4 ms·

It seems you don’t understand the notion of conditional share ownership. These aren’t bearer bonds or cryptocurrency. Within the corporate structure that allowe

It seems you don’t understand the notion of conditional share ownership. These aren’t bearer bonds or cryptocurrency. Within the corporate structure that allowed you to be issued/sold these shares at the outset are stipulations that the board can liquidate your shares, under certain conditions. Evidently, those conditions have been met. An arbitrary definition of ‘fair’ doesn’t play into it.

strken 4y ago
I think the question is more to do with how we can have an economic system largely based on shares that can be rug-pulled from under a shareholder at any moment. How come governments don't legislate against it? How come anyone trusts shares enough to buy them? At a guess I'd say the answers to the two questions are "they do legislate against some behaviours, but blocking hostile takeovers is worse than allowing them" and "the risk of that happening is built into the market price," but I don't actually know.
- Msw242 4y ago
  A healthy control premium over the market price for a publicly traded stock is a bit far and away from being "rugpulled"
  - strken 4y ago
    Yes, and I think krick was asking what happens when something closer to a rugpull happens.
    - Msw242 4y ago
      The SEC says no, or there is a shareholder lawsuit. Publicly traded securities aren't the Wild West, and the real world has built up comparatively effective dispute resolution tooling like "courts," elected and appointed "judges," "regulators," and "prosecutors." Not to mention "case law" and "precedence"
- foobarian 4y ago
  I think the problem is that a large number of people got used to various trading accounts like ETrade, Robin Hood, etc. and that seeing "N shares of ABC" on a web site means that they actually own the shares. But this is just an abstraction like someone said in another comment. I would encourage you to go and read any brokerage's terms of service that you agreed to when you signed up. Or if you actually managed to get a paper stock, read the fine print. I promise you it will be very interesting :-)
  - strken 4y ago
    I personally am aware that shares are a very limited form of ownership and gave my personal answers for why I accept that, but the meta-level question that was raised by krick earlier still stands, which is how everyone else in the world sees it and goes "yep, that's totally fair, we don't need to fix this."
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      speaking for myself, "fair" means they obey the contract, which gives them that ability there is also the option of not letting people buy or sell stocks at all, which would resolve the same issues the mandatory sell provisions resolve
KptMarchewa 4y ago
>Within the corporate structure that allowed you to be issued/sold these shares at the outset are stipulations that the board can liquidate your shares, under certain conditions. Those conditions and corporate structures should be regulated way more thoroughly, preventing legal fuckery such as this. Or share classes.

strken 4y ago

I think the question is more to do with how we can have an economic system largely based on shares that can be rug-pulled from under a shareholder at any moment. How come governments don't legislate against it? How come anyone trusts shares enough to buy them? At a guess I'd say the answers to the two questions are "they do legislate against some behaviours, but blocking hostile takeovers is worse than allowing them" and "the risk of that happening is built into the market price," but I don't actually know.

Msw242 4y ago
A healthy control premium over the market price for a publicly traded stock is a bit far and away from being "rugpulled"
- strken 4y ago
  Yes, and I think krick was asking what happens when something closer to a rugpull happens.
  - Msw242 4y ago
    The SEC says no, or there is a shareholder lawsuit. Publicly traded securities aren't the Wild West, and the real world has built up comparatively effective dispute resolution tooling like "courts," elected and appointed "judges," "regulators," and "prosecutors." Not to mention "case law" and "precedence"
foobarian 4y ago
I think the problem is that a large number of people got used to various trading accounts like ETrade, Robin Hood, etc. and that seeing "N shares of ABC" on a web site means that they actually own the shares. But this is just an abstraction like someone said in another comment. I would encourage you to go and read any brokerage's terms of service that you agreed to when you signed up. Or if you actually managed to get a paper stock, read the fine print. I promise you it will be very interesting :-)
- strken 4y ago
  I personally am aware that shares are a very limited form of ownership and gave my personal answers for why I accept that, but the meta-level question that was raised by krick earlier still stands, which is how everyone else in the world sees it and goes "yep, that's totally fair, we don't need to fix this."
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    speaking for myself, "fair" means they obey the contract, which gives them that ability there is also the option of not letting people buy or sell stocks at all, which would resolve the same issues the mandatory sell provisions resolve

KptMarchewa 4y ago

>Within the corporate structure that allowed you to be issued/sold these shares at the outset are stipulations that the board can liquidate your shares, under certain conditions. Those conditions and corporate structures should be regulated way more thoroughly, preventing legal fuckery such as this. Or share classes.