4 ms·

The same way you can own part of a house, part of a business, or even part of a bottle of wine. Contracts can easily dictate who owns how much of a thing, they

by corin_ 5y ago

The same way you can own part of a house, part of a business, or even part of a bottle of wine. Contracts can easily dictate who owns how much of a thing, they wouldn't have to literally rip a paper stock in two.

colonwqbang 5y ago
I'm not convinced. Can you go to the Berkshire shareholder meeting and vote for your 0.0001 shares? I find it much more likely that it's actually your broker who truly owns the share and you have a contract with them. This is not at all like a house which can actually have two true owners. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with such an arrangement, of course.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >Can you go to the Berkshire shareholder meeting and vote for your 0.0001 shares You could form a contract with your co-share owners describing how you allocate that benefit, just like would be necessary with a house with co-owners. I have no idea if that happens, but it's certainly just as possible.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  > Can you go to the Berkshire shareholder meeting and vote for your 0.0001 shares? I voted for part of a politician in my electorate.
- eru 5y ago
  Almost no one in the US 'truly' owns any shares. They are all held by 'Depository Trust Company' in the name of 'Cede and Company'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company says > Cede technically owns substantially all of the publicly issued stock in the United States.[2] Thus, investors do not themselves hold direct property rights in stock, but rather have contractual rights that are part of a chain of contractual rights involving Cede.[3] Modifying the last link in that chain isn't such a big deal.
  - colonwqbang 5y ago
    Interesting, I didn't know that! I'm not a US person. This sort of thing varies a lot between countries, it seems. I still wonder what might happen if the broker went bust and owed X different people various fractions of a single Berkshire share.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I still wonder what might happen if the broker went bust and owed X different people various fractions of a single Berkshire share. Legal liabilities ultimately are generally settled in dollars, though if an entity “goes bust” they tend to be written off or resolved at a small fraction of their theoretical worth based on the liquidation value of the remaining assets.
- dmurray 5y ago
  If you "own" one share, or 100, there are a couple of layers of other people who "truly own" the share, and you have a contract with them. You can look up Cede & Co and the DTCC. Your arrangement with your broker for fractional shares is similar, though not identical. They're not just selling you a derivative product that they may optionally hedge with BRK/A.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > I find it much more likely that it's actually your broker who truly owns the share and you have a contract with them. This is not at all like a house which can actually have two true owners. Well, a share of stock can have two true owners, it's just that public stocks don't. The legal ownership structure isn't hard to find out; it is actually mandated by law. All publicly traded stocks are owned by the company set up for that purpose. Doesn't matter whether you're the contractual owner of a tenth of a share or the "sole owner" of a full share; the share is owned by DTCC.
- erikerikson 5y ago
  The math works fine

by corin_ 5y ago

colonwqbang 5y ago

I'm not convinced. Can you go to the Berkshire shareholder meeting and vote for your 0.0001 shares? I find it much more likely that it's actually your broker who truly owns the share and you have a contract with them. This is not at all like a house which can actually have two true owners. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with such an arrangement, of course.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Can you go to the Berkshire shareholder meeting and vote for your 0.0001 shares You could form a contract with your co-share owners describing how you allocate that benefit, just like would be necessary with a house with co-owners. I have no idea if that happens, but it's certainly just as possible.
lostlogin 5y ago
> Can you go to the Berkshire shareholder meeting and vote for your 0.0001 shares? I voted for part of a politician in my electorate.
eru 5y ago
Almost no one in the US 'truly' owns any shares. They are all held by 'Depository Trust Company' in the name of 'Cede and Company'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company says > Cede technically owns substantially all of the publicly issued stock in the United States.[2] Thus, investors do not themselves hold direct property rights in stock, but rather have contractual rights that are part of a chain of contractual rights involving Cede.[3] Modifying the last link in that chain isn't such a big deal.
- colonwqbang 5y ago
  Interesting, I didn't know that! I'm not a US person. This sort of thing varies a lot between countries, it seems. I still wonder what might happen if the broker went bust and owed X different people various fractions of a single Berkshire share.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I still wonder what might happen if the broker went bust and owed X different people various fractions of a single Berkshire share. Legal liabilities ultimately are generally settled in dollars, though if an entity “goes bust” they tend to be written off or resolved at a small fraction of their theoretical worth based on the liquidation value of the remaining assets.
dmurray 5y ago
If you "own" one share, or 100, there are a couple of layers of other people who "truly own" the share, and you have a contract with them. You can look up Cede & Co and the DTCC. Your arrangement with your broker for fractional shares is similar, though not identical. They're not just selling you a derivative product that they may optionally hedge with BRK/A.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> I find it much more likely that it's actually your broker who truly owns the share and you have a contract with them. This is not at all like a house which can actually have two true owners. Well, a share of stock can have two true owners, it's just that public stocks don't. The legal ownership structure isn't hard to find out; it is actually mandated by law. All publicly traded stocks are owned by the company set up for that purpose. Doesn't matter whether you're the contractual owner of a tenth of a share or the "sole owner" of a full share; the share is owned by DTCC.
erikerikson 5y ago
The math works fine