vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If you have a public company and shareholder A owns 25% and shareholder B owns 25%, and lets say the remaining 50% is owned by various funds/small investors.   Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically.
Is it normal for such transactions to create new outstanding shares? Yes a company can create new shares or a Majority share holder can sell some of his stake or it can be a mix of both. how will this news affect the short-term and long-term price of the company's stock? This is opinion based and not apt for this site. It can be positive or negative depending on how the market reacts to the news.
"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be ""Restricted stock"" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in ""The Negative Coupon Bond"" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are ""Incentive Stock Options"" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid."
"From The Coca-Cola Company website, section for Investors: Stock History, Issues Year 1919 Original issue -- 600,000 shares 100,000 preferred, par $100 each 500,000 common, without nominal or par value 1926 Eliminated 100,000 preferred in November. This means there were preferred shares issued in 1919. However, all preferred shares were ""eliminated"" (not sure what that means) as of 1926. There has been no subsequent reissuance of preferred shares of Coca-Cola since then. I think the company is still authorized to issue them, should they choose to do so in the future."
This article is simply a discussion of the author's own stupidity. In no way does a liquidation preference effect the value of a company. Share class? Yes definitely.  The issue comes from applying the price of a preferred funding round to a fully diluted basis as is often quoted in financial media. Value doesn't always just equal basic p * q
"For MCD, the 47¢ is a regular dividend on preferred stock (see SEC filing here). Common stock holders are not eligible for this amount, so you need to exclude this amount. For KMB, there was a spin-off of Halyard Health. From their IR page on the spin-off: Kimberly-Clark will distribute one share of Halyard common stock for   every eight shares of Kimberly-Clark common stock you own as of the   close of business on the record date. The deal closed on 2014-11-03. At the time HYH was worth $37.97 per share, so with a 1:8 ratio this is worth about $4.75. Assuming you were able to sell your HYH shares at this price, the ""dividend"" in the data is something you want to keep. With all the different types of corporate actions, this data is extremely hard to keep clean. It looks like the Quandl source is lacking here, so you may need to consider looking at other vendors."
"The dividend reinvestment won't change whether the dividends themselves are qualified or not for US income tax purposes.  It's still the holding period on the stock that matters.  If you bought stock in different lots, then you could have a situation where some of the dividends paid are qualified and some are not, but: For completeness, it's worth noting that some dividends cannot be ""qualified"" no matter how long you hold them, but if you've got an investment in a common corporate stock (vs. something more ""exotic""), then what's above should apply."
In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered.  For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated.  The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.
"Hmm, this site says If you use Quicken, you enter a new transaction of type ""Corporate Acquisition (stock for stock)."" You put investor shares as the ""Company acquired"", Admiral shares as the ""Acquiring company"", and the conversion ratio 0.7997754 as the ""New shares issued per held share"" number. Seems crazy, but maybe that's the way. Edit: This sucks. In the comments, you can see that people have to manually correct the share price for every transaction because of rounding problems."
&gt; No, the main difference is dividends don't take shares out of the marketplace to artificially inflate a quarters EPS. Because buyback decreases shares outstanding it also decreases the company's total future dividend payouts as well.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  Buybacks are almost exclusively *better* for shareholders than dividends because they can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate, whereas dividends are subject to a higher tax rate.  The fact that corporate buybacks have increased so much lately at the expense of dividends is a sign of good management by insiders.
In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity.  In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares.  If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive.  Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason.  Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important.  If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.
A company is basically divided into shit the company owns (assets) and shit the company owes to people (liabilities). So what about ownership? Ownership is called equity and on a simplistic level equity = asset - liabilities. But a better view of that should be asset = liabilities + equity. Which means a company's assets  is separated into things owned by debtors (e.g. Banks) and things owned by owners(founders and you). So when you are offered one percent, you are basically owning one percent of the company.   Not the best explanation, but should be a simplified one.   Here's where the options come in. When you are offered options. That means you have the option of redeeming the shares at a lower price than market. However these options are not usually immediately redeemable, there's usually a minimum amount of time you have to work at a company to be able to use these options. This period is called the vesting period.
They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights.  Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.
Do all/most unit trusts have equalisation policy? It is really that some value of the fund is given to the investor, so the fund value goes down by that much per unit. It depends on the type of mutual funds. For example, there are growth type mutual funds that do not give any dividend and the total value of the fund is reflected in its price. Do the companies whose stocks we owned directly apply equalisation policy on their dividends as well? Why not? As far a stock price is concerned, it usually decrease by the same amount of the dividend payout at ex-date, so in effect, the market in a way does the equalization, the company directly does not do it.
"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a ""call"" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called ""call options"". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time.
I have not looked in details but apparently the company has (at least) a dual listing in Hong Kong (its main listing, ticker 700) and in the US (ticker TCTZF). It also has an ADR (TCEHY), the underlying of which is the HK line. The two US listings essentially trade at the same price and will provide very similar returns but a major difference is that TCTZF pays dividends in HKD whereas TCEHY pays its dividends in USD. The latter may be more convenient depending on the account you use to trade the stock. The ADR line is also more liquid.
authorized 100,000,000 shares They cannot issue shares more than that so 102M isn't possible. Common stock - $.01 par value, authorized 100,000,000 shares, issued 51,970,721 and 51,575,743 shares     If you look at the right 2 columns it become clear what it means. You missed the $ symbol and on the top (In thousands, except share amounts) ouststanding share 51,970,721 -> 520 On Sept 30, 2014 outstanding shares * 0.01 and rounded off to arrive at 520. ouststanding share 51,575,743 -> 516 On June 30, 2014 outstanding shares * 0.01 and rounded off to arrive at 516.
Presumably you're talking about the different share class introduced in the recent stock split, which mean that there are now three Google share classes: Due to the voting rights, Class A shares should be worth more than class C, but how much only time will tell. Actually, one could very well argue that a non-voting share of a company that pays no dividends has no value at all. It's unlikely the markets will see it that way, though.
Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits.  If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated.  There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value.  It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something.  Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value.  (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)
If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says ""yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital."" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not ""falsely exaggerate the investment return"", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation.
&gt; Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment.  This does not equate. Out of net income, it is only possible to either reinvest (retained earning) or payout (repurchase or dividend). You can't have a $20m gap there.  &gt; Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each?  What makes them entitled to a separate, special dividend over the other shareholders?  &gt; Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically.  It kinda sounds like you're describing preferred equity, but doing it in a rather round-about way.
"This is a great question.  I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout.  In short:  The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment.  What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units.  Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees.  The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting.  One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout.  Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies.  The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule.  If anything is more ""typical"" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be.  Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated."
"What in the world to shareholders have to do with it?  Nowadays, the vast majority of the shares in most big corporations are ""owned"" via intermediaries (i.e. mutual funds and 401K's, IRA's and Pension Funds) that do not ALLOW the actual end owners to have any say whatsoever.  All those investment vehicles *allow* people to care about ... is the share price."
The quotes on JSE are for 100 share lots.  The quotes on NYSE are for single shares.  That still leaves some price difference, but much less than you calculated. (EDIT: Equivalently, the price is quoted in 1/100th of a Rand.  The Reuter's listing makes this explicit since the price is listed as ZAc rather than ZAR.  http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=HARJ.J) As noted in the other answer currently up, NYSE is quoting American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) for this company, which is not directly its stock.  The ADR in this case, if you check the prospectus, is currently 1 share of the ADR = 1 share of the stock on its home market.  A US institution (in this case it looks like BNY Mellon) is holding shares of stock to back each ADR. Arbitrage is possible and does happen.  It's not perfect though, because there are a variety of other cost and risk factors that need to be considered.  There's a good review here: Report by JP Morgan Some summary points:
"A 100% stock dividend means that you get one share of the ""stock dividend"" for every share you own. For example, Google did this in 2014 when they gave all of their Class A shareholders one class C share for every Class A that they owned. If the 100% stock dividend is for the exactly the same stock, it is basically the same as a 2-for-1 stock split. If, however, the 100% stock dividend is to give you a different stock, then this is typically due to a corporate reorganization or demerger/spinoff event. Some countries have different tax treatments for the events - for example, with demergers in Australia, Class Rulings need to be obtained from the Australian Taxation Office to declare demergers as tax free.  A recent demerger was in Australia as South32, demerged from BHP Billiton. References: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ http://www.bhpbilliton.com/investors/shareholderinfo/demerger-taxation-information"
"There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns. The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :) While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with ""best practices""... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals. Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive.