Sharing shares equally seems to be the best from the immediate human feelings, but it is the worst from the perspective of equity distribution. Two people share the same shares and power, and neither of them has the final decision-making power. This highly balanced ownership structure is most likely to lead to conflicts and control disputes, because two people can't always agree.
Any organization needs a core person to lead. Therefore, when two people start a business in partnership, they must not each hold 50% of the shares, but one big and one small, one strong and one weak, for example, 80% to 20%, 70% to 30%, or 60% to 40%, so as to ensure the status of the core shareholders, everything will be orderly and the company will develop healthily.
related data
As to how to realize overall control, the company law is traditionally defined on the basis of equity ratio. For example, holding 67% of the shares is deemed as absolute holding, which has the advantage of complete right to speak, 565,438+0% is deemed as relative adjudication right, and 34% is deemed as decision requester. Unless otherwise agreed in the articles of association and partnership agreement, holding 67% of the company's shares can basically achieve absolute dictatorship in any decision. Because the standard version of the Articles of Association and the Company Law stipulates that "major decisions must obtain 2/3 votes", 67% is just above 2/3 voting rights.
If the problem of how to distribute the equity of the two-person partnership company is not handled well at the beginning, it is likely to bury hidden dangers for future entrepreneurial failure. In the "honeymoon period" when starting a business, there may not be too many disputes between friends. As the saying goes, it can be bitter, but it is hard to be sweet. Especially when the venture reaches a certain stage and is basically on the right track, differences are most likely to occur. If no one in this entrepreneurial team has absolute control, no one will be convinced, and the final result may be to go their separate ways, leading to entrepreneurial failure.