Talk:Share (finance)

Language
What's the difference between a share and a stock? Can't you have a stock in a mutual fund or a mutual organization?--Jerryseinfeld 15:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Share and stock usage varies between countries however it usually applies that both refer to the same product. Unit,scrip,holding and etc etc all have a similar usage. Description of share products could go on infinitum for it is all a matter of a countries accepted usage.

US usage is 'shares of the stock' of a company. In modern British English, "share" and "stock" are almost interchangeable in most contexts.BaseTurnComplete 21:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's one answer: Grahamhopgood 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

please put a example of a recipt that have a involvment share of a business.

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger

 * Merge - voting interest would fit nicely in shares as a sub-header, it doesn't need it's own article. PianoKeys 23:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This proposal had no response in over a year. I think voting interest belongs in the article about stock, rather than here. See also common stock and voting stock. I propose the merge banner be removed. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

India
I can't understand why the "Tax Treatment" section only discusses India as an example. The information provided is unhelpful without the context given by providing information about at least one other country.

Due to this section, the article is poor. DanTheShrew (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ownership
The Shareholder article claims that "contrary to popular opinion, shareholders of American public corporations are not the (1) owners of the corporation..." This contradicts what this article says, i.e. that shareholders are part-owners. I am not in a position to arbitrate one way or the other, but Stock agrees with this article that a share represents part ownership of the company. --Baryonic Being (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Income received is known as a WHAT?!
What the heck is a "dividend cheese"?! Lol... is this some kind of joke Mk762007 (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Shareholders do not own the corporation
Shareholders of large public corporations are not the owners of the corporation. Ownership is determined in law as based on a bundle of rights and duties (See Honore' 1961). The typical shareholder has none of these rights and duties.

This fact that shareholders of large public corporation DO NOT own the corporation is explained in Company Law and The Myth of Shareholder Ownership by Ireland (1999) (See http://kar.kent.ac.uk/1939/1/Myth_of_Shareholder_Ownership.pdf), Shareholder Ownership and Primacy by Velasco (2010) (See http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2010/3/Velasco.pdf) and Bad and Not So Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy by Stout (2002) (See http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~usclrev/pdf/075504.pdf)

Also, see the book by Stout (2012) called The Myth of Shareholder Value, Greenwood (http://people.hofstra.edu/Daniel_J_Greenwood/pdf/Hofstra.pdf). There are a lot more I will cite if needed.

Only if shareholders have control of the corporate decisions can they possibly be considered owners. They do not. Their vote in practice is ineffectual in determining Board of Director composition. Professor Bebchuk studied proxy contests conducted by all listed companies between 1996 and 2004, finding that only 17 corporations, with a market capitalization over $200 million, experienced proxy contests to replace management outside of the takeover context. Of these, only 2 of the insurgents won. “A plausible interpretation of the evidence is that, even when shareholder dissatisfaction with board actions and decisions is substantial, challengers face considerable impediments to replacing boards.” (Bebchuk 2005 p. 13)

The bottom line: Shareholders of large public corporations are NOT the owners.Sigiheri (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This discussion (if you could call it that) is all ready under way at Talk:Corporation. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)