Talk:Stock/Archives/2012

What is the exact process that causes the stock price to change in real time?

I can't seem to find an explanation for how exactly the price of the stock changes throughout the day. Who or what decides the price that will be displayed on the boards and how does that person or thing make that decision? I'm not talking about the principles of supply and demand. What I'm asking is what is the actual process that makes a stock price fluctuate throughout the day. What exactly happens on the floor of a stock exchange? Can someone provide a more detailed explanation of this?

Also, once a company sells shares of its stock to the public, how does the performance of the company influence the price of a stock to change? What I DO understand is that if a company is doing bad, people worry that it might go bankrupt and they might lose what they do have invested in it, and therefore want to get rid of it before that happens, which causes more and more people to do the same and drives the price down. But what I dont understand is why the price goes up if a company is doing well. If a company does well, how does that translate into a rise in the price of its stock? I understand if the company does well, everyone wants it and the demand goes up so the price follows, but why does everyone want it in the first place, forgetting about the fact that demand pushes the prices up? What causes the demand to go up? Bah, I must admit I'm not quite sure if I'm even phrasing my question correctly...I know what I'm thinking but I can't seem to put it in words...Please try your best.

-the dummie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.213.238 (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am by far no expert in the area of stocks, however this said, I believe stock value for a company performing well increases, because companies performing well earn profit, from which a portion of this profit goes to the shareholders. A company performing well, will return more profit to their shareholders. Thus, it is natural for people to want to own a share in a company that is performing well and will be able to give them more money--esspecially a company likely to perform well in the long run and with a history of high returns. I believe also a philanthopist like urge to invest in meaningful venture companies that are creating products that are a benifit to the world in various ways, may also drive the price of stock up, even for companies that are unable and unlikely to show returns ever, but are creating benificial technology or services that are needed. A final case would be a company that is positioned to likely produce high returns in the future, but cannot do so yet. The price of such stock may escalate due to speculation of high returns in some distant future, such as the completion of research and design of a new desirable product or service. A mixture of all three of these probably plays a role along with factors i have omitted, in driving stock price up.

-Scott.M 02 2008

Equities

I searched for equities.But I was automatically redirected to Stock. In the Stock entries there's no mention of word "equities." I understand that in most usage they refer to the same concept, but shouldn't the subtle difference be highlighted?

It seems to be an overview for a common man to understand the method or we can say procedure how the price tend to increase or decrease as the case may be , i am concerned about the changes which are made on time basis . As the prices of shares or any such thing which fluctuates in a fraction of seconds , what actually influences to them is it the transaction or is it the disseminate period which drives changes in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimanlal (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "common equity" has a totally separate identity from the term stock. I know it is common for "the pros" to use the term "equities" to mean stocks. However there was an article in the 13 Sept 2010 Wall Street Journal on pp 1-2 which can provide some guidance here. Clearly the term "Common Equity" has a specific meaning which is used in banking to refer to a type of money or cash equivalents. Perhaps it includes stocks, but it is clear from the article that it also includes other types of cash equivalents including actual paper money and coins. If no one does anything about this I am likely to remove the redirect and take a shot at this myself next week, but that seems like me making a big mess. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Share vs Stock

Is there really anywhere in the world where this concept is referred to primarily as "share" and not stock? A share is a unit of account, or a measurement for the concept of owning stock in a company. I wondered if it was just a British usage, so a quick survey of the BBC news shows the word share used sometimes, stock others. Specifically, the BBC calls the markets stock markets and the London Stock Exchange. A survey of the Sydney Morning Herald appears similar, with more balance towards the use of "stock" for the concept and "share" to refer to the number of units of stock. So given the term is never called "shares" in the US and seems mixed in England and Australia at least, it seems much more appropriate to have this article moved to "Stock", with at most a disambig message to alert people to other uses of that word. I will make that move unless someone has good justification to oppose. - Taxman 19:44, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

we are all in this together! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.121.186 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, stock refers to the invested capital in a company. A share means a share of stock, or a share in the invested capital of a company. If a company issues 3000 shares, each having a par value of $1, then the total stock of the company is $3000. So, while in common usage stock and share are used interchangeably, they actually mean different in law and finance. Someone should change this. Pmadrid 06:16, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is somewhat different: Company stock is a category of securities or financial instruments which includes company shares and company (corporate) bonds. The capital of a business includes the shares and bonds. A share is a share in the ownership and therefore the profits. Stock is shares and bonds! But stock need not be company stock: Government bonds are stock too! Paul Beardsell 23:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? Though I don't profess to be an expert on the subject, I have never heard of your version. Being fairly well versed i the subject, I would consider it possible that you are incorrect. Certainly provide some verifiable evidence here before drastically changing the article. - Taxman 03:19, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

OK. And thank you. It seems I am wrong on this. Stock includes all the various classes of shares, voting, preference, etc but not debt. "Stock" refers to either all the shares of a particular class or to all the particular classes of shares, depending on context. Do you agree? Paul Beardsell 08:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This needs to be changed! No one in Britain refers to a bond as 'a stock' or 'stock'. Stock and share are used interchangeably. Government bonds are certainly never reffered to as stock! Do any of you actually work in the city? This is an encylopedia, you should not confuse it with your misunderstandings of financial terms, or impose your own misconceptions of what 'stock' is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.215.70 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2006.

In the text "Private Company Secretary's Manual' 6th Edition by Hugh Williams (published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) there is a defined difference between 'stock' and 'share' (at p 53). Shares are defined as the paper that represents ratios of capital ownership in the company (based on par value) whereas 'stock' refers to the actual market value (i.e. capitalisation) represented by shares in the company.

He writes: "Fully paid shares may be converted into stock. Thus, a shareholder will own £100 worth of stock in place of 100 £1 shares. Once this has happened it is then possible, for example, to transfer £6.32 worth of stock whereas it is not possible to transfer 6.32 £1 shares."

My question is whether this definition is purely an accounting definition or whether it is one that is correct for general usage. - Adam Koon

First share?

I have always heard that the Swedish company Stora Kopparberg sold their first share in 1299, 103 years before the share of Dutch East India company was sold. Can anyone confirm this?

This not correct the document of 1299 from Stora, has nothing to do with shares and shareholders, but with a normal financial transaction to invest money in the company, That kind of transaction where a normal kind of finance transaction in that time, special in Italy.

"The documents where on name and can't sold to an other.

Officialy The VOC (Dutch East India Company) is the first multinational of the world and first company who finance the company with shares in 1606, on the stockmarket.

On Wallstreet you can see one of this shares.

Is Hbc the world's oldest company?

No. There are a few other candidates with claims to this title and it depends on your definition of company.

The (British) Royal Mint: According to the Guinness Book of Records. But this isn't really a company in the modern sense of shareholders, etc. Guinness gives no date for its establishment and its own website says nothing of the kind. It produces an Annual Report - at Parliament's behest - but does not seem to be a "company" of investors at all.

Sumitomo Corporation: Founded over 400 years ago by Masatomo Sumitomo (1585-1652), Sumitomo is publicly listed and includes such well-known names such as Mazda, Sumitomo Bank, Asahi Breweries, Mitsui OSK Shipping Lines, NEC computers and Dunlop tires. The history on its website indicates that it was family held for quite a while and it is unclear when it became jointly held. Its original business was copper-mining.

Stora Kopparberg: Copper has been mined in Falun, Sweden, for over 1,000 years, and two thirds of the world's copper ore was produced here during the 17th and 18th centuries. The town is home to the Falun Copper Mine and its awesome Big Pit (Stora Stöten), measuring 100 metres (328 feet) deep and 400 metres (1,310 feet) wide. The oldest document about the mine, dating from 1288, shows that it was then owned by a company, Stora Kopparberg, in which shares could be bought and sold. Nowadays known simply as "Stora," it is the world's oldest company of shareholders. In the 17th century it was the largest copper-producer in the world, but nowadays the company's interests lie mainly in the ownership of forests and the production of timber.

Based on this evidence Stora Kopparberg is probably the best choice for the world's oldest company. Hbc is Canada's largest department store retailer and oldest corporation. And we are the only one of the great joint-stock trading companies of the 16th and 17th centuries that is still in business. GT

note: Oldest companies:

a few examples:

1. Kongo Gumi Construction/Osaka, Japan Founded: 578 40th generation www.kongogumi.co.jp Prince Shotoku brought Kongo family members to Japan from Korea more than 1,400 years ago to build the Buddhist Shitennoji Temple, which still stands. Over the centuries, Kongo Gumi has participated in the construction of many famous buildings, including the 16th-century Osaka castle. Today the family continues to build and repair religious temples and manage general contracting from its Osaka headquarters. Current president is Toshitaka Kongo; his 51-year-old son, Masakazu Kongo, is waiting in the wings.

2. Hoshi Ryokan Innkeeping/Komatsu, Japan Founded: 718 46th generation www.ho-shi.co.jp/jiten/Houshi_E/ According to legend, the god of Mount Hakusan visited a Buddhist priest, telling him to uncover an underground hot spring in a nearby village. The hot spring was found, and the priest requested that his disciple, a woodcutter’s son named Garyo Saskiri, build and run a spa on the site. His family, known as Hoshi, have run a hotel in Komatsu ever since; the current structure houses 450 people in 100 rooms. Zengoro Hoshi is the current patriarch.

3. Château de Goulaine Vineyard, museum, butterfly collection/Haute Goulaine, France Founded: 1000 http://chateau.goulaine.online.fr The castle, owned by the Goulaine family, houses a rare butterfly collection in addition to a museum. It hosts various functions, including weddings. Wine is available for sale at the castle’s vineyards.

• 4. Fonderia Pontificia Marinelli

Bell foundry/Agnone, Italy Founded: c. 1000 Bell foundry founded in the small central Italian town of Agnone, high in the Appenine hills. Still uses the original wax techniques of its founders (a wax “false bell” is overlaid with the real thing); its bells toll in New York, Beijing, Jerusalem, South America and Korea, among other locations. Firm has 20 employees, including five members of the founding Marinelli family. Pasquale Marinelli is current managing director. A museum, opened in 1997, features the work of Pasquale’s brother, sculptor Ettore Marinelli.

5. Barone Ricasoli Wine and olive oil/Siena, Italy Founded: 1141 www.ricasoli.it The Ricasoli barons were first given their land by the Republic of Florence; today their Brolio Estate covers about 3,600 acres. The family’s main focus is its wine production, although 26 acres of the estate are used for olive cultivation.

See also:

• [1] Hudson's Bay Company (Hbc)

What does a company get from stock trading?

Once a company has sold a share of its company, what benefit does it get from that share being futher traded in a stock exchange? i.e. if the share price should rise, does the company receive extra money?

Is a company's stock market valuation equal the amount of money that company actually has to use for capital investment? [unsigned, Pbadams, Feb 19, 2005]

The second and third questions are easily answered: "No."

The first one is trickier. The benefits are indirect. Typically, it means that further capital, if needed, can be raised on more advantageous terms: the company could issue further shares at rates more reflective of its current, higher valuation. The benefits to the management are far larger (even independent of them typically being stockholders themselves): the stockholders—the owners—are presumably happy with them, and more likely to retain them.

On the whole, though, stock valuation is of far more direct consequence to the stockholders than to the company.-- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel that the second and third questions are easily answered: "No".

Lets talk a little more about the first one. A rising share price indicates that the anticipated future rate of return from the operations of a company are rising. This means that the "Return on Equity" (ROE) (defined as net income/shareholder's equity is rising. Such a rising ROE is usually one of the prime objectives of setting up a company. However, this may not really answer the first question. Probably the straight answer to first question is that there is no benefit from secondary market trading of stocks for the issuing company.

doles 03:05, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Companies and people that own companies

How do shares work in cases where company A owns company B? Is that ownership manifested as the first one owning 50%+1 of the shares of the second? If that's the case, how does that really work and what does that mean for shareholders of the parent company?

My other question is, if the owner of a company completely owns the company, what incentive do they have to NOT start selling shares? Do they get something like dividends even if the company isn't divided into shares? Do they get a share of the profits or revenue?--Atlastawake 01:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

OOh, why can't you ask something easy, like "why is there air"?

All of the following answers are from a U.S. frame, and I'm not a lawyer, and I might be missing some other considerations, but I believe I'm on pretty solid ground here.

One company can own any percentage of another. 50%+1 of the shares is enough to have formal control; considerably less than that will often give effective control if the rest of the stock holdings are diffuse. It's enough to let company A control effectively appoint the Board of Directors, etc. However, if there are other stockholders in company B, they have certain rights as minority stockholders: they can sue if company A manages company B against their interests, just like they could if a private individual were in company A's role.

For stockholders of company A, company B is just like any other asset of company A: a computer, a factory, a trademark, etc.

A 100% owner of a company can do damn near anything with it, limited only by employment law, contract law, etc. If there are no minority stockholders, then the owner is allowed even to do something remarkably foolish or wasteful, just like you can take a hammer to your own car without breaking the law. More realistically, assuming the company is incorporated, the owner can transfer money from the company to his/her personal account and vice versa almost at will, often with tax advantages; at a certain point though, the IRS could object to self-dealing transfers that clearly have no purpose other than tax avoidance (e.g. loans at unrealistic interest rates).

Why not sell shares? Well, there are a lot of reasons. For starters, if you think the company is going up in value why sell? Just like as an ordinary minority stockholder you don't sell shares of a company in which you have confidence. Second, going public is itself a massive hassle, usually at least a half million dollar, year-long process, not to mention requiring adherence thereafter to much stricter accounting standards, rules about with whom you may share non-public information, etc. Plus, you then have a fiduciary responsibility to your minority stockholders. For example, you may like giving 10% of profits to your favorite charity, but a minority stockholder might sue, claiming you are wasting a corporate asset.

Does that about cover it? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I just moved to Washington DC and my internet access is unreliable. Right now I'm on my cousin's internet. That mostly covers it (thanks, btw), but one last question. You said "If you think the company is going up in value why sell?" But if you don't sell, what advantage, in itself, do you have? Is it a matter of Price X per share versus avoiding hassle and maintaining freedom? Or can the decision be more direct than that, as in a matter of Price X per share versus keeping a very high salary (because if I sell the shares, I might get sued for mismanaging as evidenced by my high salary)? I imagine that the former tends to the be the question most owners would face, but is the latter at all common?

(I guess what I was getting at is the explanation is more useful in explaining why an owner would delay seller, but not avoid it altogether; the penultimate paragraph did that.)

So just some more general questions:

-Are there any really big companies that aren't incorporated?

-How common are such companies?

-Why don't really successful companies just get a loan to fund their big projects (assuming that's one big reason why companies incorporate, case in point Google) so they can maintain control (at least in the long run) and take their operations to a new level? (Okay so that one wasn't so general.)

Thanks.--Atlastawake 02:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

On "why not sell": it can be either. (1) What you sell now, you cannot sell later. (2) Public ownership puts tremendous constraints on the conduct of management. Let me give you a concrete example: I used to work for a company that was very open with employees about how sales were going each month. When they went public, they had to stop this practice, because it would have been inside information that they could not share with some investors/potential investors without making it public. That is, it would have turned every employee into an "insider", subject to all of the constraints on "insider trading" etc. Also, my example above about giving profits to charity is quite real-world.

"aren't incorporated": I hope you understand that being incorporated is an entirely different matter than being publicly held. Being incorporated is about protecting owners from full liability in the case of lawsuits, financial failure of the business, etc. Google went public a only year ago, but had been incorporated for a long time. I can't offhand name big ones or say how common they are.

Most companies (publicly or privately owned) finance mainly out of revenue and loans, not out of selling pieces of themselves. Why sell shares rather than borrow? Mostly because when you borrow, you have to either pay back or (more commonly) periodically refinance. Also, believe me, creditors can hem you in as much as shareholders. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:22, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't really successful companies just get a loan to fund their big projects?
Most "really successful" company's would try to sell bonds before considering a loan for long term projects, like expansion. They are like a loan but generally at a lower rate and the business issuing the bond would be setting the terms. They would be more likely to take loans out for short term expenses. WikipedianYknOK 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Stock Devaluation

Some companies can oversell their stock, in which case the investor who originally bought the stock sees their investment plunge even to the being worthless. The Company itself enjoys a huge influx of Capital. See the case of Nortel (3 billion shares?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryOhYah (talk • contribs) 24 Oct 2005

Tax on stocks

How much tax does an investor pay on his stocks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alromaithi (talk • contribs) 21 Nov 2005

• The answer will vary by country and circumstances. For example, in the U.S., in general a taxable event occurs only when you sell a stock. Do you have a more specific question? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you my question have been answered by my teacher. In the United States its about 22% from the profit you make from your trade or 22% on your dividend and that sometimes depends on the category of taxation.

Your teachers answer is a little bit simplified (and at least currently out of date). Capital gains taxes will be taxed depending on your tax bracket is they are not held for more than a year. Capital gains taxes for those stocks held longer than a year there is currently a cap of 15% (but that does change periodically by legislation). For dividends most individuals are taxed at 15%. Dividends for low income are taxed at 5% until December 31, 2007 where in 2008 they will become untaxed. For a holding company that owns at least 80% of outstanding voting shares tax-free dividends can be claimed. WikipedianYknOK 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Value of shares/stock, versus value of company.

I notice in New Zealand, if you look at our Companies Register, many companies with huge turnover, (Limited Liability) are listed as having one or two shareholders, owning say "50 Shares of $1 Each".

I know the company is worth more than this because the own ferries, yachts, buses, retial premises etc. ( I looked up the registration papers to be sure - the LTD company is listed as the owner).

Does this mean that one 50th of the company is worth $1?

Often there will be say ... one shre of $1 owned by someone, and 99 shares owned by one other person.

I guess the low value is because the maximum liability of the shareholder is limited to $50 or whatever - but who values these shares, and why do peopel even need share to have a limitde liability company?

Why not one share of one cent?

It seems that shares are only relevant when a company is publicly listed, but why are they used otherwise?

I presume this is some sort of legal fiction, but what does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.14.22 (talk • contribs) 23 Nov 2005

Not only a legal fiction, but nowadays it means even less than you might think. I'm writing up an explanation at par value, which turns out to have been totally wrong before so I'm glad you asked. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Where from here?

Where from here would one go to find a list of companies that provide facilities (internet trading or otherwise) to buy stock? This seems to be an ignored navigation issue. Hackwrench 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is not an article about Stock brokers, it is an article about stocks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The value of a stock

What gives a stock value, in cases where a company either doesn't pay out dividends or doesn't guarantee steady dividends? Why would anyone care to own a stock if they get either no dividend or a seemingly random amount? Peoplesunionpro 00:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You ever heard of Capital Gains? Paul.Paquette

Yes, I understand that the price of a stock can increase over time, but I don't fully understand why they are priced (demanded) the way that they are. Are dividends simply expected to come along and increase by default, if a company grows, over time? Peoplesunionpro 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dividends are usually associated with Company that no long grow at a very fast rate, thus the company has mature, and basically capature the market share that it is able to do. As a result instead of investing the shareholders money into possible ventures, they instead return a % to the shareholders instead. Basically you are paying for a nice steady stream, instead of the Great leap in appreciation. Paul.Paquette

A share of stock is a share of ownership. Even if there is no near-term cash-flow from that ownership (because management's judgement is that they will reinvest all earnings back into the company), it still is ownership of a piece of any future value the company may have. For example, if the company is "taken private" or if it is bought out by another publicly traded company, the stockholders must be paid off. So, basically, non-dividend-bearing stock is held in (at least abstract) expectation of future value.

For a lot of material on the theory of value investing, you might follow up the work of Martin J. Whitman. - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Chronology issue

If the first issue of stock happened in 1602, how is it that the first IPO was in the 13th century (as the article has it)? · rodii · 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Very dubious. I've asked for citation. This article could really use a good history of the evolution of modern forms of ownership in public corporations. - Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this type of material is in corporation but not as much as we all might like. Maybe there should be a new article history of the corporation. It's a judgement call what material should go in which article, but I'd suggest mostly legal and history stuff in corporation and mostly trading, issuing, finance type stuff here. Smallbones 08:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Benefits of holding stocks

Whats the point of holding a stock? Sure you can sell it for more if the value increases, but why would you want to buy a stock in the first place.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.189.189.12 (talk • contribs) 25 August 2006.

Not sure I understand the question. The same as holding other assets. It may appreciate in value as you point out. You may pledge it for a loan. It may be a hedge against other investments. --Epeefleche 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And if the company is profitable, you can share in the profits. 207.176.159.90 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The other thing you get out of owning common stock is that you have a vote in how the company is run. While many investors have little reason to do so, they still benefit from the ability to sell their shares to someone who does mean to do so (e.g., someone planning a corporate takeover). 205.226.9.142 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Capital Gains, Dividends, and/or Control are the most immediate. Other reasons include but are not limited to: company's will make offerings to employees to buy at a price lower than fair value, buying stocks in an IRA, 401(k) or other pension plans can defer the taxes you have to pay till you are in a lower tax bracket. WikipedianYknOK 12:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusing the normative and the descriptive

The article says that "Companies listed at the stock market strive to enhance shareholder value." They certainly have a fiduciary respontibility to do so, but whether they, in fact, do is another matter. As it stands, this sentence is like putting in an encyclopedia article, "Citizens obey the law." - Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Stock certificate

have a old share of common stock i read the company says it purchased the common stock back and a new combined company was formed. what happens to the original stock certificate value. Because I hold the stock certicate could it have maybe not been repurchased by the company at that time.Michellemorganstevens 19:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk to a broker. They won't charge you for answering this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate material: Shareholder

The article Shareholder appears to have almost identical material to the section "Shareholder" within this one. Perhaps since there's a separate article, the section here can be shortened or removed (with a link to the Shareholder article taking its place)? 205.226.9.142 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge common stock article into common stock section here

Common stock has a bit more info than this article, but not enough for a separate article. I suggest a merge. Opions? --SueHay 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it as it is; preferred stock has its own article, and common stock is the much more frequently spoken-of type. 4.89.241.89 23:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I quite agree with merging, and that the article has insubstantial information to stand alone. Maybe someone should make a separate article again when there is enough info on the topic?--220.233.107.154 10:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a merge is merited. There is not enough information in the current Common stock. So it makes more sense to merge it into this one. As the previous post indicated, when there is sufficient information on the subject, a new article can be created. Ajmccauley 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on a merge. Yes the current article is small, but what is their now could at best be called an introduction to the subject. WikipedianYknOK 07:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethymylogy

german Wikipedia states that stock has to do with tallystick (stick = stock in german) there called "Kerbholz". A tallystick indeed was treasury stock in purest form historically. --87.193.30.60 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Some terms

• blue chip stock, see Blue chip
• pink sheet stock, see pink sheets
• small-cap stock, stock with a small capitalization

smaller-cap stock

large-cap stock

Jackzhp 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the terminology for the First day transaction price of the stock after listing in the stock exchange immediately after IPO

What is the terminology for the First day transaction price of the stock after listing in the stock exchange immediately after IPO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.79.62.21 (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

There's no term I know of for the price; as a journalist I'd write something, "SPUMCO opened for trading [or maybe 'debuted' if that's the style of the paper I'm writing for] at C$26.11, soaring as high as C$94.59 before closing its first day of trading at C$75.64." --Orange Mike 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In for a penny...

Maybe this isn't the place to ask... (If so, somebody repost this?) If I know the dividend a share paid & the total value of dividends paid, how do I calculate the number of shares the dividend was paid on? Trekphiler 23:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Divide the total dividends paid by the amount of the dividend. I.e., US$5,000,000 paid @ $1.25 per share means dividends were paid on four million shares. --Orange Mike 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Lou Rukeyser 02:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit by User:Prestonp

I've just reverted a major edit by User:Prestonp, which deleted a significant chunk of useful, cited information without explanation. Can some other editors comment on the merits, if any, of his edit? Am I missing something? --Orange Mike 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That the article was tagged as unrefferenced would be a major reason to add citiatons. As this is an encylopedia, information should be cited and no "explanation" need be attached. Prestonp 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-Voting Equity Shares

Non voting equity shares are equity shares but they do not possess voting rights. Though they do not carry any fixed rate of dividend, they can be given dividend at a higher rate than the rate which is made applicable to other equity shares. The shareholders possessing non voting equity shares are entitled for bonus shares if issued, by the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acc2008 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes that's right. What's your point? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the opposite of "issue stock"

Is there a process by which a company can pull stock from the market? If so, what do you call the process? Retiring? Withdrawing? DBlomgren (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC) It is called repurchasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.180.138.160 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gambling

I don't see why stock / stock market can't be categorized as gambling. If stock market shouldn't be categorize as gambling, than the article stock or stock market should give a clear explanation of all the theories of the stock cycle theories and give examples, some compare and contrast. If it can't, than how is this differ from lottery gambling, with everybody having their own theories. Why it does only give the example supply and demand, but evade Rational choice theory, General equilibrium, trends...etc. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

hello, you have backward. If you assert that the stock market is gambling, the burden of proof is entirely on you to prove it.--McSly (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This article neither mentions nor alludes to gambling. The gambling article neither mentions nor alludes to stock. Category:gambling is clearly not designed with this sort of thing in mind. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Stock market itself constitute to a lot of unorganized "original research" theories without their own consensus to formulate a good consensus for their education and on that note is gambling before even submitting to wikipedia. Even business dictionary consider investment as gambling. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/gambling.html --75.154.186.241 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact it says the exact opposite. However, even if you could find a reference that links stock with gambling, it doesn't make sense to add the category until the article itself actually talks about the idea. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, just because article like Stocksquest websites wasn't added to section Category:Gambling technology that doesn't make it so stock isn't gambling. And you said

In fact it says the exact opposite

Prove it, give references that all theories are explained, compare, contrast, or analyzed....etc, not just by economist, but both economist and historians. They are mention in tock_market#Crashes in article Wall Street Crash of 1929. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What is incorrect? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The link you provided says "Gambling is neither risk taking ... nor investing".

At any rate, this argument is pointless. This article doesn't currently talk about gambling, so it doesn't belong in the category. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR then I am placing back the link. You are still unable to provide any evidence that it isn't WP:OR. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only WP:OR is currently coming from you. Please stop this nonsense. There is quote clearly no objective reason for the category link, and I'm not the only editor who thinks so. Don't reinstate the link until you've gained consensus. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gambling games are just that; games. Whether you are playing at a casino or just making a bet with a friend, the entire situation is preconceived for the sole purpose of just having a game with stakes. Don't get me wrong, I get the similarities, but saying that stock exchange is a form of gambling is like saying space-walking is a form of sky-diving because your feet doesn't touch the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.28.102 (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Actions

Does anyone realize that in a lot of other European languages, the word for Stock is actually cognate of the English word "Actions"? I am not sure why that is the case. Would be interesting to add that as an etymology section. --72.229.231.53 (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph does not make any sense. Someone has played a mischief.

203.27.235.41 (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Sandeep May 04, 2011

Yea, look at this idiotic sentence:

"Stock is different from the property and the assets of a business which may fluctuate in quantity and value." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.166.69 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

you can edit it to make it reasonable. C933103 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)