vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Depending on what you are voting on, the proxy card or voting instruction form gives you a choice of voting ""for,"" ""against,"" or ""abstain,"" or ""for"" or ""withhold."" Here is an explanation of the differences: Election of directors: Generally, company bylaws or other corporate documents establish how directors are elected. There are two main types of ways to elect directors: plurality vote and majority vote. A ""plurality vote"" means that the winning candidate only needs to get more votes than a competing candidate. If a director runs unopposed, he or she only needs one vote to be elected, so an ""against"" vote is meaningless. Because of this, shareholders have the option to express dissatisfaction with a candidate by indicating that they wish to ""withhold"" authority to vote their shares in favor of the candidate. A substantial number of ""withhold"" votes will not prevent a candidate from getting elected, but it can sometimes influence future decisions by the board of directors concerning director nominees. A ""majority vote"" means that directors are elected only if they receive a majority of the shares voting or present at the meeting. In this case, you have the choice of voting ""for"" each nominee, ""against"" each nominee, or you can ""abstain"" from voting your shares. An ""abstain"" vote may or may not affect a director's election. Each company must disclose how ""abstain"" or ""withhold"" votes affect an election in its proxy statement. This information is often found toward the beginning of the proxy statement under a heading such as ""Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal"" or ""How Your Votes Are Counted."" Proposals other than an election of directors: Matters other than voting on the election of directors, like voting on shareholder proposals, are typically approved by a vote of a majority of the shares voting or present at the meeting. In this situation, you are usually given the choice to vote your shares ""for"" or ""against"" a proposal, or to ""abstain"" from voting on it.
"It seems like you don't understand much about what you have a strong opinion about.  Most public employees who fly do fly coach. Senior leadership and executive class employees - the kind responsible for tens of thousands of employees and/or manage federal budgets worth hundreds of millions or more - you put them in business class so they can be productive. It's not about comfort; it's about productivity.  Secondly, neither you (as an owner) nor the public pay the costs for union reps. So no one needs to or should care what uninformed opinion you have. That would be like me disctating how you or some other business owner should be able to spend their operating budget.  It's statements from ignorance like this that really undermine the argument that ""business owners"" are the backbone of the economy or that they would have any advantage managing public affairs."
"It's a nice thought, don't get me wrong. Pushing decision making power down to levels that can correct issues quickly is great; especially in smaller organizations. The big miss with this line of thought is that all of Tesla's 33,000 employees actually know who / where to go to solve their issues in the first place - they don't (nor do they in any large organization) which is why you have organizational structure.  Also - the author states at the end ""I worked for one non-profit with this environment and then consulted for a half dozen others; none of them had this sort of communication."" I would have puked if I weren't laughing so hard - how that experience is relevant to the article regarding a large, for profit enterprise is beyond me. I am sure it impresses people at Starbucks though."
I think all the smartest people have these sorts of troubles, they tend to be very unique and individually minded, which doesn't often mesh well with a corporate authority structure.  It depends on the company tho, of course.
"So nobody is blaming them. I'm not sure why it is clear that it's someone's ""fault"" versus being just a shift in consumer behaviour. If there's a failing business should they fire the workers more quickly? I'm trying to understand your position here, and I don't know enough to ""blame"" anyone.  Really, what do you think is the primary issue? Clearly you feel something was the executive's fault, what is it you feel is their fault?"
We offer a variety of business enterprise formation applications designed to make putting in a private organization as simple and straightforward as feasible. They range from the simple Digital Package - providing the minimum prison requirements for reputable Company formation - to the All Inclusive, which includes a variety of beneficial extras, including a prestigious registered office, a commercial enterprise provider. This corporation shape is usually utilized by non-earnings Company inside the United States. It protects the private finances of the business enterprise owners in a comparable manner as a corporation limited via stocks. Instead of getting shareholders and stocks.
Fiduciary They are obligated by the rules of the exchanges they are listed with. Furthermore, there is a strong chance that people running the company also have stock, so it personally benefits them to create higher prices. Finally, maybe they don't care about the prices directly, but by being a good company with a good product or service, they are desirable and that is expressed as a higher stock price.  Not every action is because it will raise the stock price, but because it is good for business which happens to make the stock more valuable.
Right in the article he argues that his business experience (where he was involved in outsourcing) means that he understands the reasons why businesses outsource and this makes him well qualified to devise policy that will entice employers to bring those jobs back to the US.  Like him or not, that's a fair argument.
Many people go to leadership courses on their own accord and expenses. They are really helpful and informative learning experiences. As such, business owners should also think of including this in their educational and training programs to further encourage and motivate their employees.
When it comes to work efficiency of any employee, office chairs do make a difference as a person needs to put in substantial working hours by sitting on them. More the comfortable, an office chair is, more relaxed the person sitting on it, will feel.
I think any job choice depends on the person.    If you're only willing to do 40 a week, you're not able to assign yourself tasks and complete them, aren't able to stick with a budget, can't talk to people, etc, not the kind of person who would do well as an entrepreneur.
So the former CEO of American Airlines thinks employees shouldn't ever expect to do better than their competitors' employees and that it's their job to sit down and shut up while executives do whatever they think is best. Somehow I imagine the pilots are less than convinced by that line of reasoning.
"Most well-off people have investments which they have held for long periods of time, often of very substantial value such as a large part of a company.  They also have influence on legislators and officials through various social contacts, lobbyists, and contributions.  They managed to convince these law makers to offer a lower tax on income derived from sales of such investments.  The fig leaf covering this arrangement is that it ""contributes to the growth of economy by encouraging long-term investment in new enterprises."""
"Why does this seem so hard for brick and mortar electronics retailers?  Their only edge is the store and staff and precisely where they *repeatedly* gut themselves.  It is baffling.    Sometimes you wonder if anyone beyond a certain level of management lives in the ""real world"" as a consumer versus some disconnected budget-less world of executives.  How do they visualize a bunch of untrained low paid abused employees running their stores?  How do they visualize the customers' response?  It is like they can't understand fundamental human interaction/behavior."
Very interesting article, it makes sense that if you have a way of compensating a CEO that seems accurate to you, your board and your consultant, that you would try to replicate it on other companies.  This isn't terrible practice. If it was, it wouldn't have been adopted by other firms.  The fact remains that there ARE goals that need to be met, and there isn't really much secrecy about what happens in the CEO office.  They have to make important decisions based on reports from many areas and many managers.  The ability to make the right ones isn't an easy task. Hence their high paygrade
Why is one person more succesfull than another?  At the end of the day I think it simply comes down to personal choices, some people will choose to invest their time in profitable indevours and some will not.   This of course assumes people have a reasonable access to a mean of improvement (free education, vocational training, etc.)
There are few main reasons I can think of that the salesperson would do this: A lot of people assume it's the 3rd option always.  But if the person is reputable, it's most likely 1 or 2. You can't run a business doing option 3 for long without getting a reputation.
why sell?  Because the stock no longer fits your strategy.  Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else.  Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes.  That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.
The stock exchange here serves as a meeting place for current shareholders who want to sell their shares to someone else. This has nothing to do with liquidation, which is a transaction between the company and its shareholders. A company does not have to be listed on an exchange to make distributions to shareholders.
"The reason to go public is to get money. Not to be snarky, but your question is like asking, ""Why should a company try to sell its products, when if they just piled them up in a warehouse they wouldn't have to worry about shipping and customer complaints and collecting sales tax?"" The answer, of course, is because they want the money. Sure, there are disadvantages to going public, like more regulation, required financial disclosures, and having to answer to stockholders. That's the price you pay for accepting money from people. They're not going to give you money for nothing."
"This could be another reason.  ""Companies buy their own stock in the market place to reduce the number of shares outstanding, and thus boosts the earnings per share. It also boosts the stock price, which benefits management that has stock options. "" Taken from this article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2014/01/06/the-most-reliable-indicator-of-an-approaching-market-top/ and this article ""Why are stock rising?"" may help as well.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/12/23/why-are-stocks-rising/"
A company typically goes public in order to bring in additional capital. In an IPO, the company (through its officials) will typically do so by issuing additional shares, and offering to sell those to investors. If they did not do that, then there would be no net capital gain for the company; if person A sells share in company C to person B, then company C does not benefit directly from the exchange. By issuing and selling additional shares, the total value of all stock in the company can increase. Being publicly traded also greatly increases the confidence in the valuation of the company, as a consequence of the perfect market theory. There is nothing in this that says that initial investors (cofounders, employees, etc.) need to sell their shares in the process. They might choose to do so, or they might not; or they might be prevented from doing so by terms of any agreements that they have signed or by insider trading laws. Compare What happens to internal stock when a company goes public? Depending on specifics, it might be reasonable for the company to perform a share split prior to the initial public offering. That, however, doesn't affect the total value of the shares, only the price per share.
Because people bought their shares under the premise that they would make more money and if the company completely lied about that they will be subject to several civil and criminal violations. If people didn't believe the company was going to make more money, they would have valued their shares lower during the IPO by not forming much of a market at all.
Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company.  Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future).  From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off.  That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend).  And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important.  A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners.  But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value.
"Usually insiders are in a better position than you to understand their business, but that doesn't mean they will know the future with perfect accuracy. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes life events force them to liquidate an otherwise promising investment, sometimes their minds change. So while it is indeed valuable information, as everything in fundamental analysis it must be taken with a grain of salt. Automatic Sell I think these refer to how the sell occurred. Often the employees don't get actual shares but options or warrants that can be converted to shares. Or there may be special predetermined arrangements regarding when and how the shares may be traded. Since the decision to sell here has nothing to do with the prospects of the business, but has to do with the personal situation of the employee, it's not quite the same as outright selling due to market concerns. Some people, for instance, are not interested in holding stock. Part of their compensation is given in stock, so they immediately sell the stock to avoid the headache of watching an investment. This obviously doesn't indicate that they expect the company will go south. I think automatic sell refers to these sorts of situations, but your broker should provide a more detailed definition. Disposition (Non Open Market) These days people trade through a broker, but there's nothing stopping you from taking the physical shares and giving them to someone in exchange for say a stack of cash. With a broker, you only ""sell"" without considering who is buying. The broker then finds buyers for you according to their own system. If selling without a broker you can also be choosy with who is buying, and it's not like anybody can just call up the CEO and ask to buy some stock, so it's a non-open market. Ultimately though it's still the insider selling. Just on a different exchange. So I would treat this as any insider sell - if they are selling, they may be expecting the stock to become less valuable. indirect ownership I think this refers to owning an entity that in turn owns the asset. For instance CEO of XYZ owns stock in ACME, but ACME holds shares of XYZ.
"Buyouts are usually for more than the ORIGINAL value of a stock. That's because the price ""premium"" represents an incentive for holders to ""tender"" their shares to the would-be buyer. Sometimes in these situations, the stock price rises above the proposed buyout price, in anticipation of a higher takeover bid from a SECOND party (that may or may not materialize). To answer the other part of the question, does a bidder have a chance of taking over a dying company for less than the market price? That is a strategy sometimes referred to as a ""take under,"" and it has not been a notably successful strategy. That's because it goes against ""human nature"" (of the seller). ""Where there is life, there is hope."" They would seldom accept a lower price for ""sure"" survival, when the market is telling them that they are worth a higher price. Very few people realize that the market may disappear tomorrow. Think of all the homeowners who won't cut their price, but insist on bids that meet recent ""comps."" And if the company is really dying, the prospective buyer may be best served by waiting until it does, and then pick up the individual pieces at auction."
Often buyouts are paid for by the buyer issuing a load of new shares and giving those to the seller to pay them. Sometimes it could be all shares, sometimes all cash, or any mix in-between. If you believe in the future of the buyers' business model, you'll often get a load of shares at a discounted rate this way. If you do not believe in the buyers' future then you're getting shares that you think may be worth little or nothing some day, so cash would be better.
In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for.
When a delisting happens, the primary process involves, the firm or the entity, trying to buy everyone out so that they can take the firm private by delisting from the stock exchanges. As the firm wants to buy everyone out, the current owners of the equity have the upper hand. They wouldn't want to sell if they believe the firm has a brighter future. So to compensate the existing holders, the buyer needs to compensate the current holders of any future loss, so they pay a premium to buy them out. Hence the prices offered will be more than the current existing price. And in anticipation of a premium the stocks price rises on this speculation. The other scenario is if the current holder(s) decide no to sell their holdings and are small in number, dependent on exchange regulations, and the buyer manages to de-list the stock, the holders might loose out i.e. they have to find another buyer who wants to buy which becomes difficult as the liquidity for the stock is very minimal. if any stock is DE-listed and then we can not trade on it,  In India if the promoters capital is more than 90%, he can get the stock de-listed. There is a process, he has to make an open offer at specified price to minority shareholders. The minority shareholder can refuse to sell. Once the stock is de-listed, it means it cannot be traded on a given exchange. However you can still sell / buy by directly finding a buyer / seller and it's difficult compared to a listed stock.
In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.
The reason is because there's basically no incentive for anyone to not be unrealistically optimistic (aka lie). The management wants to show its being active so they aren't replaced. The IB trying to sell a company wants to make it look as good as possible. The bank providing a loan for the acquisition needs to make it look good for their risk committee, so they won't try to sour down the claims in the CIM too much. The acquired company would rather make more money than less. The only person who loses is the shareholder. It's an agency problem.
Well that is not entirely accurate, but the sentiment is true. If Jeff himself liquidated the stock it would cause concern because he is the driving force at Amazon. But whether or not the stock price is driven up or down is more about where demand meets supply rather than simply supply.   For example, almost every time a company buys out a public corporation they pay a premium for the exact opposite effect you're talking about, though it's the same logic. If you are wanted to sell 40% of a company you owned you would likely do it this way.   If Jeff announced he  was retiring and had good leadership set into place after him and THEN created a buyout of his 40% he would likely get 30-50% more than the stock is currently worth. So there are a lot of factors.
The people who cause this sort of sell-off immediately are mostly speculators, short-term day-traders and the like. They realize that, because of the lowered potential for earnings in the future, the companies in question won't be worth as much in the future. They will sell shares at the elevated price, including sometimes shares that they borrow for the explicit purpose of selling (short selling), until the share price is more reasonable. Now, the other question is why the companies in question won't sell for as much in the future: Even if every other company in the world looks less attractive all at once (global economic catastrophe etc) people have other options. They could just put the money in the bank, or in corporate bonds, or in mortgage bonds, or Treasury bonds, or some other low-risk instrument, or something crazy like gold. If the expected return on a stock doesn't justify the price, you're unlikely to find someone paying that price. So you don't actually need to have a huge sell-off to lower the price. You just need a sell-off that's big enough that you run out of people willing to pay elevated prices.