There are a ton of reasons for the price to be "wrong" if a particular practice is unusual or new. Markets only function as well as the people involved in them. If the people are all acting (unwittingly) on incomplete, incorrect, or insufficient information, then one would expect there to be risks that haven't been "priced in".
roel_v|10 years ago
It doesn't mean that the non (or lesser) voting shares are priced wrong; in fact, by definition, they are priced at what the market values them.
Also, different classes of shares aren't exactly 'new' or 'unusual'. http://www.slideshare.net/nimishhalkar/a-brief-history-of-pr... claims that the first preferential shares were issued in 1836 (yes, it's a different kind of 'preferential' than what we're talking about, but it's still a species of the genus 'share differentiation') E.g. they're a very common vehicle for structuring profit sharing in several civil law jurisdictions I happen to know of.
glesica|10 years ago
The parenthetical in my original comment was important. If everyone thinks they know what is going on, and they're all wrong, then the price isn't a good reflection of reality.