vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If they own enough shares to vote to sell, you will be paid the offer price quoted to you. At that point if you do not wish to sell your only recourse will be to file a lawsuit. This is a common tactic for significant shareholders who have a minority stake and cannot block the sale because they have insufficient voting rights. What usually happens then is that they either settle the lawsuit out of court by paying a little more to the holdouts or the lawsuit is thrown out and they take the original offer from the buyer. Rarely does a lawsuit from a buyout go to trial.
I'm just asking people what they sell, IT or anything else. I'm interested in selling to the government because I understand the business and know how to win solicitations. However, my experience selling IT has involved making very thin margins so I'm curious about other areas.
They'd like to buy at $99, but you and the other person left with a share want to sell at $100. Either one of the sellers will come down to $99 or one of the buyers will go up to $100. This process will continue until everyone that wants to sell a share has sold, and everyone who wants to buy a share has bought. In general, though, when there are more people that want to sell than buy, the price goes down, and when there are more people that want to buy than sell, the price goes up. To answer your question, if your selling of the stock had caused the price to go down, it means that you would have gotten less money for your stock than if it had not gone down. Likewise, if your buying the stock had caused it to go up, it just means that it would have cost you more to buy the stock. It is just as likely that you would lose money doing this, rather than gain money.
"I'd like to modify the ""loss"" idea that's been mentioned in the other two answers.  I don't think a retail location needs to be losing money to be a candidate for sale.  Even if a retail location is not operating at a loss, there may be incentive to sell it off to free up cash for a better-performing line of business. Many large companies have multiple lines of business.  I imagine Sunoco makes money a few ways including: refining the gas and other petroleum products, selling those petroleum products, selling gas wholesale to franchised outlets or other large buyers, licensing their brand to franchised outlets, selling gas and convenience items direct to consumers through its own corporate-owned retail outlets, etc. If a company with multiple lines of business sees a better return on investment in certain businesses, it may make sense to sell off assets in an under-performing business in order to free up the capital tied up by that business, and invest the freed-up capital in another business likely to perform better. So, even ""money making"" assets are sometimes undesirable relative to other, better performing assets. Another case in which it makes sense to sell an asset that is profitable is when the market is over-valuing it.  Sell it dear, and buy it back cheap later."
"Because how you look at a billion or millions is important compared to how he looks at it.  The bottom line is incentive to continue. If he looks at how things used to be and how they are now and decides it's not worth it. It is his perogitive to close or sell the company.   Hopefully he sells to a Chinese company who will low ball profits down to 100 million net profit and cuts employee benefits!! Wouldn't that be a great success story of government ""incentivized"" capitalism?!  Yahooo America!"
A restatement of the other answers in terms to understand the logic of an acquirer that kills it's acquisition target:  Often the target company is told they are a strategic asset, but the acquiring company knows either utilizing them or killing them are both desirable outcomes.  So the acquiring company will often make an effort to utilize them, but since everyone knows killing them is still a win, the incentives aren't totally aligned for the new owners to give it their best effort.
Let’s turn this round. Now what if the only people willing to own part of company are doing it due to the expectation that they will make money in the short term form the company….
"Your agent doesn't understand what ""willing to sell"" means in the housing big market.  Willing to sell doesn't mean they can wait forever to sell. It used to be these people were moving so they had to sell their house. Now the people who own houses don't need to sell it because they can just sit around and rent it to someone.   If people are unwilling to list the house they are unwilling to sell the house."
"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of ""shares"" of equity in the company. Usually, these ""shares"" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of ""controlling interests"". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For ""private"" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For ""public"" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares.
It is creepy how wealthy companies always get these tendencies to change their structure and functioning  to pay the least possible taxes and get into all kinds of this shady shit. I once heard that if you study the behaviour of companies as if they were people, many of them would get diagnosed as psychopaths, and this kind of behaviour is an example of that.   Why does the most profitable company on earth have this perverse urge to increase that money in such shady ways? Why not live up to your honour and pay taxes back to the country that gave you the chance to develop and grow?
Many (if not all) of these companies have former I-bankers in their corp dev groups.  The author's platform is one of many that can connect buyers and sellers directly. At the end of the day, if you are a buyer, do you have the resources and competence to conduct proper due diligence? Quite possibly.  As a seller, do you have the ability to understand industry dynamics and the ability to maximize your valuation? Doubtful.  Buy side M&amp;A has merit, but sell side M&amp;A has proven to deliver value to the majority of clients.
For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker
Is it an unattractive offer many buyers would shy away from? Buyer who have specific plan may skip getting into such deals as this would be an hindrance to resell the business. Others who are not sure, may buy it for to make money in future. Does it seem like a justifiably fair way to sell a domain, while keeping a stake in it? This is preview of individual opinion. There is nothing fair or unfair in such deals. Is this even done, or has this ever been done before? Possibly. I don't know. Other Aspects: Although this may appear as a good way to cash in on upside, it is not always easy. If magic goes to court and establishes that you were a squatter just to make windfall without any plan, the contract becomes void. If the other party some how manages to make say 1 billion from this site, they would have enough lawyers and accountants to structure the business. So they way it would quickly get restructured is ABC Inc will buy Magic from you with the contract. ABC will give this on lease to XYZ for a consideration of $100 per year as usage. XYZ will make 1 billion. So your share is limited only on $100 royalty paid to ABC.
We don't sit around and wonder at people who won't sell an item or a business for a price they consider too low.  Why should we judge those that don't sell their time for less than the price that would make it an attractive trade for them any more harshly?  Isn't the market all about trading and walking away with greater value?
"Usually the big institution that ""floats"" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling."
The main reason is that a public company is owned by its share holders, and share holders would care about the price of the stock they are owning, therefore the company would also care, because if the price go down too much, share holders become angry and may vote to oust the company's management.
I would argue: Because the company only offers you this if it can make money from it. What you are basically doing is betting against the company.
It was probably a good business decision on their part. It's not good business to get into protracted legal battles even when you know you're legally in the clear.   They made a pretty decent profit on what I'm guessing will be a fairly short lived product. Engaging in a protracted legal battle would do nothing more than deplete those profits.
The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure.
There are quite a few reasons that a company may choose to pay dividends rather than hold cash [increasing the share value].   Of couse there are equally other set of reasons why a company may not want to give dividends and hold on to cash. Related question here Please explain the relationship between dividend amount, stock price, and option value?
"First a quick terminology correction: I believe you're proposing selling 10,000 shares of the stock of a company, not ""10,000 stocks"". When you sell, you need to decide whether you're selling for a specific minimum price or just selling for whatever price you can get. If you set a specific lower limit on asking price, then if people aren't interested at that price it doesn't sell. Which may mean you sell only a few shares, or none if your asking price isn't considered reasonable. If you want to sell independent of price, then as you begin to flood the market with your shares, the price you get per additional share may decline until it finds a buyer. What that lower limit is will depend on what people think the stock is currently worth. This is one of the many complications I don't want to deal with, which is why I stick with index funds."
We were close to doing something like this but we ultimately find it cheaper and more profitable to find those who are just looking to sell off their accounts. Within the past five years I believe we have done this six or seven times which benefits us greatly but at the same time more competition comes in, people quit their business and cancel, the business is transferred to a new owner and they cancel, etc etc. We do well, but are always looking for more.
A lot of people in this thread have provided excellent information from a public company's perspective (with respect to WACC, etc.), but I'll chime in from a private company's perspective (specifically, a tech start-up).  Two reasons a private company would prefer to receive financing in the form of debt as opposed to equity:  1) It can't sell equity at a good valuation (or at all). In this case, the company may have no choice but to raise debt financing, using assets as collateral and also diverting future cash flows away from growth initiatives for the sake of servicing the debt. This is obviously a bad situation for the company. Also, because debt is senior to equity, in the case of a bankruptcy, owners would only be able to recover money from the sale of the company / liquidation after debt owners have been paid.  2) The company's owners don't want to further dilute their ownership stakes and are willing to have the company pay interest to avoid it. Sometimes private company owners will take on debt with the purpose of buying out other owners. In some other cases, the company's management thinks equity in their company will increase in value disproportionately to what investors might give it credit for. In these cases, the math is simple: projected valuation growth versus the valuation financing is available at, taking into account the interest paid on the debt.
For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc).  The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.
Oh, but it very much is that simple.  That you consider them complicated tells me you don't know what's inside one.  *Edit* - I almost forgot to add:  offering buyout options is *almost always* both a better deal for the company, and a *worse* deal for the recipient.
I think you're mixing up being incorporated with being public. A corporation is just a financially separate organization from the owner(s). There might be only one owner, but the company's assets are separated from the person's.   A public company is one entity whose ownership is on the market - a shareholder can sell his or her portion easily. A company that decides it no longer wants to be public just becomes a private corporation, with ownership of its own assets, but with a few owners, not many.
The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this:  I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public.  An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO.  These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need.  If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions:  When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company.  In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.
The purpose is to go public but also to generate more wealth. The real money comes when market values you at a price more than your cash flow. If a company brings in $1000 of cash flow, then that is what the employees and owners have to distribute among themselves. But if they are likely to increase to $2000 next and $4000 next year and they go public then the stock will do well. In this case, the promoters and employees with options/RSUs will benefit as well. The increased visibility is also very useful. Look at Google or FB. They didn't need the IPO proceed when they went public. They had enough cash from their business but then they would only have $1-10 billion a year. But due to the IPO their investors and employees have a huge net worth.  Basically, with just a small % of shares in the public you can value the company at a high price valuing in the future cash flows (with a discount rate etc.). So instead of realizing the profit over the next 15 years, you get to enjoy it right away.
The main reason to exercise the shares sooner rather than later is that you have to hold the shares for 1 year to gain access to the long-term capital gains rate when you sell your shares. You do not want short-term capital gains rates to apply to these shares when you sell them. If the company is unable to go public and sells privately, you may not have any choice but to sell your shares immediately. If the company goes public you will simply have to hold your shares for a year after you buy them before selling to get the lower tax rate.
Perhaps it was to close a short position.  Suppose the seller had written the calls at some time in the past and maybe made a buck or two off of them.  By buying the calls now they can close out the position and go away on vacation, or at least have one less thing they have to pay attention to.  If they were covered calls, perhaps the buyer wants to sell the underlying and in order to do so has to get out of the calls.
Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity.
As others have posted, the company gains capital in return for its new shares. However, the share price can still fall. The problem is that the share marked is affected by supply and demand like any other marked.  If the company just issues the new shares at marked price, they will have problems finding buyers.  The people who are willing to pay that price has already bought as many shares as they want. The company does this to raise capital, and depends on the shares actually selling for this to work.  So, they issue shares at below marked price to attract buyers and the shares get diluted.  In the end the share will usually end up somewhere between the old marked price and the issue price. The old share owners are probably not too happy about this and will not accept this plan. (At least here in Norway, share issue has to be accepted at a shareholder meeting) So, what is often done instead is to issue buy options for the required number of shares at the below-marked price.  These options are given (for free) to the current share holders proportional to their current holding. If everybody exercises their options they get new cheap shares that compensates for the loss of share value.  If they don't have the capital themselves, they can sell the options and get compensation that way instead.
The answer to this question is given by the fact that many public companies have people who are opposed to the company's aims or practices and who own their stock, often a single share, for the purposes of turning up to shareholder meetings and haranguing directors/asking awkward questions/disrupting proceedings, etc. If public companies could stop these campaigning shareholders from owning stock they would.
"The reason for selling a stock ""short"", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future.  Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200"
I wouldn't say this is a lie.  Person 2 just made themselves the offer of 38k.  If it sells then they were outbid.  If it doesn't sell then they're stuck with the asset as if they had bid themselves.  They're paying themselves, or they're representing a party that is paying themselves.  That balances out to a $0 profit/loss + ownership of the asset.   I think something like this would be unethical:   Person 1: I'll buy your car for 30k  Person 2: Okay  Person 3:That's my car!