is based on the premise of the underlying principle that agency theory focuses on the problem of the issue of separation
between the management of a company and its property. In the first study conducted by Berle and Means in 1932 in the
United States, there is a great deviation in the interests of managers and owners and therefore their motivations differ. It is a
widely held view that effective QA mechanisms can reduce agency costs and therefore benefit shareholders.
Agency Theory
Agency theory defines the relationship between the principals (such as shareholders of company) and agents (such as
directors of company). According to this theory, the principals of the company hire the agents to perform work. The
principals delegate the work of running the business to the directors or managers, who are agents of shareholders. The
shareholders expect the agents to act and make decisions in the best interest of principal. On the contrary, it is not necessary
that agent make decisions in the best interests of the principals. The agent may be succumbed to self-interest, opportunistic
behavior and fall short of expectations of the principal. The key feature of agency theory is separation of ownership and
control. The theory prescribes that people or employees are held accountable in their tasks and responsibilities. Rewards and
Punishments can be used to correct the priorities of agents.

Stewardship Theory
The steward theory states that a steward protects and maximises shareholders wealth through firm Performance. Stewards
are company executives and managers working for the shareholders, protects and make profits for the shareholders. The
stewards are satisfied and motivated when organizational success is attained. It stresses on the position of employees or
executives to act more autonomously so that the shareholders’ returns are maximized. The employees take ownership of their
jobs and work at them diligently.

Stakeholder Theory
Stakeholder theory incorporated the accountability of management to a broad range of stakeholders. It states that managers
in organizations have a network of relationships to serve – this includes the suppliers, employees and business partners. The
theory focuses on managerial decision making and interests of all stakeholders have intrinsic value, and no sets of interests is
assumed to dominate the others

CONCEPT OF MANAGEMENT VS. OWNERSHIP

Many business owners believe that they should have an answer for every question and a solution for every problem
regarding their business. After all they are the owner. However, just because you own the business does not make you the
font of all knowledge.
One way to get away from this mindset is to recognize the difference between management issues and ownership issues.
Management issues are the daily, weekly and monthly things that must be done to ensure the smooth running of the business.
This ranges from staffing the business to cope with seasonal variations to stock control to taking orders and chasing up debts.
All of the daily processes that you need for the successful operation of the business come under management issues. If these
are executed effectively, then your business will make a profit and you will be able to pay dividends to the shareholders and
also reinvest in the business.
Ownership issues are the things that only an owner can do. They tend to be more strategic and might include dealing with the
bank or finance company to make sure that the business has enough capital to grow. Negotiating on suitable freehold or
leasehold premises for the business to operate out of. Maintaining relationships with other owners or investors in the
business. Deciding on future strategy and creating a compelling vision of the future. Last but most importantly looking for
talented people with great attitudes to join the business and help to serve your customers. Without great people it is difficult
to differentiate your business from your competition, so this should be a high priority for any owner.
If you can focus on your strengths and do what you are passionate about, while surrounding yourself with people who have
complementary skills to your own, then you will be amazed how much better the business will perform and how much more
fun you will have, too.
A great example of this was a guy called Bob. He ran a small hardware store in a rural town in Colorado. Bob was an
amazing sales person and just loved meeting new people and talking about all the different products in his store. He showed
a genuine interest in helping people to find exactly what they were looking for and at a price they could afford. He was so
good at doing this that his business grew for five years consecutively. Then Bob found himself doing more administration in
his small office and less selling. His business stopped growing and he became miserable and started dreading going to work
in the morning. Finally, one morning his wife said to him, “Honey what are you doing? Why don’t you go out and hire
someone else to do the paperwork so that you can get back to selling?”
Thankfully after the pep talk from his wife, that is exactly what Bob did. He started spending more time selling again and
meeting his customers face to face. The business made more money and Bob had a lot more fun.
Just remember one thing. Once you have taken the time to go out and find great people to work for your business, don’t
meddle with their jobs. If you do meddle, your employees will either not perform to their best ability or get frustrated and
leave. Learn to trust your people to do a good job and become more of a coach and mentor rather than a micro-manager. Let
them make mistakes and learn from them so that they can grow into the job and ultimately be a more valuable employee.
Put your ego to one side, concentrate on the strategic ownership issues and hire people with great attitudes and
complementary skills to your own. If you can do this, your business will perform better and, like Bob, you will have more
fun.
Many business owners believe that they should have an answer for every question and a solution for every problem
regarding their business. After all they are the owner. However, just because you own the business does not make you the
font of all knowledge.
One way to get away from this mindset is to recognize the difference between management issues and ownership issues.
Management issues are the daily, weekly and monthly things that must be done to ensure the smooth running of the business.
This ranges from staffing the business to cope with seasonal variations to stock control to taking orders and chasing up debts.
All of the daily processes that you need for the successful operation of the business come under management issues. If these
are executed effectively, then your business will make a profit and you will be able to pay dividends to the shareholders and
also reinvest in the business.
Ownership issues are the things that only an owner can do. They tend to be more strategic and might include dealing with the
bank or finance company to make sure that the business has enough capital to grow. Negotiating on suitable freehold or
leasehold premises for the business to operate out of. Maintaining relationships with other owners or investors in the
business. Deciding on future strategy and creating a compelling vision of the future. Last but most importantly looking for
talented people with great attitudes to join the business and help to serve your customers. Without great people it is difficult
to differentiate your business from your competition, so this should be a high priority for any owner.
If you can focus on your strengths and do what you are passionate about, while surrounding yourself with people who have
complementary skills to your own, then you will be amazed how much better the business will perform and how much more
fun you will have, too.
A great example of this was a guy called Bob. He ran a small hardware store in a rural town in Colorado. Bob was an
amazing sales person and just loved meeting new people and talking about all the different products in his store. He showed
a genuine interest in helping people to find exactly what they were looking for and at a price they could afford. He was so
good at doing this that his business grew for five years consecutively. Then Bob found himself doing more administration in
his small office and less selling. His business stopped growing and he became miserable and started dreading going to work
in the morning. Finally, one morning his wife said to him, “Honey what are you doing? Why don’t you go out and hire
someone else to do the paperwork so that you can get back to selling?”
Thankfully after the pep talk from his wife, that is exactly what Bob did. He started spending more time selling again and
meeting his customers face to face. The business made more money and Bob had a lot more fun.
Just remember one thing. Once you have taken the time to go out and find great people to work for your business, don’t
meddle with their jobs. If you do meddle, your employees will either not perform to their best ability or get frustrated and
leave. Learn to trust your people to do a good job and become more of a coach and mentor rather than a micro-manager. Let
them make mistakes and learn from them so that they can grow into the job and ultimately be a more valuable employee.
Put your ego to one side, concentrate on the strategic ownership issues and hire people with great attitudes and
complementary skills to your own. If you can do this, your business will perform better and, like Bob, you will have more
fun.
ANOTHER SOURCE
I’ve worked with a number of businesses – both family-owned businesses and non-family partnerships – over the years and
found this to ring true: The ones that were very intentional about setting clear expectations and boundaries around the
separation between ownership (those who direct the long-term vision) and management (those who direct the day-to-day
execution) were undoubtedly the most profitable, the least drama filled and the most efficient.
Why? In my experience, it’s because everyone in the organization, from the frontline employee to the mid-level manager to
the CEO, had a very clear picture and understanding of who was responsible for what, how each individual fit into the big
picture of what the organization was trying to accomplish and how they were expected to behave.
So, to understand what clear expectations regarding the separation of ownership and management look like when put into
practice, it is helpful to define what those expectations entail by contrasting the rights, responsibilities and benefits between
the two (Table 1).

Ownership rights
As an owner of a company, you essentially have two explicit rights. First, it is your right to define your individual return on
investment expectations. It’s your money, and you determine what you expect a reasonable return to be. Second, it is your
right as a provider of capital to the business to decide whether or not to continue to invest that capital in the business. To put
it more bluntly, do you continue to own the business (or your shares in the business) or sell the business (or your shares in
the business)? Pretty simple really; stay in or get out.
Ownership responsibilities
If, as an owner, you choose to “stay in,” your responsibilities may vary depending upon the size, complexity and formality of
the ownership/governance structure. If the company is structured as a sole proprietorship, or if you are actively involved in a
business with formal board governance procedures in place (i.e., a board member), you as an owner are expected to be
involved in:
 Defining the vision, values and long-term direction of the company
 Hiring and firing the top management positions within the organization, including the chief executive officer,
president, general manager, etc.
  Setting strategy around capital allocation, lines of business, asset sales/purchases and resources that will be
provided to management in pursuit of the defined strategy
 Setting company policy around employment, compensation, dividends and capital purchases
Ownership benefits
As an owner, the only explicit benefit a company should provide to you is a return on the capital you invested in the
business. That’s it, and that’s all. A tank of gas here and a trip to the Bahamas paid for by the business there – all that’s
going to do is sow seeds of doubt and discontent, so avoid it at all costs. That said, in larger companies with formal board
governance procedures, owners who are selected to serve as board members are often provided monetary compensation for
their time, talent and energy in service of the company in the form of a daily or monthly stipend. This is reasonable and fair
as long as it’s provided “above board” and commensurate with an individual’s contribution to governance.
On the other hand, management rights, responsibilities and benefits are defined as the following:
Management rights
Your individual rights as a member of the management team within a business are fairly simple:
1. Establish your individual career and compensation expectations.
2. Decide whether or not your continued investment of time, talent and energy into the business are in alignment with your
personal expectations for career and compensation. If so, stay. If not, you might want to consider an alternative career path.
Management responsibilities
As a member of the management team within a business, your number-one priority is people. Your most important
management role is to hire the right people, give direction to the right people, develop the right people, reward
the right people, promote the right people and, if necessary, repurpose the wrong people. As a member of management, it is
your understanding and use of the business vision and values that determines who the right people are. Again, ownership
defines the vision, values and long-term direction of the company; management uses that vision, those values and that long-
term direction as the selection criteria for people. Once the right people are on the team, it is then management’s job to direct
the use of resources – both people and otherwise – in pursuit of the strategy that was defined by ownership. It is
management’s responsibility to execute the day-to-day management of the company in accordance with company policy,
which again was determined by the ownership. Ownership sets direction. Management then invests their time, talent and
energy – in combination with the corporate resources provided by ownership – to execute strategy within the boundaries that
have been predefined by ownership. Ownership determines the ends; management determines the means.
Management benefits
Whereas owners are compensated according to the amount of capital invested in the business and the relative success of the
business, management should be compensated at a level commensurate for the exchange of time, talent, energy and results
achieved. Management compensation is almost always provided in the form of an annual salary, bonuses tied to the
achievement of company goals, benefits and other perquisites. When it comes to management compensation, an employee’s
ownership status should have zero bearing on the level of management reward. In healthy companies, the degree of
leadership experience, technical aptitude, level of responsibility and the ability to lead teams toward the achievement of
desired outcomes should always drive the level of management compensation. No exceptions.
In summary, if you’re engaged as both an owner within a business and a manager within a business, do not, I repeat, do not
mix those two distinct conversations. Be mindful during ownership conversations to limit the topics to ownership topics.
When having a management conversation, again be mindful to limit the topics to management topics. Don’t mix
conversations, and be as explicit as you possibly can regarding an individual’s rights, responsibilities and benefits as it
pertains to the role of owner versus the role of manager.
In my experience, where most businesses create unnecessary drama, noise, conflict, bickering and infighting is when
members of ownership overstep their boundaries and start meddling in management decisions or when members of
management overstep their boundaries and start making ownership-level decisions.

CONCEPT OF MAJORITY VS. MINORITY INTEREST

Broadly speaking, Directors are the people who have day-to-day control of a company whereas shareholders are the people
who own the company. However, shareholders also play a pivotal role in the decision-making processes of a company and
have the ultimate power to make key decisions. Shareholders can be broadly categorised into two groups: minority
shareholders and majority shareholders. Understanding the dynamics between these two groups is crucial for maintaining a
healthy and harmonious corporate environment. One of the key tools for managing these relationships is a shareholders'
agreement.
Minority shareholders, as the name suggests, own a smaller portion of a company's shares, typically less than 50%. Majority
shareholders, on the other hand, own more than 50% of the shares and thus have the power to make key decisions within the
company. This power balance can sometimes create tensions and conflicts within the organisation.
This is where a shareholders' agreement comes into play. It is a legally binding contract that outlines the rights and
responsibilities of all shareholders, regardless of their ownership percentage. Here's why such an agreement is essential:
 Protection for Minority Shareholders: A shareholders' agreement can safeguard the rights of minority shareholders. It can
include provisions that require the consent of both majority and minority shareholders for significant decisions. This ensures
that minority shareholders are not steamrolled in critical matters.
Decision-Making Processes: The agreement can clearly define the decision-making processes, including voting rights and
quorum requirements. This transparency helps in resolving disputes and avoiding misunderstandings.
Exit Strategies: In cases where a shareholder wants to sell their stake or exit the company, the agreement can stipulate the
procedures and terms of sale, including any rights of first refusal for existing shareholders.
Dispute Resolution: To prevent conflicts from escalating, shareholders' agreements can establish mechanisms for resolving
disputes, such as arbitration or mediation, instead of costly and time-consuming litigation.
Protection of Intellectual Property: If a shareholder contributes intellectual property or proprietary assets to the company,
the agreement can outline the terms of use and protection of these assets.
Confidentiality and Non-Compete Clauses: The agreement can include clauses that protect the company's sensitive
information and prevent shareholders from engaging in competing businesses.
In conclusion, a shareholders' agreement is a vital document for any company, regardless of its size. It provides a clear
framework for the rights and responsibilities of all shareholders, ensuring that both minority and majority shareholders are
protected and that the company can operate smoothly and harmoniously. When setting up a new business or revisiting the
structure of an existing one, it's wise to consult with legal professionals to create a customised shareholders' agreement that
suits the unique needs of your company. This document can be the key to preventing conflicts, protecting investments, and
fostering a healthy corporate environment.
Understanding Minority and Majority Interest
Understanding Minority
Understanding Minority and Majority Interest

When it comes to ownership and control of a company, minority and majority interests are two crucial concepts that every
investor should know. Minority interest refers to the ownership stake in a company that is less than 50% while majority
interest refers to ownership of more than 50%. Understanding these two interests is essential because they have a significant
impact on the decision-making process in a company.

1. Minority Interest
Minority interest is a minority shareholder's ownership stake in a company that is less than 50%. Minority shareholders have
limited control over the company and may not have voting rights. They are not involved in the day-to-day operations of the
company, and they have no say in the decisions made by the majority shareholders. However, minority shareholders are
entitled to dividends and have the right to sell their shares if they wish to exit the company.
2. Majority Interest
Majority interest, on the other hand, is an ownership stake of more than 50% in a company. Majority shareholders have the
power to control the company's decisions, including the appointment of directors, the adoption of resolutions, and the
distribution of profits. They have the right to vote on important issues and can overrule the minority shareholders' opinions.
Majority shareholders have a greater say in the company's day-to-day operations and can make decisions without consulting
the minority shareholders.
3. Advantages of Minority Interest
One of the advantages of minority interest is that it allows investors to diversify their investments. Investors can invest in
multiple companies and spread their risks. Minority shareholders also have limited liability, which means that they are not
personally liable for the company's debts and obligations. They can only lose the amount they have invested in the company.
4. Advantages of Majority Interest
The advantage of majority interest is that it gives the shareholder more control over the company. Majority shareholders can
make decisions that are in the best interest of the company without being overruled by the minority shareholders. They can
also make decisions quickly and efficiently, which can be crucial in a fast-paced business environment.
5. Minority Interest vs. Majority Interest
When it comes to investing in a company, both minority and majority interests have their advantages and disadvantages.
Minority interest is less risky, but it also provides less control over the company. Majority interest provides more control, but
it also involves more risks. Investors should carefully consider their investment goals and risk tolerance before deciding
whether to invest in a minority or majority interest.
Understanding minority and majority interest is crucial for investors who are looking to invest in a company. Both interests
have their advantages and disadvantages, and investors should carefully consider their investment goals and risk tolerance
before making a decision. Ultimately, the best option depends on the investor's individual circumstances, investment goals,
and risk tolerance.
Understanding Minority and Majority Interest - Minority Interest vs: Majority Interest: A Comparative Analysis
2. Definition and Characteristics
When it comes to ownership in a business, there are two types of interests: minority interest and majority interest. Minority
interest refers to the ownership stake held by individuals or entities that own less than 50% of the company's outstanding
shares. In other words, minority interest is any ownership stake that is less than a controlling interest. Minority interest can
be held by individuals, other companies, or even the public. In this section, we will discuss the definition and characteristics
of minority interest.
1. Definition of Minority Interest
Minority interest is defined as the ownership of less than 50% of a company's outstanding shares. This means that the
individuals or entities that hold a minority interest in a company do not have control over the company's decisions. The
decision-making power lies with the majority owners, who own more than 50% of the company's outstanding shares.
2. Characteristics of Minority Interest
Minority interest has several characteristics that distinguish it from majority interest. These characteristics include:
A. Lack of Control: Minority interest holders do not have control over the company's decisions. They cannot make decisions
on behalf of the company or vote on important matters such as mergers and acquisitions.
B. Limited Voting Rights: Minority interest holders have limited voting rights. They can only vote on matters that require a
simple majority vote, such as electing a board of directors.
C. Limited Dividend Rights: Minority interest holders have limited dividend rights. They only receive a portion of the
company's profits based on the percentage of their ownership stake.
D. Limited Liability: Minority interest holders have limited liability. They are only responsible for the amount of their
investment in the company and are not liable for any debts or liabilities incurred by the company.
3. Examples of Minority Interest
Minority interest can be held by individuals, other companies, or even the public. Here are some examples of minority
interest:
A. Individual Investors: An individual investor who owns less than 50% of a company's outstanding shares holds a minority
interest in the company.
B. Strategic Investors: A company that invests in another company but does not have a controlling interest holds a minority
interest in the company.
C. Public Shareholders: The public shareholders who own less than 50% of a company's outstanding shares hold a minority
interest in the company.
4. Best Option for Minority Interest Holders
For minority interest holders, the best option is to negotiate for certain rights and protections in the company's operating
agreement. This can include provisions that ensure the minority interest holder has a say in important decisions or
protections against dilution of their ownership stake. Minority interest holders can also seek to increase their ownership stake
through additional investments or by acquiring shares from other shareholders.
Minority interest refers to the ownership stake held by individuals or entities that own less than 50% of a company's
outstanding shares. Minority interest has several characteristics that distinguish it from majority interest, including lack of
control, limited voting and dividend rights, and limited liability. For minority interest holders, negotiating for certain rights
and protections in the company's operating agreement and seeking to increase their ownership stake can be the best options.
Definition and Characteristics - Minority Interest vs: Majority Interest: A Comparative Analysis
3. Definition and Characteristics
When it comes to corporate governance, majority interest refers to the ownership of more than 50% of the total shares of a
company. Majority shareholders have significant influence over the company's decision-making processes, including the
selection of the board of directors, appointment of executive officers, and approval of major business decisions. In this
section, we will discuss the definition and characteristics of majority interest in more detail.
1. Definition of Majority Interest
Majority interest is defined as the ownership of more than 50% of the total shares of a company. This means that majority
shareholders have control over the company's operations and decisions. They have the power to elect the board of directors
and make important business decisions, such as mergers and acquisitions, stock issuances, and dividend payments.
2. Characteristics of Majority Interest
The following are the primary characteristics of majority interest:
A. Control: Majority shareholders have control over the company's operations and decisions. They can make important
business decisions, such as mergers and acquisitions, stock issuances, and dividend payments.
B. Power: Majority shareholders have the power to elect the board of directors and appoint executive officers. They can also
remove directors and officers if they are not satisfied with their performance.
C. Influence: Majority shareholders have significant influence over the company's decision-making processes. They can
lobby the board of directors and executive officers to make decisions that are in their best interest.
D. Dividends: Majority shareholders have the right to receive dividends from the company. They can also decide to reinvest
their dividends back into the company or use them for personal purposes.
3. Examples of Majority Interest
Let's take the example of a publicly traded company with 100 million outstanding shares. If one shareholder owns 51 million
shares, they would have a majority interest in the company. This means that they would have control over the company's
operations and decisions.
Another example is a privately held company with three shareholders. If one shareholder owns 51% of the company's shares,
they would have a majority interest in the company. This means that they would have control over the company's operations
and decisions.
4. Comparison of Majority Interest and Minority Interest
Majority interest and minority interest are two different forms of ownership in a company. Majority interest refers to the
ownership of more than 50% of the total shares of a company, while minority interest refers to the ownership of less than
50% of the total shares of a company.
Majority shareholders have control over the company's operations and decisions, while minority shareholders have limited
control. Majority shareholders can make important business decisions, such as mergers and acquisitions, stock issuances, and
dividend payments, while minority shareholders cannot.
Majority interest is an important concept in corporate governance. Majority shareholders have significant influence over the
company's decision-making processes and can make important business decisions. It is important for investors to understand
the definition and characteristics of majority interest when investing in a company.
Definition and Characteristics - Minority Interest vs: Majority Interest: A Comparative Analysis
4. Differences in Decision-Making Processes
When it comes to decision-making processes, there are significant differences between minority and majority interests.
Majority interests, as the name suggests, refer to the interests of the majority of stakeholders or decision-makers involved in
a particular situation, whereas minority interests refer to the interests of a smaller group of stakeholders or decision-makers.
Understanding the differences in decision-making processes between minority and majority interests is crucial for making
informed decisions that benefit all parties involved.
1. Power dynamics
One of the primary differences in decision-making processes between minority and majority interests lies in the power
dynamics at play. In majority interest scenarios, the power dynamics tend to be skewed in favor of the majority stakeholders,
which can result in decisions that prioritize their interests over those of the minority. In contrast, minority interest scenarios
tend to have more balanced power dynamics, as the smaller group of stakeholders has more of a say in the decision-making
process.

2. Consensus vs. Compromise

Another significant difference between decision-making processes in minority and majority interests is the approach to
reaching a decision. In majority interest scenarios, decisions are often made through a process of consensus, where all
stakeholders must agree on a course of action before it is implemented. In contrast, minority interest scenarios tend to
involve more compromise, where the smaller group of stakeholders must often compromise on their interests in order to
reach a decision that benefits the larger group.
3. Timeframe
The timeframe for decision-making is also a key difference between minority and majority interests. In majority interest
scenarios, decisions are often made quickly, as the larger group of stakeholders can move forward with a decision once a
consensus has been reached. In contrast, minority interest scenarios tend to take longer to reach a decision, as the smaller
group of stakeholders must work to ensure their interests are adequately represented and considered.
4. Impact on stakeholders
Finally, the impact of decisions on stakeholders is a crucial difference between minority and majority interests. In majority
interest scenarios, decisions may not always consider the interests of all stakeholders, which can result in negative
consequences for some groups. In contrast, minority interest scenarios tend to prioritize the interests of all stakeholders
involved, as the smaller group of decision-makers must work to ensure that all perspectives are taken into account.
Overall, the best approach to decision-making will depend on the specific situation at hand. While majority interest scenarios
may be more efficient in some cases, minority interest scenarios may be more effective in ensuring that all stakeholders are
adequately represented and considered. Ultimately, it is up to decision-makers to weigh the pros and cons of each approach
and determine the best course of action for their particular situation.
Differences in Decision Making Processes - Minority Interest vs: Majority Interest: A Comparative Analysis
5. Power Dynamics and Influence
Power dynamics and influence play a significant role in the relationship between minority interest and majority interest. In
any organization, there are various levels of power dynamics, and each level has different types of influence. understanding
power dynamics and influence is essential to navigate through the complex relationships between minority and majority
interests.
1. Types of Power Dynamics
There are different types of power dynamics, including formal power, informal power, and perceived power. Formal power
is the power that comes with a person's position in the organization. Informal power is the power that comes from
relationships and networks. Perceived power is the power that people believe someone else has, regardless of whether it is
true or not.
2. Sources of Influence
Influence is the ability to affect the behavior of others. There are different sources of influence, including expertise,
authority, persuasion, and social proof. Expertise is the influence that comes from knowledge and skills. Authority is the
influence that comes from a person's position in the organization. Persuasion is the influence that comes from convincing
others to do something. social proof is the influence that comes from the behavior of others.
3. Impact of Power Dynamics and Influence
Power dynamics and influence have a significant impact on the relationship between minority and majority interests. The
minority interest may have less formal power, but they can still have informal power and perceived power. The majority
interest may have more formal power, but they may not have the same level of expertise or social proof as the minority
interest. Understanding the impact of power dynamics and influence can help both minority and majority interests work
together effectively.
4. Best Practices for navigating Power dynamics and Influence
To navigate power dynamics and influence, it is essential to build relationships, understand each other's strengths and
weaknesses, and communicate effectively. Building relationships allows people to establish informal power and social proof.
Understanding each other's strengths and weaknesses allows people to leverage their expertise and authority. Effective
communication ensures that everyone is on the same page and working towards the same goals.
5. Examples of Successful Navigating of Power Dynamics and Influence
One example of successful navigation of power dynamics and influence is the partnership between Apple and Intel. Apple
had more perceived power than Intel, but Intel had more expertise. By working together, they were able to create a
successful partnership that benefited both companies. Another example is the partnership between Nike and Michael Jordan.
Michael Jordan had more perceived power than Nike, but Nike had more authority. By working together, they were able to
create a successful partnership that revolutionized the sports industry.
Power dynamics and influence are critical factors to consider when navigating the relationship between minority and
majority interests. By understanding the different types of power dynamics, sources of influence, and impact of power
dynamics and influence, people can work together effectively. Building relationships, understanding each other's strengths
and weaknesses, and effective communication are essential best practices for navigating power dynamics and influence.
Successful examples of navigating power dynamics and influence include the partnerships between Apple and Intel and Nike
and Michael Jordan.
Power Dynamics and Influence - Minority Interest vs: Majority Interest: A Comparative Analysis
6. Financial Implications for Minority and Majority Interest
When it comes to minority and majority interest, there are distinct financial implications for both parties. Minority interest
refers to an ownership stake in a company that is less than 50%, while majority interest refers to ownership of more than
50%. Depending on the type of business and the specific circumstances, the financial implications can vary significantly. In
this section, we will explore the financial implications for both minority and majority interest.
1. Dividends
One of the most significant financial implications for minority and majority interest is the payment of dividends. Dividends
are payments made to shareholders as a portion of the company's profits. If a company is profitable and chooses to pay
dividends, the amount paid is typically proportional to the shareholder's ownership stake in the company. For minority
shareholders, this can mean a smaller payout compared to majority shareholders. In some cases, minority shareholders may
not receive any dividends at all.
2. Voting Rights
Another financial implication for minority and majority interest is voting rights. Majority shareholders have a significant
advantage when it comes to voting on company decisions. They can often control the outcome of shareholder votes and
influence the direction of the company. Minority shareholders may have limited voting power, which can limit their ability
to impact company decisions. This can be particularly problematic if minority shareholders disagree with the direction the
company is going.
3. Valuation
The valuation of a company can also have financial implications for minority and majority interest. Minority shareholders
may have difficulty selling their shares at a fair price if the company is not doing well or if there is limited interest from
potential buyers. On the other hand, majority shareholders may be able to sell their shares at a premium if the company is
performing well and there is high demand from buyers.
4. Control
Control over the company is another important financial implication for minority and majority interest. Majority
shareholders have the ability to make decisions about the company's direction and strategy. Minority shareholders, however,
may not have the same level of control. This can be particularly problematic if the majority shareholders make decisions that
are not in the best interest of the minority shareholders.
5. Risk
Finally, there are financial implications for both minority and majority interest when it comes to risk. Minority shareholders
may be more exposed to risk if the company is not doing well. They may not have the same ability to influence the direction
of the company or to mitigate risk. On the other hand, majority shareholders may have more control over the company's risk
management strategy.
Overall, the financial implications for minority and majority interest are significant and complex. Depending on the specific
circumstances, one party may have a significant advantage over the other. It is important for both minority and majority
shareholders to understand these implications and to make informed decisions about their ownership stake in a company.
Financial Implications for Minority and Majority Interest - Minority Interest vs: Majority Interest: A Comparative Analysis
7. Legal Protections for Minority Interest
Legal protections
When it comes to minority interest, legal protections play a crucial role in ensuring that the rights of minority shareholders
are upheld. Minority shareholders often face challenges in decision-making processes and are often outnumbered by their
majority counterparts. Therefore, legal protections are necessary to prevent the majority from abusing their power and to
ensure that minority shareholders are treated fairly.
1. Shareholder Agreements
One way to protect minority interest is through shareholder agreements. This is a legal document that outlines the rights and
obligations of each shareholder. It can be used to restrict the powers of the majority shareholders and to ensure that minority
shareholders are not disadvantaged in decision-making processes. For example, a shareholder agreement can specify that
certain decisions require the approval of all shareholders, including minority shareholders.
2. Board Representation
Another way to protect minority interest is by ensuring that minority shareholders have board representation. This means
that minority shareholders are represented on the board of directors, which gives them a say in decision-making processes.
Board representation can be achieved through the appointment of independent directors or through the allocation of board
seats to minority shareholders. This ensures that minority shareholders have a voice in the company's affairs and can protect
their interests.
3. Voting Rights
Voting rights are also important in protecting minority interest. Minority shareholders should have the right to vote on
important decisions that affect the company. This ensures that their interests are taken into account and that they have a say
in the company's affairs. One way to protect minority voting rights is through the use of weighted voting, which gives
minority shareholders more voting power than their shares would otherwise allow.
4. Appraisal Rights
Appraisal rights are another legal protection for minority shareholders. This gives minority shareholders the right to have
their shares appraised and to receive fair value for their shares in the event of certain corporate actions, such as mergers or
acquisitions. This ensures that minority shareholders are not unfairly disadvantaged by corporate actions that may be
detrimental to their interests.
5. Derivative Actions
Finally, derivative actions can be used to protect minority interest. This allows minority shareholders to bring legal action
against the company's directors or officers on behalf of the company. This can be used to challenge decisions that are
detrimental to the company and its shareholders, including minority shareholders.
Legal protections are essential in protecting the rights of minority shareholders. Shareholder agreements, board
representation, voting rights, appraisal rights, and derivative actions are all important legal protections that can be used to
ensure that minority shareholders are treated fairly and that their interests are protected. Companies should consider
implementing these legal protections to ensure that minority shareholders are not unfairly disadvantaged.
Legal Protections for Minority Interest - Minority Interest vs: Majority Interest: A Comparative Analysis
8. Examples of Minority and Majority Interest
In the world of business, there are two types of shareholders: minority shareholders and majority shareholders. Minority
shareholders are those who own less than 50% of the company's shares, while majority shareholders own more than 50%.
Both types of shareholders have different rights and responsibilities, which can lead to conflicts between them. In this
section, we will discuss some case studies that illustrate the differences between minority and majority interest.
1. Case Study: Tesla Inc.
Tesla Inc. Is a company that designs and manufactures electric cars and renewable energy products. The company's founder,
Elon Musk, is the majority shareholder, owning approximately 20% of the company's shares. In 2018, Musk tweeted about
taking Tesla private, which caused the company's share price to skyrocket. However, this tweet also led to a lawsuit from the
securities and Exchange commission (SEC), which accused Musk of misleading investors.
In this case, Musk's majority interest allowed him to make decisions without consulting the company's board of directors or
other shareholders. However, his actions also had consequences for the company and its minority shareholders. The SEC
lawsuit caused the company's share price to drop, which affected all shareholders.
2. Case Study: Snap Inc.
Snap Inc. Is a social media company that owns the app Snapchat. The company went public in 2017, and its founders, Evan
Spiegel and Bobby Murphy, retained majority control of the company through a dual-class share structure. This structure
gave them 10 votes per share, while other shareholders had only one vote per share.
In this case, the founders' majority interest allowed them to make decisions without consulting other shareholders. However,
this structure also caused controversy, as some investors believed it gave too much power to the founders. In 2019, Snap Inc.
Changed its voting structure to give all shareholders an equal vote, which was seen as a win for minority shareholders.
3. Case Study: Facebook Inc.
Facebook Inc. Is a social media company that went public in 2012. The company's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, retained
majority control of the company through a dual-class share structure. This structure gave him 10 votes per share, while other
shareholders had only one vote per share.
In this case, Zuckerberg's majority interest allowed him to make decisions without consulting other shareholders. However,
this structure also caused controversy, as some investors believed it gave too much power to Zuckerberg. In 2019, Facebook
Inc. Faced criticism for its handling of user data, which led to calls for Zuckerberg to step down as CEO. However, due to
his majority interest, he was able to retain his position.
Insights
1. Majority interest allows for greater control over the company's decisions, but it also carries greater responsibility for the
company's performance.
2. Minority interest may have limited control over the company's decisions, but it also has the right to be heard and to
receive information about the company's operations.
3. Dual-class share structures can give founders and majority shareholders disproportionate control over the company, which
may be seen as unfair by minority shareholders.
4. shareholders can use their voting rights to influence the company's decisions, but this requires cooperation and
coordination among minority shareholders.
5. Conflicts between minority and majority shareholders can arise when there are divergent interests or goals.
Comparison
In comparing the case studies discussed above, it is clear that there are both advantages and disadvantages to having minority
or majority interest in a company. While majority interest allows for greater control over the company's decisions, it also
carries greater responsibility for the company's performance. Minority interest may have limited control over the company's
decisions, but it also has the right to be heard and to receive information about the company's operations.
Overall, it is important for companies to strike a balance between the interests of minority and majority shareholders. Dual-
class share structures can be beneficial for founders and majority shareholders, but they can also be seen as unfair by
minority shareholders. Ultimately, companies should aim to create a fair and transparent governance structure that takes into
account the interests of all shareholders.
Examples of Minority and Majority Interest - Minority Interest vs: Majority Interest: A Comparative Analysis
9. Choosing the Right Type of Interest for Your Business
Interest What s Best for Your Business
After analyzing the differences between minority interest and majority interest, it is important to choose the right type of
interest for your business. This decision can have a significant impact on the success and growth of your organization. There
are different types of interest that can be considered, such as controlling interest, voting interest, and economic interest. Each
type has its own advantages and disadvantages, and it is essential to evaluate them before making a decision.
1. Controlling Interest: This type of interest gives the holder the power to make decisions and control the operations of the
business. It usually requires a majority stake in the company, which can range from 50% to 100%. Controlling interest is
beneficial for those who want to have a significant say in the direction of the business and its operations. However, it can
also be risky if the holder does not have the necessary skills and experience to manage the company effectively.
2. Voting Interest: This type of interest gives the holder the right to vote on important matters related to the business, such as
electing the board of directors and approving mergers and acquisitions. It does not necessarily require a majority stake in the
company, as the number of votes can be determined by the company's bylaws. Voting interest is beneficial for those who
want to have a say in the company's decisions without assuming the risk of controlling interest.
3. Economic Interest: This type of interest gives the holder the right to receive a portion of the profits generated by the
business. It does not necessarily require any voting or controlling rights. Economic interest is beneficial for those who want
to invest in the business without assuming any operational responsibilities.
When choosing the right type of interest for your business, it is important to consider the following factors:
- Your goals and objectives for the business
- Your level of experience and expertise in managing a business
- The level of risk you are willing to assume
- The amount of capital you are willing to invest
- The legal and regulatory requirements in your industry
For example, if you want to have complete control over the business and have the necessary skills and experience to manage it effectively,
then controlling interest may be the best option for you. On the other hand, if you want to invest in the business without assuming any
operational responsibilities, then economic interest may be the best option.
Choosing the right type of interest for your business is a critical decision that can impact its success and growth. It is essential to evaluate
the advantages and disadvantages of each type of interest and consider your goals and objectives for the business. By doing so, you can
make an informed decision that aligns with your vision for the company.
Choosing the Right Type of Interest for Your Business - Minority Interest vs: Majority Interest: A Comparative Analysis