vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt.
"Something to note is that when a company announces a share buyback program there is usually a time frame and amount of shares that are important details as it isn't like the company will make one big buy back of stock generally. Rather it may take months or even years as noted in the Wikipedia article about share repurchases. Wikipedia covers some of the technical details here but to give a specific set of answers: When a company announces a share buyback program, who do they actually buy back the shares from? From the Wikipedia link: ""Under US corporate law there are five primary methods of stock repurchase: open market, private negotiations, repurchase 'put' rights, and two variants of self-tender repurchase: a fixed price tender offer and a Dutch auction."" Thus, there are open market and a couple of other possibilities. Openly traded shares on a stock exchange? Possibly, though there are other options. Is there a fixed price that they buy back at? Sometimes. I'd think a ""fixed price tender offer"" would imply a fixed price though the open market way may take various prices. If I own shares in that company, can I get them to buy back my shares? Selective Buy-Backs is noted in Wikipedia as: ""In broad terms, a selective buy-back is one in which identical offers are not made to every shareholder, for example, if offers are made to only some of the shareholders in the company. In the US, no special shareholder approval of a selective buy-back is required. In the UK, the scheme must first be approved by all shareholders, or by a special resolution (requiring a 75% majority) of the members in which no vote is cast by selling shareholders or their associates. Selling shareholders may not vote in favor of a special resolution to approve a selective buy-back. The notice to shareholders convening the meeting to vote on a selective buy-back must include a statement setting out all material information that is relevant to the proposal, although it is not necessary for the company to provide information already disclosed to the shareholders, if that would be unreasonable."" Thus it is possible, though how probable is another question.
A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart.   Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons   Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons
"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist.  As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth.  Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense.  Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the ""bad"" companies to charity.  And what littleadv said - that too."
Okay I don't know where my disconnect was, in my mind I was viewing that as a negative for some reason haha. Thanks! That makes sense.  What is your perspective on the large amount of companies buying back shares right now?
ESPP tax treatment is complicated.  If you received a discount on the purchase of your stock, that discount is taxable as ordinary income when you sell the stock.  Any profit about the market value when the stock was purchased is taxed based upon the holding period of the stock. If you have held the stock less than a year, the profit is taxed at your marginal tax rate (ie taxed as ordinary income). If the stock is held for more than a year, it is taxed at a special capital gains tax rate, which ranges from 0-20% depending on your marginal tax rate (most people pay 15%).
In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-).  In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.
"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation.   Suppose the vested shares are worth X.  If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment?  Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately).  Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y.  You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment?  If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as ""income"" and invest it however you see fit."
I see a false assumption that you are making.  (Almost always) When you buy stock the cash you spend does not go to the company. Instead it goes to someone else who is selling their shares.  The exception to this is when you buy shares in an IPO.  Those of us who have saved all our lives for retirement want income producing investments once we retire. (Hopefully) We have saved up quite a bit of money. To have us purchase their stock companies have to offer us dividends.
It's generally a bad idea to use low-risk credit (low-risk in sense you're practically guaranteed to be forced to pay it off) to buy high-risk shares. In optimistic scenario, the profit from shares would be higher than your credit percentages. In less optimistic scenario you come with nothing. In worse scenario you have worthless shares and another credit to pay.  If your only problem is the non-profitable property, you can always sell it and get rid of negative cash flow. It won't affect your quality of life negatively. In your high-risk scenario you trade the opportunity for a bit better life with for a risk of turning it into disaster for you and your family.
You're talking about a difference of 30 cents per dollar invested, which doesn't seem huge but multiply it by 100,000 and you've got yourself enough money to renovate your house purely out of money that would have gone to the government instead. The advantage here is if you are saving up for retirement, when you retire you won't have much income so the tax on the gains (even ignoring the capital gains effect above) will definitely be less then when you were working, however if you had a dividend stock you would have been paying taxes on the dividend, at a higher rate, throughout the lifetime of the investment. So, there you go, that's what Mohnish Pabrai is talking about. There are some caveats to this. If the amount you are investing isn't large, and you are in a lower tax bracket, and the stock pays out relatively low dividends you won't really feel the difference much, even though it's there. Also, dividend vs. no dividend is hardly the highest priority when deciding what company to invest in, and you'll practically never be able to find identical companies that differ only on dividend/no dividend, so if you find a great buy you may not have a choice in the matter. Also, there has been a trend in recent years to also make capital gains tax progressive, so people who have a higher income will also pay more in capital gains, which negates part of the benefit of non-dividend stocks (but doesn't change the growth rate effects before the sale). There are also some theoretical arguments that dividend-paying companies should have stronger shareholders (since the company has less capital, it has to 'play nice' to get money either from new shares or from banks, which leads to less risky behavior) but it's not so cut-and-dried in real life.
"The easiest way to find a buyer should be to ask the company to connect you to some of their other shareholders. I imagine they are much more likely to take those shares off you than a random investor on the street. Otherwise, well, talk to people. At a golf club, maybe? :) Valuation is not going to be very straightforward. Basically you'll get whatever someone is willing to pay. That's what FMV means when there's no real ""market"". Realistically, the price is mainly going to be based on divididend history and the company's assets, discounted for risk and liquidity (you're currently feeling the reason for the latter discount)."
The short answer, probably not much. Unless you have a controlling interest in the company. If at least 50%+1 of the shareholder votes are in favor of the dilution then it can be done. There are some SEC rules that should protect against corporate looting and theft like what the Severin side is trying to make it appear as happened. However it would appear that Severin did something stupid. He signed away all of his voting right to someone who would use them to make his rights basically worthless. Had he kept his head in the game he could probably have saved himself. But he didn't. If your average startup started issuing lots of stock and devaluing existing shares significantly then I would expect it would be harder to find investors willing to watch as their investment dwindled. But if you are issuing a limited amount stock to get leverage to grow bigger then it is worth it. In the .com bubble there were quite a few companies that just issued stock to buy other companies. Eventually most of these companies got delisted because they diluted them selves to much when they were overvalued. Any company not just a startup can dilute its shares. Many if not most major companies issue stock to raise capital. This capital is then generally used to build the business further and increase the value of all shares. Most of the time this dilution is very minor (<.1%) and has little if any impact on the stock. There are rules that have to be followed as listed companies are regulated by the SEC. There are less regulations with private corporations. It looks like the dilution was combined with the buyout of the Florida company which probably contributed to the legality of the dilution. With options they are generally issued at a set price. This may be higher or lower than the reported sell price of the stock when the option is issued. The idea is over time the stock will increase in value so that those people who hold on to their options can buy the stock for the price listed on the option. I worked at an ISP start up in the 90's that made it pretty well.
you are discounting the cash used, the discount rate for cash should be whatever you determine is your risk premium over the risk free rate not the equity growth rate. if equity growth rate is above your determined required return the equity investment is wealth destroying and if it is above that then it is wealth increasing.   The difficulty I see is that the scenario is all wrong, what you are really after is a rent vs buy decision. Do I take this money and rent a place or do I buy a house? In either case you could invest the remainder after paying your rent/mortgage in the equity market no?  So what really matters is the difference in cost between renting and buying.   Let  (EGR)=equity growth rate  Rent = rent M = Mortgage payment  I = income  HA =  home value appreciation  Now the question is is renting or buying a better decision two scenarios, renting first  PMT =(I - rent)  I/y = (EGR)  N =Time horizon in years  FV= Gain from cf left after paying rent    then discount to present day at your required rate of return to find present value  now scenario for buying, this is more complicated because you are investing two different cf streams at different rates and have to calculate both and add them together.  1) CF 1 the mortgage payments buy you equity in the house which appreciates (hopefully) but can be extremely volatile. This is the cf stream scenario one doesnt have, when renting the rent payments poof disappear forever and you earn nothing on them 2) The income left after mortgage payment which can be invested at the market rate measured the same way as above. **This is extremely simplistic and doesnt take into account expected maintenance, property taxes and other costs intrinsic to the investment. It also doesnt take into account the lost down payment setting you well behind the renter.   TL DR: It is complicated but you determine the required return(discount rate) based on the perceived risk of the investment and your particular views  and it doesnt matter what expected growth rates are since any investment with an expected growth rate below your required rate is wealth destroying since you are paying for something which returns cash flows too small for its risk level. If you use growth rates as discount rates then all your investments will net to zero
people implicity agree to sell stocks when a company does bad But, remember, when you sell the stock of a company that, in your estimation, 'did bad', someone else had to buy; otherwise, there is no sale. The someone else who bought your shares evidently disagrees with your assessment. Did you sell because the company didn't earn a profit at all? Did it not earn a profit because it's in a dead-end business that is slowly but inevitably declining to zero? Something like Sears Holdings? Or did it not make a profit because it is in an emerging market that will possibly someday become hugely profitable? Something like Tesla, Inc.? Did you sell because the company made a profit, but it was lower than expected? Did they make a lower-than-expected profit because of lower sales? Why were the sales lower? Is the industry declining? Was the snow too heavy to send the construction crews out? Did the company make a big investment to build a new plant that will, in a few years, yield even higher sales and profits? What are the profits year-over-year? Increasing? Declining? Usually, investors are willing to pay a premium, that is more than expected, for a stock in a company with robust growth.  As you can see, the mere fact that a company reported a profit is only one of many factors that determine the price of the shares in the market.
"It is not a ""riskless"" transaction, as you put it. Whenever you own shares in a company that is acquiring or being acquired, you should read the details behind the deal. Don't make assumptions just based on what the press has written or what the talking heads are saying. There are always conditions on a deal, and there's always the possibility (however remote) that something could happen to torpedo it. I found the details of the tender offer you're referring to. Quote: Terms of the Transaction [...] The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the valid tender of sufficient shares, which, when added to shares owned by Men’s Wearhouse and its affiliates, constitute a majority of the total number of common shares outstanding on a fully-diluted basis. Any shares not tendered in the offer will be acquired in a second step merger at the same cash price as in the tender offer. [...] Financing and Approvals [...] The transaction, which is expected to close by the third quarter of 2014, is subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Act. Both Men’s Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank are working cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission to obtain approval of the transaction as soon as possible. [...] Essentially, there remains a small chance that one of these ""subject to..."" conditions fails and the merger is off. The chance of failure is likely perceived as small because the market price is trading close to the deal price. When the deal vs. market price gap is wider, the market would be less sure about the deal taking place. Note that when you tender your shares, you have not directly sold them when they are taken out of your account. Rather, your shares are being set aside, deposited elsewhere so you can no longer trade them, and later, should the conditions be satisfied, then you will be paid for your shares the deal price.
Overpriced shares: Cheaper to raise new capital through secondary share offerings or debt using shares as a security. Fends off hostile take overs, since the company is too dear. When a company is taken over it needs only one set of management. Top management of the company that is taken over loses their jobs - no one wants to lose their job. Shareholders love to see share price grow - sale brings them profit, secures jobs for company management. Shares are used as a currency during acquisitions, if company shares are overpriced that means they can buy another company on the cheap - paying with the overpriced shares. Undervalued shares: More expensive to raise additional capital through secondary share offerings - for the same amount of capital the management has to offer a bigger chunk of the company; have to offer bigger chunk of a company as a security as well. Makes company vulnerable to hostile take overs, company is undervalues - makes it an attractive bargain. Once the company is taken over top management will almost certainly lose jobs. Falling price makes shareholders unhappy - they will vote management out. Makes difficult to acquire other companies.
And when I say ""look"", I mean get your lawyer to look. If your shareholding survives until exit, then it will pay out at exit. But repeated dilutions and investors with priority classes of shares could mean that your holding doesn't survive to exit even if the company does. Your 5% could turn into a nominal holding that hasn't really ""survived"", that entitles you to 0.5% of any sale value over $100 million. Then if the company sells for $50 million you get $0, while other investors are getting a good return. All of this is why you should not work for equity unless you can afford to work for free. And even then you need to lawyer up, now and during any future investment, so your lawyer can explain to you what your investment actually is, which almost certainly is different from what it looks like at a casual uninformed glance."
Since you mention the religion restriction, you should probably look into the stock market or funds investing in it. Owning stock basically means you own a part of a company and benefit from any increase in value the company may have (and 'loose' on decreases, provided you sell your stock) and you also earn dividends over the company's profit. If you do your research properly and buy into stable companies you shouldn't need to bother about temporary market movements or crashes (do pay attention to deterioration on the businesses you own though). When buying stocks you should be aiming for the very long run. As mentioned by Victor, do your research, I recommend you start it by looking into 'value stocks' should you choose that path.