vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Your first scenario, involving shareholders in a private corp being limited by a contractual agreement, is common in practice. Frequent clauses include methods of valuing the shares if someone wants to sell, first right of refusal [you have to attempt to sell to the other shareholders, before you can sell to a 3rd party], and many others. These clauses are governed by contract law [ie: some clauses may be illegal in contract law, and therefore couldn't be applied here]. A Universal Shareholders' Agreement is just the same as the above, but applied to more people. You would never get an already public company to convert to a universal shareholders' agreement - because even 1 share voting 'no' would block it [due to corporate law limiting the power of a corporation from abusing minority shareholder value]. In practice, these agreements universally exist at the start of incorporation, or at least at the first moment shares become available. An example is the Canadian mega-construction company PCL*, which is employee-owned. When the original owner transferred the corporation to his employees, there was a USA in place which still today governs how the corporation operates.  In theory you could have a 'public company' where most shares are already owned by the founders, and 100% of remaining shares are owned by a specific group of individuals, in which case you may be able to get a USA signed. But it wouldn't really happen in practice.  *[Note that while PCL is broadly owned by a large group of employees, it is not a 'public company' because any random schmuck can't simply buy a share on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I assume most exchanges would prevent corporations from being listed if they had ownership restrictions like this].
If Jack owns all of the one million founding shares (which I assume you meant), and wants to transfer 250,000 shares to Venturo, then he is just personally selling shares to Venturo and the corporation gains nothing. If Jack does not own all of the founding shares, and the corporation had retained some, then the corporate shares could be sold to raise cash for the corporation. Usually in situations like this, the corporation will create more shares, diluting existing shareholders, and then sell the new shares on the open market to raise cash.
"Private companies often ""make the market"" for their own stock. So they may offer to buy back so many shares a year, give staff the option to sell stock back after so many years, etc.  But private companies can have their own restrictions. They can, for instance, forbid secondary trading or explicitly limit voting stock to family members.  Ostensibly, someone could sell a big chunk of a company for whatever price they wanted (unless it was prohibited).  For tax purposes, IRS will come after you if you get a bunch of value for less than you paid for.  It is not an unheard of way to transfer wealth, but a dollar? Probably just gift it. But I'm not a tax attorney...   But is absolutely not the same kind of price transparency, or price movement, that you see in public stock, you are correct. Larger private companies may have secondary markets that are still less transparent."
At the end of the day, if you feel happy in the transaction it helps in the long run more than—let’s say—the $20 to $40 you “save” by buying from someone else. Also—on the side of customer service—this person’s sales techniques sound like something out of a very old fashioned sales playbook. Nowadays it’s all about relationships and service: The immediate sale is not as important for competent and reputable businesses because they know a better customer service experience will bring people back. So it doesn’t matter how long this guy has been in business: It could be that he’s been in business a long time just because he has been in business a long time. That said—and in the case of musical instruments—maybe this guy is really good at care and upkeep of instruments but has crappy sales techniques. Keep that in mind as well and just push back on their sales methods. For things like musical instruments, people might be jerks on the sales side but in the maintenance and repair side they are great. Will you need to go to them if/when your instrument needs repair? Or you don’t care? At the end of the day, go with your gut. And if your gut says, “No…” then just go somewhere else and spend your money on an item you like from a place that treats you the way you need.
That's the point.  They're crooks who only want to do an IPO at the moment they start filing publicly.  If you did an IPO after financials are already public, then you'd be forced to sell at a fair price.  Doing it before an actual earnings report (which is more accurate than an S-1) allows them to exploit speculation and get a better price.
The question seems to be from the point of view actual sales and not its impact on one's taxation. In case you just want to sell, why brokers will respond differently each times. Either there may be issues with ownership and/or the company whose shares it is? In case you feel that the issues lies with brok
You must not really understand how sales work. There isn't some magical list of people who want to hear about my product. There aren't very many ways to find a sizable amount of people who are in the market to make a purchase. To find people who are, I can cold call, advertise, and that's about it. Every successful company to ever exist started out cold calling potential clients to see if they wanted to purchase their product. The thing is, we don't care about finding people who don't want to purchase. We simply thank you for your time and move on. What we DO care about are the people who end up being interested in our product, and I can tell you this, every person who IS interested in our product is glad we called them. Plus, a cold call is not a sales call. A proper cold call is simply an informational call. The beginning of a business relationship. It is where you see if a person is interested or in need of the product you are selling and, if they are, you explain how your product can meet their need. We don't try to close the sale then and there. We simply inform. It's a highly effective way to find business, if you can handle being demonized by assholes like you.
There are a lot of things that can be specified in the LLC agreement / charter, such as unequal distribution profits, sales restrictions, classes of ownership, etc. You should read your LLC paperwork. That said, you are generally allowed to sell ownership in an LLC in a private transaction. If you advertise the share of the LLC for sale, it's probably a violation of SEC rules. So Craig's List is a bad idea. Word of mouth or a broker is the way to go. I am not a lawyer or accountant -- you should double check this information; it might be wrong.
"There are two kinds of engagements in an IPO. The traditional kind where the Banks assume the risks of unsold shares. Money coming out of their pockets to hold shares no one wants. That is the main risk. No one buying the stock that the bank is holding.  Secondly, there is a ""best efforts"" engagement. This means that bank will put forth its best effort to sell the shares, but will not be on the hook if any don't sell. This is used for small cap / risky companies.  Source: Author/investment banker"
Even better, the company he owns filed for bankruptcy.  He gets to keep all of the cash, the company folds, and he'll just start up a different company with all the money and none of the obligations.  That's exactly what his book says he'll do.  Why is anyone surprised that he does this?
"There are two primary reasons shares are sold short:  (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question.  The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting ""against the box"" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays.  It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares.  This benefit is however not available to all investors."
Nobody here really answered your question.  The custodian of the 401k determines what funds and investment options are available within that 401k.  So if they're eliminating company stock as an option then they can absolutely make you sell out of it.    You may be able to do an in service rollover and transfer your funds to an individual ira but that's not particularly common among 401k administrators.   Aside from that I'd ask why do you want to hold company stock anyway?  Generally I'd advise against this as its imposing a ton of risk on your financial future.  If your company tanks you're out of a job, which sucks.  But it sucks even more if your company tanks and your 401k loses a ton of value at the same time.   Edit: I see you asked who benefits as well.  It may just be a situation of no benefit at all.  Perhaps the plan didn't have enough people investing in company stock to make the option cost effective.  Maybe the administrator decided that allowing people to take on that amount of risk was not in their best interest(it's not).  Could be a ton of reasons but it's unlikely the company did so out of greed.  There isn't a lot of financial benefit for them there.
&gt;Suppose they had priced it at $25 and limited the number of shares they would have gotten less money but they'd also be looking at a massively successful pop on their share price.  ...which would've benefited them how, exactly? Sell a share for $38 and it drops to $25, the company gets $38. Sell a share for $25 and it goes to $150, the company gets $25.
The buyer of such an account is likely treating it as an asset, and if they ever resell it capital gains (or loss) would be realized. I don't see why this would be any different for the person that created the account initially, except that the basis starts at $0 making the entire sale price taxable. How you figure the value of the account before the initial sale would be more difficult, but fortunately you may not ever need to know the value (for tax purposes) until you actually sell it.
"If history is any guide, Page’s idealistic impulses could result in a vaster, more sprawling company. The following is an example of one of Page’s idealistic impulses (wanting people to share spectrum) which could result in a vaster, more sprawling company (if they hadn't been outbid, Google would have expanded by buying a business asset i.e. spectrum which they didn't need). I've no experience with bidding. I don't understand what's happening at all An 'auction' is a way to sell something. Instead of offering it for sale at a fixed price, you offer it 'to the highest bidder'. Someone (e.g. Google) says, ""I'll offer you [some amount: e.g. a million dollars] for it."" If no-one else exceeds that bid, then you say 'sold' and Google has bought it. Alternatively someone else comes along with a higher bid, ""I'll offer you two million dollars for it,"" in which case they're the new high bidder, and you'll sell it to them unless the process repeats itself with anyone counter-offering an even higher bid. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_auction The ""Disadvantages"" section of this article alleges (currently without a citation) that: Despite the apparent success of spectrum auctions, an important disadvantage limiting both efficiency and revenues is demand reduction and collusive bidding. The information and flexibility in the process of auction can be used to reduce auction prices by tacit collusion. When bidder competition is weak and one bidder holds an apparent advantage to win the auction for specific licenses, other bidders will often choose not to the bid for higher prices, hence reducing the final revenue generated by the auction.[citation needed] In this case, the auction is best thought of as a negotiation among the bidders, who agree on who should win the auction for each discrete bit of spectrum. Google's bid made that impossible (or, at least, ensured that the winning bid would be at least as high as the minimum which was set by Google's bid)."
The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets.
The price gaps up because the offer is for a price above the current price. Therefore people want to buy now before the price jumps to the offer level. Of course it does depend on the tone of the announcement,  which party is making the announcement, and are they announcing an offer or a deal. If the price is $10, and the offer is for $12; then the price may quickly jump. The early buyers will make the most quick money. They hope that the deal is done quickly, or if not the final price ends up higher.  There are risks. The company could reject the offer. The due diligence could expose a problem. The regulators could reject the deal based on anti-trust issues. The deal could take many months to complete. Or the final deal could be for shares in the new company.  The risks are one reason people sell after the deal/offer is announced. In other cases the seller finally is seeing a profit, or a smaller loss and wants out while they can.
How is this not a breach of contract? Is it just because the corporate entity you're doing business with has gone out of business? Isn't the parent company still responsible?  It seems to me that if it's not, there are a lot of ways that an unethical person / company could game the system.
Does this make sense?  Some corporate behemoth was making tons of money by selling disgusting sludge which I would not feed to a fucking dog, and because the true nature of this shit came to light, they lost a lot of business.  They only had the business in the first place because people were unaware of what they were doing, and when the people learned, they were disgusted and tended to avoid it.
The prices dropped because the scandal could mean: This some people estimated that the company could lose money, or have smaller profit. Thus each share was worth less money going forward. The mechanism is that in order to sell their shares the current share owners had to settle for lower prices.
I agree. I don't really see a good argument (not that there isn't one to be made) in the article saying how this is unusual or illegal. Why did the managers sell such a small amount of their holdings? Could they have sold more? Is this selling behavior and scheduling at all abnormal? The article fails to address a number of important questions.
"The original *""offer""* was as follows: the shark says he has invested in a company that *may* be interested in this entrepreneur's product, and ""contingent on *that* deal,"" he will buy the owner out for $150K plus a 4% royalty interest in perpetuity. This is technically not an offer, because the contingency was too vague. He was merely showing interest."
There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter?  Everyone has a different valuation of a company.  The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share.  To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on.  The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell.  Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up.  Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before.  In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger.  This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board.  But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect.  Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't.
5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it? But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you? 6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google ""Dividend Aristocrats"". 7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly? You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out."
"So your goal is to sell out? If I'm understanding correctly. I say that without connotation. Since you want stock and the ability to be bought.   Your partner sounds like he wants reinvest back into the company and make it grow.   If you want ""profit"", I'd say find a different partner.   Again you personally can be profitable while still maintaining the company with a nonprofit status. Gotta pay employees."
One reason a company might choose to pay a dividend is because of the desire of influential stockholders to receive the dividend.   In the case of Ford, for example, there are 70 million shares of Class B stock which receive the same dividend per share as do the common stock holders.  Even though there are 3.8 billion shares of common stock, the Class B owners (which are Ford family) hold 40% of the voting power and so their desires are given much weight.   The Class B owners prefer regular dividends because if enough were to sell their Class B shares, all Class B shares (as a block) would have their voting power drop from 40% to 30%, and with further sales all special voting would be lost and each Class B share would be equivalent to a common share in voting power. Hence the Class B owners, both for themselves and for all of the family members holding Class B, avoid selling shares and prefer receiving dividends.
What is it that you think he is producing? He sells timeshares. If he quit selling timeshares someone else would. Maybe someone who thinks making 25% is good enough. That's how business works. It is why when you arrest one drug king pin 3 more pop up. Maybe even an employee at the current company.
What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time.
"IANAL, but if you're planning to sell shares in your LLC you may be disappointed in the protection granted. I looked into this corporate structure for the same purpose myself, and my attorney said something like, ""If an owner of one of the shares of your company is driving to look at one of the properties, and gets into a wreck for which they were found negligent, the injured party can sue the corporation."""
Most corporations have a limit on the number of shares that they can issue, which is written into their corporate charter.  They usually sell a number that is fewer than the maximum authorized number so that they have a reserve for secondary offerings, employee incentives, etc. In a scrip dividend, the company is distributing authorized shares that were not previously issued.  This reduces the number of shares that it has to sell in the future to raise capital, so it reduces the assets of the company. In a split, every share (including the authorized shares that haven't been distributed) are divided.  This results in more total shares (which then trade at a price that's roughly proportional to the split), but it does not reduce the assets of the company.
Makes perfect sense in two ways. Staying private allows companies to focus on long term strategy rather than quarterly results, and some of the companies mentioned raised lots of money very quickly but might not have the most stable strategy over the long term which would turn off public investors.
Many partnership agreements include a shotgun clause: one person sets a price, the other can either buy at that price or sell at it. It's rather brutal. You can make offers that you know are less than the company is worth if you're sure the other person will have to take that money from you, say if you know they can't run the company without you.  He has asked for $X to be bought out, and failing that he would like to keep owning his half and send his wife (who may very well be competent, but who among other things has a very ill husband to deal with) to take his place. If he can occasionally contribute to the overall vision, and she can do the day to day, then keeping things as they are may be the smart move. But if that's not possible, it doesn't mean you have to buy him out for twice what you think it's worth.  In the absence of a partnership agreement, it's going to be hard to know what to do. But one approach might be to pretend there is a shotgun clause. Ask him, if he thinks half the company is worth $X, if he's willing to buy you out for that price and have his wife run it without you. He is likely to blurt out that it isn't worth that and she can't do that.  And at that point, you'll actually be negotiating.