The companies still have accountability and hence need to maintain corporate structure. This does not mean capitalism as capitalism is about ownership, not about structure. Your brain is hurting because you are intentionally trying to hide things but I just made it difficult by telling things.
It is just like Bill Gates became billionaire despite not owning Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft owners have 50% share even without Gates share and hence can overrule Gates. Similarly, Google's founders Larry Page & Sergei Brin were recently ousted from company due to difference in their political opinion. This shows how the founders and CEOs despite being rich don't own the company.
Secondly, the heads of any major mercantile establishment will have wealth in large quantity simply because of the structure in which they are made. Moreover, we can see how billionaires in China can get arrested for corruption and jailed for long duration when the government wants to do so. The government does offer partnership type share holding with some people but that is under terms of CPC. So, the billionaires are notional and only to project soft image in the world. The real authority and ownership is the state itself. For example, Jack Ma who allegedly owns Alibaba is actually CPC member and not the real brain. He is just a face to be shown in media while the real ownership and funding behind it is the CPC itself. Jack Ma was not from a rich family and there is no way Alibaba could grow that rapidly just by one man's leadership. If doing things were that easy, everyone would do it.
This is because the ownership of natural resource is unacceptable. Natural resource or technology is never the doing of one man and hence one man or one family can't own them. One can own units of trade like restaurant but owning things like mines & oil fields, banks (heavy influence of state policy and state funding) or technology assets manufacturing units etc which are developed by state funding R&D is unacceptable. Anything which has original source as "god" (natural resource) or "state" (banks & technology) can't be owned by any family. Almost all the families who own these assets do so because sometime in the past, the politicians/state favoured them and granted concessions to own them which technically is corruption. The state sometimes makes laws favouring certain industries, grants tax concessions, gives advances and loans etc and hence helps the capitalists. So,such kind of political patronage is where the problem comes. Since the origin of all capital intensive activity lies in state concessions, the ownership of all capital assets must be the state alone.
The question is about these early investors. How did they get funds to become early investors? What is the source of their funds? The answer is in the history where the family became rich due to state patronage. As a result, the funds which early investors have is actually state funds indirectly. No man is superman that he can do everything himself and become massively rich. It is simply the political connections, favours etc that are responsible for such wealth. That is the exact problem.
