vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"For this to work, those who control the dilution must also control their salaries because the only way for them to be paid off when it's the corporation itself selling is to gain access to the proceeds. When a corporation sells newly issued equity, the corporation itself owns the money. To at least have the appearance of propriety, the scammers must be paid those proceeds. Both actions imply that the board is captured by the scammers. There are many corporations that seem to do this even with persistently large market capitalizations. The key difference between this and pump-and-dump is that its a fraudulent group of investors selling in this case instead of the corporation itself. A detailed simple example Corporations are mandated by law to be little oligarchies; although, ""republic"" is now becoming more appropriate with all of the new shareholder rights. A corporation is controlled at root by the board of directors who are elected by the shareholders. The board has no direct operational control, as that is left to the ""king"", the CEO; however, the board does control what everyone wants access to: the money. Board members have all sorts of legal qualitative mandates on how to behave, and they've functioned fairly decently efficiently over the long run, but there are definitely some bad apples. Boards are somewhat intransigent since it's difficult to hold board elections, and usually only specific board members are put up for election by a shareholder vote, so a bad one has the potential to really get stuck in there. Once a bad one is in there, they don't care because they know it will be tough to get them out, so they run roughshod over the company's purse. Only the board can take action on major funding such as the CEO's operating budget, board compensation, financing, investment, etc, some with shareholder approval, some without. The corporation itself owns all of those assets, but the board controls them. In this example, they scheme with most likely the top executive, but a rubber stamp top executive could allow a lower rung to scheme with the board, but the board is always constant until the law is changed.
"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large ""Sell"" order results in price going down and every large ""Buy"" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake."
"There is a legal document called a ""Stock Purchase Agreement"" and it depends on who is the other party to the buyer in the Agreement. In almost all startups the sale goes through the company, so the company keeps the money. In your example, the company would be worth $10,000 ""Post-Money"" because the $1k got 10% of the Company."
Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do.  All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on.  The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements.  I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares.  There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question.
No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public.  However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.
Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock.  This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company.  Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount.   They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party.  It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do.  Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock?  It falls, of course.   Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender.  They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors.  In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back.  Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.
"The answer to your question is ""no"". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account.  If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days.  Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker.   Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership.  Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house."
The NY company's board of directors are your agents and fiduciaries.  I'll call them your agents below.  The acquiring company entered into some contract that your agents negotiated.  Whatever the acquiring company owes you in terms of money, equity, or specific communication is based on what your agents dealt for in the sale contract.   Best ask your agents what they got for you.
I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.
In addition to the answer by Craig Banach: Sometimes brands are owned by publicly traded companies which have a very diverse product portfolio. In case of Microsoft their stock price and dividend will not be controlled solely by that one product they make but also by their many other products (plus a billion other factors which can influence a stock price). So when you want to bet specifically on the success of Windows Phone then betting on the Microsoft Corporation as a whole might not achieve that goal. However, you can also try to find companies whose success depends indirectly on the success of the product. That can be suppliers (someone who makes a specific part which is only used for Windows phones), companies which make Windows Phone specific accessories or software developers who make applications which specifically target the Windows Phone ecosystem. When the product portfolio of these companies is far narrower than that of Microsoft they might be more dependent on the success of Windows Phone than Microsoft themselves. But as always, keep in mind that the success of their products is not the only factor which decides the stock value of a company. The stock market is far more complex than that.
New to investing... when I buy/sell a stock can I buy/sell at the exact market price whenever I'd like or is there more to it? Does there need to be a demand for when I'm trying to sell or am I just forcing the company to buy back my shares? Sorry if confusing/rookie question
Activist investors can control as little as 2% of a company and still have a large effect on strategy. Since the demand is so low (removal of one account) isn't it a pretty easy choice to just make the shareholders happy?
Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares.
Really? That's unfortunate.  I've read stories of guys that buy companies that are basically failing, restart them so to speak with a new vision, and make a kill doing it. That's something that sounds really awesome to do.  Otherwise, it's basically just like playing the stock market, but in a different version it seems like.
Not really on the corporate finance side, so excuse me if my explanation seems a bit verbose.  Nobody *wants* to give away control of their company, but investors are going to demand a pretty steep discount on your equity if you don't give them some way to steer management. Control is valuable, and to this extent, voting shares should always be worth *at least* as much as non-voting shares.  If the owner still retains 51% of the company, however, then the voting shares provide essentially no benefit over non-voting, barring the founder's sudden divestiture. With this in mind, there's basically no reason to issue voting shares in the first place.  On the other hand, with 40% of the voting power the founder's still have a key vote and will rarely be overturned unless a supermajority (84%) of the other investors disagree. This still gives them *de facto* control while offering equity holders some degree of security if the founders were ever to suddenly lose their mind. This added security allows the voting shares to trade at a premium over non-voting, which in turn allows the company to raise more money from their equity issuance.
Insiders are prevented from buying or selling shares except at certain periods right after information is disclosed publicly. But. People have bills to pay and kids to put through college and whatnot. So an insider can set up a plan where shares are sold on a specific schedule and they have no control over number of shares or timing. These plans (covered under rule 10b5-1) allow insiders to generate cash flow without immoderately benefiting from their inside information. Sales under these plans can mostly be ignored when trying to figure out the fortunes of a company from insider trades.
The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name.  As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire.  If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you.  Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer.  By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?
It would depend on the bounds of your hypothetical.    If the investor group is blind to cost + has infinite money and the existing management is unwilling to comply at any cost, then management will destroy the company before the investor group can take it over.    If the existing management follow rational choice theory; then an investment group with unlimited money could take over, hold a special meeting on it, etc.  Shareholders can't force management to do anything per se, as management decisions that violate fiduciary duty aren't criminally liable unless the act itself is a crime.  So if an investor group were to try a hostile takeover, and Twitter mgmt said we'll see you in hell; then they could just shut down every data center, sell off twitter.com, terminate all the employees, issue a billion new shares, issue every employee a million $0.01 strike warrants, etc. until there's nothing left to take over just to spite them.  Defensive strategies get pretty creative and are highly amusing to watch if you don't have a dog in the fight.
You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying ""book value"" per share."
"As an owner of a share of a business you also ""own"" profits made by the business. But you delegate company management to reinvest those profits, on your behalf, to make even more profits. So your share of the business is a little money-making machine that should grow, without you having to pay taxes on the dividends and without you having to decide where to reinvest your share of the profit."
They are not required to fulfill the trade that they have intended to execute.  They are able to cancel or modify the trade at any point.  Example: This is how insiders are able to manipulate the price of shares through there buying and selling intentions.  A CEO would be able to disclose a buy order for a month from now, or whatever time period is required.  This would most likely increase the price of the stock as investors would see this as a good sign of company performance.  Up until the point when the buy order is scheduled to execute the CEO can then cancel the order and create a new sell order.  Since the stock is high in price, his new order is likely to make him money based on the manipulation from his trading intentions.   I am not an expert on the subject and only know as much as I do through personal research. Here is an interesting article about this kind of insider trading and manipulation:http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/the-fine-line-between-legal-and-illegal-insider-trading/?_r=0
No. Investors purchase ETFs' as they would any other stock, own it under the same circumstances as an equity investment, collecting distributions instead of dividends or interest. The ETF takes care of the internal operations (bond maturities and turnover, accrued interest, payment dates, etc.).
"A more serious problem: how do you know who's really buying your stock? ""Shell companies"" are an increasingly obvious problem in corporate and tax accountability. There are jurisdictions where companies can be created with secret lists of directors and shareholders. If stock is bought by one of these companies, it is very hard to trace it to a particular individual."
"Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue.   When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is ""selling"" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous.   As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it."
Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this.
An option gives you the legal right to buy stock. However, you cannot exercise a stock option unless you have the ability to buy the stock. In the United States, securities not fully registered with the SEC for public sale cannot be purchased except by qualified investors.
"The usual pattern is that shareholders don't run companies in a practical sense, so ""if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company"" doesn't change anything. In large companies, the involvement of shareholders is limited to a few votes on key issues such as allocating profit (how much to keep in company vs pay in dividends) and choosing board members. And board members also don't run the company - they oversee how the company is being run, and choose executives who will actually run the company. If a rich person simply buys 50% and doesn't desire to get personally involved, then they just vote for whatever board members seem apropriate and forget about it."
"Yes, you could buy a stock on the day of its IPO. I'm a college student, and I wonder if I can buy stock from a company   right after it finishes its IPO? Yes, you can. However, unless you are friends or family of an employee, chances are you'll be paying a higher price than you think as there is generally a fair bit of hype on most  IPOs that allows some people to ""flip them"" which means someone is buying at a higher price. If I am not allowed to buy its stocks immediately after they go on   sell, how long do I have to wait? Generally I'd wait until the hype dies down as if you look at most historical IPOs the stock could be bought cheaper later but that's just my perspective. And also who are allowed to buy the stocks at the first minute they   are on sell? Anyone but keep in mind that while an IPO may be priced at $x, the initial trades may be a few times that value and the stock may come down over time. Facebook could be an example to consider of a company that had an IPO at one price and then came down for a little while on its chart over the past couple of years."
"Yes, I agree with you. Saying that the value of the stock will grow as the company grows and acquires more assets ... I don't see why. Okay, I'm a nice guy and I want to see other people do well, but what do I care how much money they're making if they're not giving any of it to ME?  Frankly I think it's like people who buy commemorative plates or beanie babies or other ""collectibles"" as an investment. As long as others are also buying them as an investment, and buying and reselling at a profit, the value will continue to go up. But one day people say, Wait, is this little stuffed toy really worth $10,000? and the balloon bursts. Confer Dutch tulips: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-dutch-tulip-bubble-of-1637/ As I see it, what gives a non-dividend-paying stock value is mostly the expectation that at some time in the future it will pay dividends. This is especially true of new start-up companies. As you mentioned, there's also the possibility of a takeover. It wouldn't have to be a hostile takeover, any takeover would do. At that point the buying company either buys the stock or exchanges it for shares of their own. In the first case you now have cash for your investment and in the second case you now have stock in a dividend-paying company -- or in another non-dividend-paying company and you start the cycle over."
"Most companies get taken over eventually. More to the point, ANY company with a public float over 50 percent that's large and viable enough to fall on people's radar screens will get taken over if its stock price is ""too low"" relative to its long term prospects.  It is the possibility of a takeover, as much as anything else, that bolsters the stock prices of many companies, particularly those that don't pay dividends. In essence, the takeover price is just one large liquidating ""dividend."""
+1 to YosefWeiner. Let me add: Legally, technically, or at least theoretically, when you buy stock through a broker, you own the stock, not the broker. The broker is just holding it for you. If the broker goes bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the value of your stock. That said, if the broker fails to transfer your shares to another broker before ceasing operation, it could be difficult to get your assets. Suppose you take your shoes to a shoe repair shop. Before you can pick them up, the shop goes bankrupt. The shoes are still rightfully yours. If the shop owner was a nice guy he would have called you and told you to pick up your shoes before he closed the shop. But if he didn't, you may have to go through legal gyrations to get your shoes back. If as his business failed the shop owner quit caring and got sloppy about his records, you might have to prove that those shoes are yours and not someone else's, etc.
Stock price is based on supply and demand. Unless the stock you are looking to buy usually has very low volume trading 100 shares isn't likely to have any effect on price. There are many companies that have millions or tens of millions of shares trade daily. For stocks like that 100 shares is barely a trivial percentage of the daily volume. For thinly traded stocks you can look at the bid and ask size but even that isn't likely to get you an exact answer. Unless you are trading large volumes your trade will have no effect on the price of shares.
As a general principle the stock price on the stock market is controlled by an agreement between buyers and sellers. Some initial observations on this stock So, my take on this is one/more of the following My suspicion is the latter.