vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part.   Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you.  Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action.  If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares.  There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise.  In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company.  Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say.  But either way, there is nothing you can or should do.
No you can't, as you would have to have a different order for each security. Usually the bigger the order the more the brokerage you would also pay.
A DRIP plan with the ETF does just that. It provides cash (the dividends you are paid) back to the fund manager who will accumulate all such reinvested dividends and proportionally buy more shares of stock in the ETF. Most ETFs will not do this without your approval, as the dividends are taxed to you (you must include them as income for that year if this is in a taxable account) and therefore you should have the say on where the dividends go.
"Shares do not themselves carry any identity. Official shareholders are kept at the registrar.  In the UK, this may be kept up to date and publicly accessible.  In the US, it is not, but this doesn't matter because most shares are held ""in street name"". For a fully detailed history, one would need access to all exchange records, brokerage records, and any trades transacted off exchange. These records are almost totally unavailable."
Judging by your question, you seem to be a non-accredited investor. Under certain circumstances in some states, you may be able to sue the officers, directors, and other parties in control of the company for full rescission of your investment plus interest and attorneys' fees. You should consult with a locally licensed securities attorney to discuss your options.
ASSUMING THIS IS A QUESTION OF U.S. SECURITIES LAWS You didn't explain whether you're related to the mother and son, but I'll assume you are.  If that's the case, this really wouldn't qualify as a solicited sale.  It wasn't advertised publicly for sale, and there is already (I assume) a long-standing relationship between the parties.  In such a case, this would be a perfectly legal and normal type of transaction, so I can't see any reason for concern.   That being said, you would be wise to contact the state securities regulation agency where you live to ensure you're on firm ground. The law pertaining to the solicited sale of securities normally targets instances where people are trying to do private stock offerings and are seeking investors, in which case there are a number of different state and federal agencies and regulations that come into play.  The situation you've described does not fall under these types of scenarios. Good luck!
In general you cannot. Once the security is no longer listed on the exchange - it doesn't have to provide information to the exchange and regulators (unless it wants to be re-listed). That's one of the reasons companies go private - to keep their (financial and other) information private. If it was listed in 1999, and is no longer listed now - you can dig through SEC archives for the information. You can try and reach out to the company's investors' relations contact and see if they can help you with the specific information you're looking for.
In the US you specify explicitly what stocks you're selling. Brokers now are required to keep track of cost basis and report it to the IRS on the 1099-B, so you have to tell the broker which position it is that you're closing. Usually, the default is FIFO (i.e.: when you sell, you're assumed to be closing the oldest position), but you can change it if you want. In the US you cannot average costs basis of stocks (you can for mutual funds), so you either do FIFO, LIFO (last position closed first), or specify the specific positions when you submit the sale order.
Yes, depending on what you're trying to achieve. If its just a symbolic gift - you can use a service like this. There are several companies providing this service, look them up, but the prices are fairly the same. You'll end up getting a real stock certificate, but it will cost a lot of overhead (around $40 to get the certificate, and then another $40 to deposit it into a brokerage account if you want to sell it on a stock exchange). So although the certificate is real and the person whose name on it is a full-blown shareholder, it doesn't actually have much value (unless you buy a Google or Apple stock, where the price is much much higher than the fees). Take into account that it takes around 2 months for the certificate to be issued and mailed to you, so time accordingly. Otherwise, you can open a custodial brokerage account, and use it to buy stocks for the minor. Both ways are secure and legal, each for its own purpose and with its own fees.
I doubt that this exists, but it could theoretically. After all, a share is kind of an option to a company's future success, and so a call is already a second level on indirection. The better approach would be to 'create your own Put-Puts', by investing less money (A) in the Put you wanted to invest into, and put the smaller rest (B) in the share itself or a Call. That way, if the original Put is successful, at max (B) is lost, and if it is unsuccessful, the loss on (A) is covered by a gain on (B). Potentially, if you do the math, you can reach a mathematical equivalent situation to a Put-Put by buying the right amount and kind of Calls. However, we know already that buying a Put and a Call is a poor strategy, so that would mean a Put-Put would also be a poor strategy.
"According to what little information is available currently, this fund is most akin to an actively managed exchange traded fund rather than an investment trust. An investment trust is an actively managed, closed-end fund that is tradeable on the stock market. ""Closed-end"" means that there are a fixed number of shares available for trading, so if you wish to buy or sell shares in a closed-end fund you need to find someone willing to sell or buy shares. ""Actively managed"" means that the assets are selected by the fund managers in the belief that they will perform well. This is in contrast to a ""passively managed"" fund which simply tracks an underlying index. The closed-end nature of investment trusts means that the share price is not well correlated to the value of the underlying assets. Indeed, almost all UK investment trusts trade at a significant discount to their net asset value. This reflects their historic poor performance and relatively weak liquidity. Of course there are some exceptions to this. Examples of open-end funds are unit trust (US = mutual funds) and ETFs (exchange traded funds). They are ""open-end"" funds in the sense that the number of shares/units available will change according to demand. Most importantly, the price of a share/unit will be strongly correlated to the net asset value of the underlying portfolio. In general, for an open-end fund, if the net asset value of the fund is X and there are Y shares/units outstanding, then the price of a share/unit will be X/Y. Historic data shows that passively managed funds (index trackers) ""always"" outperform actively managed funds in the long term. One of the big issues with actively managed funds is they have relatively high management fees. The Peoples Trust will be charging about 1% with a promise that this should come down over time. Compare this to a fee of 0.05% on a large, major market index tracking ETF. Further, the 1% headline fee being touted by Peoples Trust is a somewhat misleading, since they are paying their employees bonuses with shares in the fund. This will cause dilution of the net asset value per share and can be read as addition management fees by proxy.
No, the expense ratio would be something you wouldn't be charged. If you bought shares of the ETF long, then the dividends are usually reduced by the expense ratio if you wanted to know where to find that charge in general. You would have to make up for any dividends the underlying stocks as part of general shorting since the idea is that once you buy to put back the shares, it has to appear as if they weren't missing in the first place. No, the authorized participant would handle changes to the underlying structure if needed.
These are treasury stocks allocated to the plan. If necessary, a company issues new shares (depending on a company it may require shareholders or only board approval).
As the offshore planning world turns, the limited liability company (“LLC”) is starting to appear with greater frequency as an alternative to the conventional offshore asset protection trust.  It is desirable because unlike the offshore trust, which requires an independent trustee, the LLC permits the client to remain in full control as the Manager of the entity.  While the typical offshore trust provides the highest form of asset protection, the asset protection afforded by the LLC is significant, and with retained control, provides a powerful combination.  Recently, St. Vincent and the Grenadines as well as Nevis, have sought to improve their legislation by offering superior LLC statutes.  Each is progressive and will be desirable for planners and clients alike.
The company could use registered shares with restricted transferability, i.e. shares that require the consent of the issuing company for a change of ownership.
SMSFs are generally prohibited from acquiring assets from related parties (whether it is purchased by the SMSF or contributed into the fund). There are some exceptions to the above rule for acquiring related party assets, including: • Listed securities (ie shares, units or bonds listed on an approved stock exchange, such as the ASX) acquired at market value. • Business real property (ie freehold or leasehold interests in real property used exclusively in one or more businesses) acquired at market value. • An in-house asset where the acquisition would not result in the level of the fund’s in-house assets exceeding 5%. • Units in a widely held unit trust, such as a retail ,managed fund. In-house asset rules An ‘in-house asset’ is generally defined as: • An investment by an SMSF in a related company or trust (ie a fund owns shares in a related company or units in a related trust). • An asset of an SMSF that is leased to a related party. • A loan made by an SMSF to a related company or trust. An investment, lease or loan that is an in-house asset is not prohibited, but is limited to 5% of the market value of the fund’s assets. The Answer: If your pre-owned Western Australian Rock Lobster fishery quota units are not included in the exceptions then you cannot transfer them into your SMSF.
You sold a call, I trust? I bought a call. I have the right to exercise at my will. No sense if out of the money, of course, but if in the money, I might want to capture a dividend or just start the clock for long term gains. Once I exercise, you have no option (pun intended) but to let it go.  The assignment is notification, not a request for permission.
If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest.  On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are).  The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.
While on the surface it may seem that the warrant you described is trading below intrinsic value, there are many reasons why that might not be the case. It's more likely that you are lacking information, than having identified a derivative instrument that the market has failed to reasonably price. For instance, might there be a conversion ratio on the warrants other than the 1:1 ratio that you seem to be assuming? Sometimes, warrant terms are such that multiple warrants are required to buy one share of stock. Consider: The conversion ratio is the number of warrants needed in order to buy   (or sell) one investment unit. Therefore, if the conversion ratio to   buy stock XYZ is 3:1, this means that the holder needs three warrants   in order to purchase one share. Usually, if the conversion ratio is   high, the price of the share will be low, and vice versa. (source) Conversion ratios are sometimes used so that warrants can be issued on a 1:1 basis to existing stockholders, but where the potential number of new shares to be issued is much less. Conversion ratio is just one such example that could lead to perceived mispricing, and there may be other restrictions on exercise. Warrants are not issued by an options exchange using standardized option contract terms, and so warrant terms vary considerably from issuer to issuer. Even series of warrants from the same issuer may have differing terms. Always look beyond any warrant quote to find a definitive source of the warrant's precise terms — and read those terms carefully before taking any position.
Yes. It's called executive hedging, and it's a lot more common than most people know. As long as it's properly disclosed and the decision is based on publicly available information, there's technically nothing wrong with it.  Krispy Kreme, Enron, MCI, and ImClone are the most notable companies that had executives do it on a large scale, but almost every company has or had executives execute a complex form of hedging known as a prepaid variable forward (PVF). In a PVF, the executive gives his shares to an investment bank in exchange for a percentage of cash up front. The bank then uses the executive shares to hedge in both directions for them. This provides a proxy that technically isn't the executive that needs to disclose.  There's talk about it needing to be more public at the SEC right now. http://www.sec.gov/news/statement/020915-ps-claa.html
It's a matter of opinion. As a general rule, my advice is to take charge of your own investments. Sending money to someone else to have them invest it, though it is a common practice, seems unwise to me. This particular fund seems especially risky to me, because there is no known portfolio. Normally, real estate investment trusts (REITs) have a specific portfolio of known properties, or at least a property strategy that you know going in. Simply handing money over to someone else with no known properties, or specific strategy is buying a pig in a poke.
"Yes this is possible in the most liquid securities, but currently it would take several days to get filled in one contract at that amount There are also position size limits (set by the OCC and other Self Regulatory Organizations) that attempt to prevent people from cornering a market through the options market. (getting loads of contacts without effecting the price of the underlying asset, exercising those contracts and suddenly owning a huge stake of the asset and nobody saw it coming - although this is still VERY VERY possible) So for your example of an option of $1.00 per contract, then the position size limits would have prevented 100 million of those being opened (by one person/account that is). Realistically, you would spread out your orders amongst several options strike prices and expiration dates. Stock Indexes are some very liquid examples, so for the Standard & Poors you can open options contracts on the SPY ETF, as well as the S&P 500 futures, as well as many other S&P 500 products that only trade options and do not have the ability to be traded as the underlying shares. And there is also the saying ""liquidity begets liquidity"", meaning that because you are making the market more liquid, other large market participants will also see the liquidity and want to participate, where they previously thought it was too illiquid and impossible to close a large position quickly"
If you held the shares directly, the transfer agent, Computershare, should have had you registered and your address from some point on file.  I have some experience with Computershare, it turned out when Qwest restarted dividends and the checks mailed to the childhood home my parents no longer owned, they were able to reissue all to my new address with one telephone call.  I can't tell you what their international transfer policies or fees might be, but if they have your money, at least its found. Transfer Agent Computershare Investor Services serves as the stock transfer agent for Tellabs. If you need to transfer stock, change ownership, report lost or stolen certificates, or change your address, please contact Computershare Investor Services at +1.312.360.5389.
outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.
"Well the People's Trust's IPO prospectus is now (2017-09-08) available for all to read (or there's a smaller ""information leaflet"").  (May need some disclaimers to be clicked to get access).  Both have a ""highlights"" bullet-point list: Coverage here has a comment thread with some responses by the founder attempting to answer the obvious objection that there's other multi-manager trusts on a discount (e.g Alliance Trust on ~ -5.5%), so why would you buy this one on a (very small) premium?  (Update: There's also another recent analysis here.) Personally, I'm thinking the answer to the original question ""How is The People's Trust not just another Investment Trust?"" is pretty much: ""it's just another Investment Trust"" (albeit one with its own particular quirks and goals).  But good luck to them."
You decide on a cost bases attribution yourself, per transaction (except for averaging for mutual funds, which if I remember correctly applies to all the positions). It is not a decision your broker makes. Broker only needs to know what you've decided to report it to the IRS on 1099, but if the broker reported wrong basis (because you didn't update your account settings properly, or for whatever else reason) you can always correct it on form 8949 (columns f/g).
The Brokerage firm will purchase shares for the dividend paid in a omnibus account for the security of the issuer and then they will distribute fractional shares among all their clients that chose Div Reinvest.  They will only have to buy 1 extra share to account for the fractional portion of what they allocate.  The structure of the market does not permit trading of fractional shares. There is generally not any impact to the market place for Div Reinvest with the exception of certain securities that pay large dividends that are not liquid. sometimes this occurs in  preferred securities where a large amount of Div reinvestment could create a large market order that has market impact.  Most brokers place market orders for the opening on the day following the payment of the dividend. When you sell the fractional portion same process as full shares are sold into the market and the fractional if traded between you and the brokers omnibus account.  if it creates a full share for the broker (omnibus has .6 shares and you sell him .5 they would likely flip that out to the street with the full share portion of your order. This would not have impact to outstanding shares and all cost are operational and with the broker handling the Div reinvestment service.
I dont think we disagree. I believe the notion of control is elusive in this day and age. We have leverage or influence at best. I agree that if the government is asked to invest or subsidize in another organization, it has the right, as should any investor, to expect that its opinions will be heard and its interests will be protected. In that context, if any investor decides that its interests extend to amending management compensation, I think that is reasonable.
You would still be the legal owner of the shares, so you would almost certainly need to transfer them to a broker than supports the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (which allows you to trade on the Shanghai exchange). In order to delist they would need to go through a process which would include enabling shareholders to continue to access their holdings.
"You will have to check SEC forms to know this in full. A publicly-traded company will have an amount of publicly tradable shares which can be easily found on their financial reports. But. that is not the only type of equity-like financial instrument that such a company can issue. A previous reply mentions ""follow-on"" public offering. However, a company may initiate a private equity offering without disclosing ahead of time, sometimes with warrants, or long-lasting options to purchase (new) stock."
There are a couple of ways to buy into a private company.  First, the company can use equity crowd funding (approved under the JOBS act, you don't need to be an accredited investor for this).   The offering can be within one state (i.e. Intrastate offerings) which don't have the same SEC regulations but will be governed by state law.   Small companies (small assets, under $1 million) can be made under Regulation D, Rule 504.  For assets under $5 million, there is Rule 505, which allows a limited number of non-accredited investors.  Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of 504 and 505 issues. Rule 506 issues are common, and it does allow a few non-accredited investors (I think 35), but non-accredited investors have to be given lots of disclosure, so often companies use a Rule 506 issue but only for accredited investors.
As a completed gift, had we made some bad decisions and lost it all, at least that money would be protected. Keep in mind, there are different flavors of trusts, but it's safe to say that in a survey to collect data, the million dollar+ trusts are considered family wealth. Not tough to imagine a good fraction of those families over $10M have a nice chunk already protected this way. 3) Last - For any illiquid assets, there's a discount that gets applied, typically 30%. I own a ranch, and want to start gifting it to the kids, the process involves creating stock, with restrictions, as a way to transfer the fractions required to gift the $14K/yr per person combination. (That is, a couple can gift 14x4 = $56K to a child with a spouse. 4 kids, all married, and the gifting is $224K/yr, $320K at full valuation. Again, these gifts may be to irrevocable trusts, and still thought of as their wealth.