Control is obviously closely linked to share ownership, in the sense that where ownership is over a certain threshold you will be able to exercise a much greater degree of control than below that threshold. For example, the 51/49% split, but also, in the UK, where you have power of veto over major decisions requiring a special resolution with 25% or more.
However, I would be interested here to understand how two people with different shareholdings are able to exercise equivalent levels of control (again on the assumption that each share attracts one vote).
This assumes that control is being assessed on a pure basis without taking into consideration the psychology at play between different shareholders.
Let me know if the ABC example didn't get the job done. The core insight is to understand that it doesn't matter how high the result is. 51% wins just as well as 85%. So how much you win by is irrelevant.
No, that's fine. Actually I had initially read it as equivalent shareholding giving different control, which was what my query was based on. I then realised the opposite was relayed in the graph, so reversed the position, without realising that this nullified my query. Thanks for your response though.
However, I would be interested here to understand how two people with different shareholdings are able to exercise equivalent levels of control (again on the assumption that each share attracts one vote).
This assumes that control is being assessed on a pure basis without taking into consideration the psychology at play between different shareholders.