4 ms·
As the law quoted in the original article says, it's not considered significant amount if: > The ownership of less than 3 percent of the shares of a corporatio
by PeterisP 7y ago
As the law quoted in the original article says, it's not considered significant amount if:
> The ownership of less than 3 percent of the shares of a corporation for profit, provided that the total annual income to him or her from dividends, including the value of stock dividends, from the corporation does not exceed 5 percent of his or her total annual income, and any other payments made to him or her by the corporation do not exceed 5 percent of his or her total annual income.
It's quite plausible that $10k-$100k does not meet that criteria.
- bdowling 7y ago> It's quite plausible that $10k-$100k does not meet that criteria. GE's dividend yield is currently about 0.34% [0], which means that an investment of $100k would pay about $340 annually. [0] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/ge/dividend-history https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/ge/dividend-hi...
- sk5t 7y agoNote that GE used to pay a solid, dependable ~4% dividend--prior to the stock's contemporaneous slide from ~$30 to ~$10.
- asdff 7y agoSo with my back of the envelope calculation at a 100 billion dollar market cap you would need to invest 3 billion dollars into GE, any less would be considered insignificant. I'm assuming my math is absolutely wrong, as this law seems wildly and completely corrupt.
- sandiegosnoop 7y agoHere's why San Diego is so corrupt. On 12/16/16, when this contract was approved by the City Attorney and Council, she was in violation of the city charter, which says any elected official cannot own stock in a company if that transaction is before them. If they do she should have forfeite her office and the contract void. On 12/19/16, the charter language was changed to state law, that brings a 3% ownership threshold allowing her to be within the law. Facts.