In fact, the "partner system" is a shell made by Ali for listing in Hong Kong, which has made Ali and the Hong Kong Securities Regulatory Commission have a step. Unexpectedly, the Hong Kong Securities Regulatory Commission insisted on maintaining the principle of "the same shares and the same rights", which made Ali's listing in Hong Kong unsuccessful. Then, what is the essential difference between "partner system" and dual ownership or triple ownership structure? That is to say, in the "partner system", most of the directors of the board of directors of listed companies are nominated by a partner group composed of elderly people inside Alibaba, rather than allocating board seats according to the number of shares. Dual ownership structure means that an enterprise can issue two kinds of shares with different voting rights, and the holders of the same share enjoy different rights. For example, compared with ordinary investors, the voting rights of stocks held by enterprise management may be 10 to 1. The two are so similar in essence, both share different rights, and their functions are to enable the management to always control the company. For ordinary investors, they are all overlord clauses.

Interestingly, although the dual ownership structure is a overlord clause, it was born in the American economic society that clamored for fairness all day. This has a historical origin. The dual ownership structure originated from the media industry. For those families who control many newspaper companies, their theoretical basis is that the authenticity and objectivity of news can not be interfered, so it is necessary to avoid the company being manipulated by capital through the dual shareholding structure. But later, the dual ownership structure became popular in high-tech enterprises as a means for management to pursue power and achieve the goals of small groups.

The evil side of the dual ownership structure is obvious, because under this ownership structure, the management has greater rights than the board of directors. Once the management abuses its power, the general shareholders have little choice but to sell their shares. There may be special reasons for the media industry to choose the dual ownership structure, but once a precedent is set, the dual ownership structure is no longer limited to the media industry, but has become a means for management in many industries to pursue power and achieve greedy goals, especially in high-tech industries. In a company like Facebook, management and venture capital are integrated, and a dual shareholding structure was established before listing, at the expense of the rights and interests of later investors. In the process of Alibaba's listing, Softbank and Yahoo, eager to cash out, also made the same choice. Here, Chinese and foreign capitals have shown their cold-blooded evil side.

It is doubtful that in the dual ownership structure, the founders or management of the company only provide a small part of the capital, but enjoy much more control than the expected capital, and once they make a wrong decision, they only need to bear little responsibility. How does the "partner system" avoid this?

Enterprises with dual ownership structure have good excuses. For example, this time, Ma Yun said that the partnership system was established to uphold and inherit Alibaba's culture of openness, innovation, responsibility and long-term development. The management of the enterprise said that the dual ownership structure has its institutional advantages, aiming at the long-term development of the company, higher management efficiency, faster development speed and the fundamental interests of shareholders, but didn't the dictator say so?