While I get your point about volatility, I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that large companies ought to have absolute control over who owns their shares. That's fundamentally contrary to the idea of open markets, and sets up too much potential for abuse. It's not hard to envision a marketplace where pervasive use of this technique concentrates wealth even further than it already is.
> It's not hard to envision a marketplace where pervasive use of this technique concentrates wealth even further than it already is.
Don't see how that follows. If you are restricting the market to only a fixed number of sellers, you are leaving a potentially significant amount of money on the table.
You're doing that to prevent the abuse of your company's shares by investors, who generally have more money than you do.
Imagine if you didn't have the right to turn down a VC who only wanted to put in money once you got hot, and then came to your board meetings as a shareholder and caused problems. Or to be criminally responsible if an accountant somewhere in your organization makes an error. That's what it is to be a public company in the post-Sarbox/Finreg US. This is about protecting the entrepreneur, not about protecting the old money.
