Hot answers tagged

168

In order to determine what has happened to Motorola, you need to look at any corporate actions that have occurred on the stock. CORPORATE ACTIONS Motorola Inc had the following corporate actions since 1999: Jun 2000: 3:1 Stock split (so your 36 shares became 108 shares) Dec 2004: 0.110415:1 Spinoff of Freescale Semiconductor Class B shares (i.e. 11.925 ...


133

That would likely be a startup. So they need a developer who can ask for a good salary, but they don't have that much money. So instead they offer shares. If the company is successful, due (in part) to the help of the developer, they make lots of money and the shares don't hurt much. If the company fails and goes bankrupt, the shares are worthless and ...


130

Let's have a look at the various corporate actions for these companies to see what events would affect your shareholding. EMC Corporate Actions Feb 2001: 0.0369:1 Spinoff of McData. Cash paid for fractional shares. 2003-2016: Dividends totalling $1.435 per share Sep 2016: Taken over by Dell, paying $24.05 cash + 0.111 VMware tracking stock (DVMT) VMWare ...


118

Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,...


91

Shared property is tricky when agreements aren't made up front, but the right answer in a situation like this is basically whatever you agree to. That said, you own 5% of the property, not 5% of what it used to be worth. I would encourage you not to dismiss the value of that equity over all these years. If you had gotten 5% of the value 25 years ago you ...


78

Last summer (2019) I actually tried modelling something like this approach using FTSE 100 date from October 1997 to July 20191, because I, too, felt "intuitively" it might work... ...unfortunately, it never did so consistently. After playing around in a spreadsheet, trying different rates for when to (partially) sell after the market had gone up (the "...


72

Sometimes, we own things that are all but worthless. What do you do if you have a single staple you want to get rid of? Nobody would give you even a penny for it. Even if it's unbent, a single staple is only worth a tiny fraction of a penny. If it's been used, its value as scrap metal is even less. But if you have a million of them, you can open an ...


69

You're selling the shares to someone else (in exchange for cash), not exchanging the shares for company cash. Thus, the only way this could harm the company is by selling to someone who wants to take over the company (fine as far as it goes) but would poorly run the company.


64

Private companies don't have liquid secondary markets. There are no identified buyers of your shares. The next time there's a fund raising round at the company they will include some or all of your shares in the transaction at whatever valuation is being used for the transaction. What you need to calculate the value of the shares is a buyer for your ...


61

What can be done? Buy that person out or find a different method of financing the company. You're not going to get very far calling that person greedy and framing the entire issue around that. The shareholder agreement includes a provision not to dilute. Either find a different funding solution or come up with a more compelling argument than that ...


61

What is the problem, if any, of selling when it goes up 2% and then buying back in when it goes down 2%? The problem is when the market goes up 10% and you cashed out at 2% because you thought it was going to go back down. You miss out on that 8% upswing waiting for that 2% dip that just isn't happening. On the other side, you buy in on a 2% downswing, ...


54

The main reason, as far as I can see, is that the dividends are payments with which the shareholders may do what they want. Capital that the company has no use for does not make a significant positive return on investment, as you pointed out, yes the company could accrue interest, but that is not going to make the company large sums of cash. While the ...


54

In its basic form, a corporation is a type of 'privileged democracy'. Instead of every citizen having a vote, votes are allocated on the basis of share ownership. In the most basic form, each share you own gives you 1 vote. In most public companies, very few shareholders vote [because their vote is statistically meaningless, and they have no particular ...


54

Things to look for: They contacted you first. You always have to ask yourself how they came by your contact. If they have a really good product, they would not have to SPAM to sell it. Clarification, due to some comments: By "they contacted you first" I mean you do not know them, it is not something forwarded by your bank/broker etc. and you never purchased ...


52

No, a jump in market capitalization does not equal the amount that has been invested. Market cap is simply the stock price times the total number of shares. This represents a theoretical value of the company. I say "theoretical" because the company might not be able to be sold for that at all. The quoted stock price is simply what the last buyer and ...


51

Buying individual/small basket of high dividend shares is exposing you to 50%+ and very fast potential downswings in capital/margin calls. There is no free lunch in returns in this respect: nothing that pays enough to help you pay your mortgage at a high rate won’t expose you to a lot of potential volatility. Main issue here looks like you have very poorly ...


50

Here's another way that I look at it: Say you and me were 50-50 partners in a small business. Suppose we wanted to expand our business but that needed money. Someone (let's call him Warren) has the money we need & hence in return for the money we offer Warren an equal stake in the business. i.e. All three of us own 33% stake now. For both you and me ...


46

Unissued capital is only a token restriction. When a company is incorporated a maximum number of shares is specified in the legal documentation. Most companies will make this an extremely large number so they never face that limitation. See here. You wouldn't necessarily expect the stock price to change. The reason a company issues new stock is as a way to ...


45

First, you need to understand that not every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in ...


41

It depends on how the shares are sold. Let's say the share price right now is $10, exactly. Shares sold for $10.01 do not sell and shares sold at $9.99 are a loss to the seller. Chances are you won't be able to sell all shares at $10/share because there won't be that many buyers looking to purchase that many shares. So you decide to sell these shares at $9....


41

Technically it is worth what you are willing to sell it for and what he is willing to buy it for. Failing that, it is worth the current market value. If you were going to buy a home, and the you said to the sellers "Hey this property was valued at 25% less five years ago, I would like to pay that price". What would they tell you? They would tell you to ...


38

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 ...


36

A no dilution privilege is precisely that, a privilege and not a duty. There is no reason to believe the shareholder is being greedy, after all, they are adding risk to their own position at the same time. A no dilution privilege only gives the right to maintain a constant percentage, if there are no resources to protect or maintain that right then it ...


36

No one can tell what will or will not be a good investment in the future. However -- Berkshire Hathaway's annual newsletter to shareholders has, for the past several years, discussed this. Warren Buffett is 89, and his right-hand-man Charlie Munger is 96. They know they're not getting any younger and they're not going to live forever. They have been making ...


35

A firm is a separate legal person from its shareholders or owners (but doesn't get invited to parties much). Owners invest capital to get shares in the firm or may get shares for investing time, effort etc. but those shares are on a limited liability basis. That means that shareholders are only liable up to the value of their shares and that the firm itself ...


26

It is difficult to answer the question without doing several time-consuming things. I will, however, tell you how to do them. The question as to their worth depends on what happened during the mergers. Other firms purchased all three firms or were broken into different parts, but all three still exist in some form. No one can compel you to sell your ...


25

Is a public company able to check out who owns its shares ... Public companies have to maintain a register of members (shareholders). Apart from regulatory requirements, they need to know who to pay dividends to, invite to shareholder meetings etc. Exactly how they maintain this register depends on the company itself and/or on the regulatory jurisdiction ...


23

If they are truly long term investments I would not put a stop loss on them. The recent market dive related to the Brexit vote is a prime example of why not to have one. That was a brief dive that may have stopped you out of any or all of your positions and it was quite short lived. You would likely have bought your positions back (or new positions entirely) ...


23

what it certainly does is fluctuate up or down. Citation needed there. You have simply asserted without evidence that fluctuations of 2% up and down are a 100% mathematical certainty, but this claim requires evidence to be supported. Do some historical analysis; is it true? What is the problem, if any, of selling when it goes up 2% and then buying back ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible