RE:RET vs RET.AWhen you look at Google as an example of a company that has voting and non-voting shares, there is almost no difference between the two. This is because shareholders have confidence that the company is acting in their best interest and so do not prescribe a value to the actual vote itself.
You only see these discrepancies when shareholders are putting a higher value on the voting power itself.. as it confers the ability to take a more active stance and force management and the BoD to take steps they would not otherwise.
I feel that in this case, management has done a decent enough job on the operations side.. let's not be too pessmisc here, but if we had a more activist stance, there could be value unlocked. For example, sell the real estate, leverage up slightly and do a large share buyback. Likely also terminate the family who are taking big salaries and benefits. So probably not going to happen while they control the voting shares!