3 ms·

So then you agree that there could be situations where only a couple percent of the ownership of a company is available on the market, and if you buy all of th

by stale2002 6y ago

So then you agree that there could be situations where only a couple percent of the ownership of a company is available on the market, and if you buy all of those shares, then you would not control the company? As in, you agree than a couple insiders could control a large majority of a company, and that this percentages of the company would not be on the open market, and therefore even if you buy all of the shares that are available on the open market (and the definition that I am using would disclude these shares owned by these insiders), you would not control the company?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> So then you agree that there could be situations where only a couple percent of the ownership of a company is available on the market, and if you buy all of those shares, then you would not control the company? Sure, it's possible that at any given time people aren't offering to sell a majority of the voting power of stock, or (theoretically, at least) any voting stock at all (it's even possible that the only class of stock trading on the market is nonvoting; SNAP I think does that.) I was taking issue with the particular claim, made twice in the direct chain of ancestry of this comment, that a company could simply hold the majority of it's voting stock itself, so that holding 100% of the shares not owned by the company would not give you control since the company itself (presumably, it's management) would exercise most of the voting rights. It doesn't work that way.