vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Yes. Private companies have shares, they're just not liquid and there may be restrictions around selling them; founders get shares when they found a company (not options), as do VCs that invest. An options pool is oftentimes created as a result of a VC financing (when the cap table is being carved up and the existing owners are being diluted, anyway) for the purposes of attracting future employees.
Regardless of whether a stock is owned by a retail investor or an institutional investor, it is subject to the same rules.  For example, say that as part of the buyout, 1 share of Company B is equivalent to 0.75 shares of Company A and any fractional shares will be paid out in cash.  This rule will apply to both the retail investor who holds 500 shares of Company B, as well as the asset manager or hedge fund holding 5,000,000 shares of Company B.
"A company whose stock is available for sale to the public is called a publicly-held or publicly-traded company.  A public company's stock is sold on a stock exchange, and anyone with money can buy shares through a stock broker. This contrasts with a privately-held company, in which the shares are not traded on a stock exchange. In order to invest in a private company, you would need to talk directly to the current owners of the company. Finding out if a company is public or private is fairly easy.  One way to check this is to look at the Wikipedia page for the company.  For example, if you take a look at the Apple page, on the right sidebar you'll see ""Type: Public"", followed by the stock exchange ticker symbol ""AAPL"".  Compare this to the page for Mars, Inc.; on that page, you'll see ""Type: Private"", and no stock ticker symbol listed. Another way to tell: If you can find a quote for a share price on a financial site (such as Google Finance or Yahoo Finance), you can buy the stock.  You won't find a stock price for Mars, Inc. anywhere, because the stock is not publicly traded."
"Ordinarily a stock split increases all shareholders' share counts, so that there is no change in anybody's voting power.  For example, if you owned 1% of the company before the split, after the split you now have twice as many shares, but there are now twice as many shares outstanding, so you still own 1% of the company.  Also, stock splits are not ordinarily ""triggered"".  Usually they happen when the board decides that for one reason or another it's desirable to increase the number of shares in circulation, which causes the price of each share to decrease proportionally.   I'm not familiar with the show, and in particular I don't know what the action is that the character being addressed is thinking of taking, but it sounds like they are describing something akin to a ""poison pill"".  In these arrangements, the ""pill"" is triggered by some predefined condition, say a party acquiring shares in excess of a defined threshold.  What typically happens is that shareholders other than the ones who triggered the pill get a chance to buy shares at a substantial discount, thereby diluting the shares of the party that triggered it.  Because the other shareholders have to buy their additional shares, albeit at a discount, and because it applies only to certain shares, it's not really a split, but it's close enough that the writers of the show may have felt it was worth using the term that is more familiar to the public."
As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp
Of course it is a dilution of existing shareholders. When you buy milk in the supermarket - don't you feel your wallet diluted a little? You give some $$$ you get milk in return. You give some shares, you get Watsapp in return. That's why such purchases must go through certain process of approval - board of directors (shareholders' representatives) must approve it, and in some cases (don't know if in this particular) - the whole body of the shareholders vote on the deal.
It is important to realize that some mergers are done with the intent to kill the acquired company, as they say “die on the vine”.  If I know a company can become a threat I may buy them to kill them. Another reason to acquire is so my competitor won’t acquire them.
In my mind you would get all the money. You owned 100% when that transaction occurred. S/He gets 10% then on everything after. I usually go to an extreme case to figure out the answer.  So... If S/He bought 100% of the company it wouldn't go to the company it would go to you. I would be open to criticism on this answer I am answering from common sense not because I really know the answer.
You can definitely affect the price - putting in a buy increases the demand for the stock, causing a permanent price move.  Also if you hammer the market trying to execute too quickly you can hit offers that are out of the money and move the price temporarily before it stabilizes to its new equilibrium.   True, as an individual investor your trades will be negligible in size and the effect will be nonexistent. But if you are a hedge fund putting in a buy for 5% of dtv,  you can have a price impact. not 50%, but at least a handful of bps.
For the same reason you wanted it when you bought it. No-one guarantees that you'll be able to sell the stock you hold, and in fact many people get stuck with stocks they'd like to sell, but no-one is buying. But if investors think there's a profit potential that is not exhausted yet - they'll want to buy the stock.
RonJohn is right, all shares are owned by someone.  Depending on the company, they can be closely held so that nobody wants to sell at a given time.  This can cause the price people are offering to rise until someone sells.  That trade will cause an adjustment in the ticker price of that stock.  Supply and demand at work.  Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this.  The number of shares is low, the demand for them is high, the price per share is high.
Congratulations!  You own a (very small) slice of Apple. As a stockholder, you have a vote on important decisions that the company makes.  Each year Apple has a stockholder meeting in Cupertino that you are invited to.  If you are unable to attend and vote, you can vote by proxy, which simply means that you register your vote before the meeting.  You just missed this year's meeting, which was held on February 26, 2016.  They elected people to the board of directors, chose an accounting firm, and voted on some other proposals.  Votes are based on the number of shares you own; since you only own one share, your vote is very small compared to some of the other stockholders. Besides voting, you are entitled to receive profit from the company, if the company chooses to pay this out in the form of dividends.  Apple's dividend for the last several quarters has been $0.52 per share, which means that you will likely receive 4 small checks from Apple each year. The value of the share of stock that you have changes daily.  Today, it is worth about $100.  You can sell this stock whenever you like; however, since you have a paper certificate, in order to sell this stock on the stock market, you would need to give your certificate to a stock broker before they can sell it for you. The broker will charge a fee to sell it for you.  Apple has a website for stockholders at investor.apple.com with some more information about owning Apple stock.  One of the things you'll find here is information on how to update your contact information, which you will want to do if you move, so that Apple can continue to send you your proxy materials and dividend checks.
Also keep note - some companies have a combined CEO/Chairman of the board role. While he/she would not be allowed to negotiate contracts or stock plans, some corporate governance analysts advocate for the separation of the roles to remove any opportunity for the CEO to unduly influence the board.  This could be the case for dysfunctional boards. However, the alternate camps will say that the combined role has no negative effect on shareholder returns.   SEC regulations require companies to disclose negotiations between the board and CEO (as well as other named executives) for contracts, employee stock plans, and related information. Sometimes reading the proxy statement to find out, for example, how many times the board meets a year, how many other boards a director serves on, and if the CEO sits on any other board (usually discouraged to serve on more than 2) will provide some insight into a well-run (or not well-run) board.
Publicly traded companies perform dilution via an FPO (Follow-up Public Offer). It is a process similar to IPO, with announcements, prospectus, etc. You will know ahead of time when that happen. Stocks traded OTC are not required to file a lot of regulatory documents that publicly traded stocks are required to file, and may not disclose dilutions or additional issues. By buying OTC you agree to these terms. You will probably get a notice and a chance to vote on that in your proxy statement, but that happens when you already own the stock.
A buy out is agreed by shareholders. Plus most countries have regulation protecting minority interest. Depending on the terms of buy out, you may get equivalent shares of buyer company or cash or both.
Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers.  When most people own stock they do so through a broker.  Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage.  This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now.  At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed.  Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0.  The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell.  If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price.
You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html
A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely.   Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.
Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with  the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the  individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund,  the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement,  will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF,  you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X  now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns.  So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.
"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here.  It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you.  This is not true however, because there are people called ""market makers"" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy.  They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point."
"Yes and no.  There are different classes of shares - Some have voting rights, some *don't*.  Some take precedence over others in a bankruptcy.  Some get larger dividends.  ""Common"" isn't really a useful description of your stake in the company.  You *do* have a ""stake"" in the company, but not all shares are equal."
You can become an activist share holder with as little as one share depending on your strategy an example of this was Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (excellent name) vs Tesco (a huge supermarket, think walmart). He purchased one share which gave him the right to table a resolution at the AGM, then used the media to beat Tesco into submission over his particular issue however very few of the institution share holders (think large banks, pension funds, insurance companies) voted in favor so he failed miserably, but Tesco later caved slightly through fear of bad press. Also Carl Icahn is pretty well noted for doing things like this.  Regarding the amount of money, you would need to raise a hell of a lot to buy enough shares to have anything like enough of a block to influence the company directly, but to attend the AGM, ask questions and generally be a pain in the ass you only need modest amount of shares, in some cases just one share.
Investors purchase additional shares all the time. Every investor that adds money to their investments does this every paycheck or every month. Investors do this every time they reinvest dividends, interest or capital gains. They also buy and sell shares when they decide to rebalance their portfolio.  Whether you are investing via a broker, mutual fund or ETF the investment company can handle this issue. You do want to know how they want you to specify which shares you want them to sell. The laws in your country may specify a default procedure, or what needs to be done if you want to use another procedure, or if you are allowed to change once you have specified a procedure.
Yes, any company can go under. SIPC offers a level of protection. They don't guarantee against stocks dropping, but will replace stocks that you owned, but the broker stole from you. (overgeneralization). There's a $500K limit, with $250K max in cash.
"Buying shares back is an indication that the company has nothing better to do with their money.  True.  However, buying the shares back is essentially moving money around, the firms (or individuals) they buy from, will invest their money differently.  Mergers and acquisitions are productive though.  The idea is that you combine things to work more efficiently.  For example, a small startup might have a great product but not a lot of infrastructure or cash.  So the big guys with both buy em up.  Or, big companies might have redundant expenditures in infrastructure or employees, and by merging they can produce more efficiently.  The term you keep using ""real economy"" is a strange one.  The above parties are part of the real economy.  Really.  What, may I ask, is your education in economics?  What books have you read on the subject, classes taken, jobs worked, podcasts listened to, etcetera, that are giving you these ideas?"
"Shares sold to private investors are sold using private contracts and do not adhere to the same level of strict regulations as publicly traded shares. You may have different classes of shares in the company with different strings attached to them, depending on the deals made with the investors at the time. Since public cannot negotiate, the IPO prospectus is in fact the investment contract between the company and the public, and the requirements to what the company can put there are much stricter than private sales. Bob may not be able to sell his ""special"" stocks on the public exchange, as the IPO specifies which class of stock is being listed for trading, and Bob's is not the same class. He can sell it on the OTC market, which is less regulated, and then the buyer has to do his due diligence. Yes, OTC-sold stocks may have strings attached to them (for example a buy back option at a preset time and price)."
"&gt;As a legal matter, shareholders who purchase shares of stock in a corporation own nothing more than that—shares of stock. Similarly, bondholders own only bonds, and executives with employment contracts own their contracts. None of these types of ownership give shareholders, bondholders or executives the right to control the firm. The right to control the firm’s assets and actions rests in the hands of its board of directors, and only when they act as a body and follow proper board procedures. All this says is ""decisions are made by the board."" This is not news, and it doesn't mean that shareholders do not own the company. Shareholders elect the board, by the way. &gt;An important consequence of this governance structure is that shareholders not only have no legal right to control the firm, they also have no legal right to help themselves to the corporation’s assets. Well, that's wrong. &gt;In fact, the only time shareholders receive any funds directly from the corporation’s coffers is when they receive a dividend or the corporation repurchases their shares. Or, you know, in the case of bankruptcy. &gt;This only happens when the directors vote to declare a dividend or a corporate repurchase. The same directors who were appointed by shareholders. &gt;At law, a principal has a right to control her agent. But shareholders can’t exercise direct control over corporate directors. I suppose this is true in the sense that shareholders cannot practice slavery. But shareholders can, again, vote on issues relating to the governance of the company. &gt;It is thus wildly misleading to describe shareholders as the sole residual claimants in companies that aren’t actually in bankruptcy. This is only true if you're retarded and don't know what ""residual"" means. &gt;This idea is supported by modern options theory. In effect, bondholders own the right to access cash flow but have sold a call to shareholders, while shareholders own the right to access the cash flow but have sold a put to bondholders. Neither shareholders nor bondholders can claim an exclusive right to “own” the company’s cash flow, much less the company.
No. You're entitled to 1% of votes at the shareholders' meeting (unless there's class division between shareholders, that is). If more than 50% of the shareholders vote to close the company, sell off its assets and distribute the proceeds to the owners - you'll get 1% share of the distributions.
Schedule 13D (or the abbreviated version, schedule 13G) would be the most likely place to find this info. When a person or group of persons acquires beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a voting class of a company’s equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they are required to file a Schedule 13D with the SEC.  Schedule 13D reports the acquisition and other information within ten days after the purchase. Any material changes in the facts contained in the schedule require a prompt amendment.  You can find the Schedules 13D for most publicly traded companies in the SEC’s EDGAR database.  A 1% change in the amount of ownership is considered material.
"In other words, does the market have control over sale numbers or do I? You both do, just like for the bike.  You have control over the price you ask, and the buyer has control over the price they pay.  If the two do not align, no sale takes place. Your question uses the words ""sell"" and ""sale"" ambiguously.  You can decide to ask for any price you want.  You cannot actually sell anything until someone agrees to buy what you are offering."
"Not necessarily.  The abbreviation ""ESOP"" is ambiguous.  There are at least 8 variations I know of: You'll find references on Google to each of those, some more than others.  For fun you can even substitute the word ""Executive"" for ""Employee"" and I'm sure you'll find more.  Really. So you may be mistaken about the ""O"" referring to ""options"" and thereby implying it must be about options.  Or, you may be right.  If you participate in such a plan (or program) then check the documentation and then you'll know what it stands for, and how it works.  That being said: companies can have either kind of incentive plan: one that issues stock, or one that issues options, with the intent to eventually issue stock in exchange for the option exercise price. When options are issued, they usually do have an expiration date by which you need to exercise if you want to buy the shares. There may be other conditions attached. For instance, whether the plan is about stocks or options, often there is a vesting schedule that determines when you become eligible to buy or exercise. When you buy the shares, they may be registered directly in your name (you might get a fancy certificate), or they may be deposited in an account in your name. If the company is small and private, the former may be the case, and if public, the latter may be the case. Details vary. Check the plan's documentation and/or with its administrators."
I believe, I could be wrong, it has been a long day. By exercising this right you have the right to purchase the equivalent of their current share.  Eg. Someone owns 50 of 100 shares. and the company does a rights offering and is expanding the shares to 200. That person has first right to purchase 50 more shares to keep his share from being diluted.
Microsoft wants to buy a majority in the stock. To accomplish that, they have to offer a good price, so the current share owners are willing to sell. Just because the CEO of LinkedIN agreed to the deal doesn't really mean much, only that he is willing to sell his shares at that price. If he does not own 50%, he basically cannot complete the deal; other willing sellers are needed. If Microsoft could buy 50+% of the shares for the current market price, they would have just done that, without any negotiations. That is called a hostile take-over.
The company doesn't necessarily have to go public. They can also be worth money if the company is acquired. Also keep in mind that even if the company does eventually go public, your shares can essentially be wiped out by a round of pre-IPO funding that gives the company a low valuation. You could ask: