This argument is false in the general case. It can weaken a company to have given away too much stock early on, because then there's not enough left to raise money and hire people with. If horsecaptin owned 80% of the company rather than 8%, for example, the company would be damaged goods, and investors would avoid it unless it had truly stupendous growth.

This is one reason spinoffs rarely work.

The argument for horsecaptin keeping the stock is that while 80% makes the company damaged goods, 8% may not.