Talk:Shareholder

Two pages
There seems to be two pages, Shareholder and stockholder that are the same thing. No? Alex756


 * Also, this seems to just be a definition, which I thought weren't supposed to go on separate pages...? Prawn 12:52 May 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * There is also another definition on stockholder. I vote for this being moved to stockholder and then someone can make make it a encyclopedia entry (there is a lot of stuff that could go into such an entry, I don't think it will be limited to a definition, many Wikipedia articles start with definitions. Alex756 13:43 May 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the other way about. Make stockholder the redirect. Tannin


 * Black's Law Dictionary 7th ed., Deluxe ed., says (at 1431): stockholder. See S HAREHOLDER though it is the otherway around for Share, stock is more prevalent there. So I agree, I'm making stockholder the redirect to shareholder. Alex756

Here is the text from: stockholder
 * Stockholders is the term for those individuals or entities that own shares of stock in a company. Stockholders are granted special privileges, including the right to vote (usually one vote per share owned) on matters such as board of director elections, the right to share in distributions of the company's income, the right to purchase new shares issued by the company, and the right to a company's assets during a liquidation of the company.  However, stockholder's rights to a company's assets are subordinate to the rights of the company's creditors.  This means that stockholders typically receive nothing if a company is liquidated after bankruptcy, although a stock may have value after a bankruptcy if there is the possibility that the debts of the company will be restructured. Another term that is used for stockholders is shareholder.


 * Stockholders are considered by some to be a subset of stakeholders.

The last part of the article is poorly written. --71.206.189.25 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No Audi999 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, in my opinion, shareholder is a better word than stockholder Kasphero (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional info on article
Not trying to edit, but I am asking a question or two- and can it be added to the pages in the future?


 * 1) What is the origination of stockholder? Does it have something to do with the person(s) who orignially put the down capital for livestock?
 * 2) What is the origination of stakeholer? My original guess would be some one, or a comllective, who put the money down for someone to stake a claim of land and return the profit over time. Then again it could be as simple as it is mentioned on that page, some one made it up based up stockholder.
 * 3) What are the key differences between the two? Is it ownership?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.194.129 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

cashing out your shares
Hello, My name is John, i hold shares in a company that i have been laid off from couple of years back 2002 to be exact,and I am trying to return it to them so that i can cash out. Thank you very much for your assistance.
 * 1) -what is the process in getting a check from them?
 * 2) -if so,how long it takes to receive it?

04/15/2010. John F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.250.81 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Small corporations and privately held corporations
This article devotes a lot of its space to discussing shareholders of large corporations. However, there are many small corporations and privately held corporations. These aspects of corporations could be better covered.  Pine (GreenPine) t 09:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory "Ownership" Claims
In the first paragraph, this article claims that according to some (partially cited) source, the shareholders own the company. But in the last paragraph, the article claims that the shareholders don't own the company, "contrary to popular opinion". This seems like a contradiction, and if it isn't then more explanation as to the distinction is called for. 153.65.16.10 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone had changed the Fama paraphrase to incorrectly say the opposite of what Fama 1980 says. I changed it back. Now the article is consistent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk contribs) 22:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Sigiheri (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello??? You can take the contradictory thing off the front page now!!!Sigiheri (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not contradictory. There are different types of stock.  Some types have ownership rights.  Others do not.  The kind of stock most americans by carries no ownership right.  It's confusing, I know.  http://law.jnu.edu.cn/blaw/kyyd/UploadFiles_3666/200705/20070518014549792.pdf 68.8.202.159 (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The holder of common or stock shares (most shareholders) receive a proportionate share in the company's profit, can vote to appoint and remove the directors and are entitled to a proportionate share of the company's residue assets on it being wound up. They are thus commonly said to own the company. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would argue that shareholders will receive a public corporation's profit if and only if the board declares dividends, which it does not need to do. (See Greenwood the dividend puzzle and Stout Bad arguments 2002) The board is protected by the business judgment rule and has a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its shareholders, according to Delaware. See Other states mention only duties of the board to the corporation and some have constituency statutes.  Regarding the right of the shareholder to vote, please see Bubcheck's work.  He notes that the shareholders' vote is ineffectual in determining board members.  In practice, the board determines who is on the board.Sigiheri (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted reference
Blue-haired lawyer deleted my FAMA 80 cite, claiming it was incorrect. You be the judge https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HZ6zI0qlmCEJ:student.bus.olemiss.edu/files/jeggington/OLE%2520MISS%2520PHD%2520Program/Fin%2520635/2/fama.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpCDPr7BIMJiXVeXse8Oa9AxEdpUmZ3mj_Fo7Xu3OVN2Zh9GUc0VPMvjjx-XRKysKBEy5FQpo4MXefdquGEAJ9VmRwP-9hfs9DVnX6ZZsnjDk17y5wcaoBRNRRW7tvEsxj7Xbt&sig=AHIEtbSUoW3FuPE_mipn11n8MxYtWgXzUA&pli=1 Sigiheri (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your Fama cite was incomplete. If you wish to cite something please include the full citation, like
 * Fama, Eugene F., Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 88, No. 2. (Apr., 1980), pp. 288-307.
 * and not
 * Fama 1980
 * We are not here to hear about your theories about companies. Theories of business ownership certainly have a place in this article (eg "Fama argued that the shareholders of a large public corporation lacked any meaningful 'ownership' of the corporation") but as a matter of black letter law, joint-stock companies – both large and small – are owned by their (ordinary) shareholders. How meaningful such ownership is and how effective their control is, is irrelevant. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you being like that? I'm sorry if I offended you. Sigiheri (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure what you're talking about. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Need references
As a starting point, this article needs refs. It has none. As a second observation, the nature of what a shareholder holds will differ, depending on the law that the term is construed under (e.g., New York law vs. French law). But nothing should be added at this point without RS refs supporting it, and the addition clarifying under which law(s) the statement is made.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Undergraduate Law and Ethics
— Assignment last updated by Jquillen1 (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)