Talk:Public company

message: This article is both concise, reasonable and seemingly accurate to the topic in question. I don't see what else could be said about it, so why is it a stub?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfj001 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those reading the above who might think about looking at the article:  it's not a stub anymore.  John Broughton 17:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a stub? 

message: I came looking for information on the 10-K form, but didn't find it under this, the first topic I jumped to. I was forgetting the specific name of the form I had used in college to research a number of companies. Copied and pasted from Form 10-K on the Wikipedia with a minor edit to remove the redundant definition of the SEC. My first edit, hope all the rules have been satisfied. As an additional note to mods/editors, the See Also links to Private offering and Public offering are broken and perhaps should be removed and a link to relevant forms mentioned in the article added. I am not yet familiar enough with Wikipedia philosophy on these to do this as yet. fugacity 13:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added links to the 10-K 

message: I think that the explanation of why State-owned businesses are named "Public business" is just false. The State supposedly exists for and by the people, and so it represents and owns public things, simply because they are not private.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.85.113.49 (talk • contribs) 
:I noticed this too, and that the article doesn't cover this meaning anyway, so have link to public ownership.  I would construe 'publicly-owned company' to mean the second, and 'publicly-listed company' to mean the first. --Cedderstk 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my point of view, I do not agree with some explanation on this site. I mean, a private company which only issue security notes on the market (e.g. registery on SEC), must report the 10-K form to the SEC and must comply with Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Otherwise, the explanation of public company should be more open, including companies which the shares are held by privete owener and have notes on markets. Hugo Garvett 6 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.171.138 (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this may not be the meaning of the english version of the article, it is the exact (and only) meaning of the portuguese version  linked as a translation, so I'm not sure if that link is correct or not as is. -- Drebes 14 October 2009.  —Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  State-owned businesses 

message: This may be a UK thing, so I am hesitant to change this straight away - but in the UK a "public company" means a company that has "plc" as a suffix to its name, and as a result of which:
*Can offer its shares to the public (in particular, list them on a public exchange);
*Has more extensive regulatory disclosure requirements.
More generally (and colloquially), it means a company that actually does have its shares listed on a public exchange.
It is the same meaning as what is currently in the public limited company article, which applies only to UK and Irish companies simply by virtue of the fact that the "plc" terminology is unique to them, However, the term "public company" is used more generally to include the same sort of company across the world.
The current definition in this article,  of a company being owned by the public rather than a small group of individuals, is not the definition to my mind, so much as one of the common consequences of a company being public. This is sort of reflected in the rest of the article, which talks in corporate law terms.
What do people from outside the UK think about this? Arthur Markham 14:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that there are three discussion topics addressing similar concerns, it appears that the phrase "public company" is rather vague and confusing depending upon the context. Having studied business associations within business and law classes in American higher education, I believe the following definitions are the most clear: a "public company" is any company created and owned by a government (e.g. federal, state, local, etc.), whereas a "private company" is any company created and owned by private individuals. A private company may be either a "closely held company" (or "close(d) company"), one with a small number of shareholders that are restricted from transferring/trading shares; or a "publicly held company" (or "open company"), one with a large number of shareholders that are free to transfer/trade shares. Tedbinger (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be reasonably logical, but I don't think it's how the terms are used. I think that "public company" almost always means a company whose shares are publicly traded, not a company owned by the government. Westmorlandia (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to agree with Westmorlandia on this one. In common usage, the term "public company" is almost always used as the short form of "publicly held company".  I do not recall having seen a company "created and owned by a government" referred to in this way, at least not in the US.  That would be either a government-sponsored enterprise or government-owned corporation, but not a "public company". — Satori Son 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The definition

message: Could there be a short explanation of what, exactly, a Form S-1 is here? Or a link, perhaps? It is confusing to a layman such as myself as the definition is now. Forst pineapple 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA Definition of a Public Company 

message: It should be noted that the "Public versus private companies" section (as well as other content on this page) is specific to Yankee Land and is not a world view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.93.44 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yankee Land Specific 

message: There needs to be an example of how a company goes public.  Specifically suppose someone has sole ownership of a company which company is worth $1 million in assets.  This company generates $100,000 in revenue per year and $50,000 in profit per year.  Now suppose this individual wishes to take his company public.  Would number of shares be based on total value of all assets of the company, or something else?  Now suppose the number of shares was determined to be 1 million.  Could the individual only offer 1/2 shares for share when his company went public, thus ensuring that he retain at least 50% equity?  - Yet the market cap would reflect his unsold shares and all other shares available to the public?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.163.20 (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of how a company goes public 

message: Why is the "disadvantages" section just a list of more advantages?  Shouldn't disadvantages be, well, disadvantages?  Oh whatever, I'll change it myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 02:01, March 17, 2008 (UTC)
:Was changed but was later changed back. It's still a little confusing. — Satori Son 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully better now. — Satori Son 18:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages and disadvantages

message: Under the "Securities of a public company" section it states "companies with over 5,000,000,000 shareholders may be required to report". I'm guessing that number is wrong since I doubt any corporation is owned by 5/6 of the world's population. Anyone know the real number? JSLongwell (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Five billion shareholders?!

message: Is this what's referred to when someone says that a company is "going public" or "taken public"? Gaiacarra (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Going public" 

message: public companies can be public companies without being publicly traded.
 
so then, what is the difference between an public and private company?
 
is it just the number of shareholders that makes a company have to be public, as per SEC regulations?
 
or is it something else?
 
 
This is what wiki says but it is not clear:
 
A company with many shareholders is not necessarily a publicly traded company. In the United States, in some instances, companies with over 500 shareholders may be required to report under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; companies that report under the 1934 Act are generally deemed public companies. The first company to issue shares is thought to be the Dutch East India Company in 1601.
 
 
also, wiki says:
 
A public company is a company that has permission to offer its registered securities (stock, bonds, etc.) for sale to the general public,
 
but how would you define "general public?"  can't i put an ad in the paper to sell shares in my private company or is that illegal?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.63.248 (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''what is the difference between an public and private company?''' 

message: FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_out#U.S._SEC_definition
U.S. SEC definition 
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission definition of "spin out" is more precise. Spin-outs occur when the equity owners of the parent company receive equity stakes in the newly spun out company. For example, when Agilent Technologies was spun out of Hewlett-Packard in 1999, the stock holders of HP received stock in Agilent.
A company "spun out" in the common view but not considered a spin-out in the SEC's eyes would be considered by the SEC as a technology transfer or licensing of the technology to the new company.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.63.248 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE PROVIDE SEC DEFINITION FOR PUBLIC COMPANY LIKE WIKIPEDIA DID FOR THE SPIN OUT ARTICLE 

message: Yes, this only applies to the US. I don't practice business law, but my understanding is that an LLC is by definition not public. Ownership of its shares more closely resembles a partnership, where the ownership is not open to the general public. Further, taxes are pass-through to the owners of the company, meaning the LLC should not have to pay its own taxes. These two factors strongly suggest that an LLC is not a public company, and the wikipedia page for LLC states right at the top that it is a private form of business. 104.1.44.94 (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  LLC? 

message: A public company is not necessarily a public limited company. Public unlimited companies did exist. An example would be American Express prior to 1965. Therefore, the first sentence in the article — "A public company, publicly traded company, publicly held company, publicly listed company, or public limited company is a company..." — is wrong. Thinkeditor 05:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect synonyms. What about public unlimited companies?