Who Cares About Majority Ownership Anyway?

I am in favor of entrepreneurs keeping control, because I have seen second rate VS's and others damage startups. Putting a group of doctors in control in a recipe for failure. But there are a couple of huge caveats: you must not let your emotional attachment get in the way of your judgement and you must be able to tell when you are in over your head. Advisors who know more than you do are a must.

OTOH if you need bags of money, you may not have any choice. If you are so lucky as to have competing investors, pick the most savvy group, not the one who takes the least equity.

What a ridiculous article. The majority shareholder votes in the board, who makes all the big decisions, and indirectly makes all the minor decisions because they vote in the executive team. Without majority ownership, a founder can go from being Chairman/CEO and running all aspects of the business to being banned from the premises and prevented from working in the industry or talking to the press. I've seen it happen.

Not all founder-investor relationships are hostile, and the founder isn't always right. But to suggest majority ownership is irrelevant is ludicrous.

Right here