News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005). Parent comment

Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by ineedasername on Sunday January 31, 2021 @11:12PM (#25985448)
Fair enough, but your comment wasn't phrased specific to that example, it was a general statement about owning 100% of outstanding shares: If you have 100% of the outstanding shares, you have 100% of the voting right

Let's chalk it up to a miscommunication.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by dragonwriter on Sunday January 31, 2021 @11:17PM (#25985471)
“Outstanding shares” has a specific meaning: all authorized and issued non-treasury shares.

If you have 100% of them, you have all voting rights.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by VBprogrammer on Monday February 01, 2021 @04:39AM (#25987148)
I mean, this has to be true right? Otherwise the stock market doesn't function as shared ownership, it would be more like Kickstarter at scale with no recourse for failure to deliver.

Plenty of takeovers have been conducted on the open market, even without consent of the board, also known as a hostile takeover.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by sn_master on Monday February 01, 2021 @07:03AM (#25987918)
Class B shares with no voting rights have been a thing for a long time. When the US government bailed out the banks in 2008, they made sure to buy only Class B shares, so no one could claim the government nationalized the banks and put them under their control, rather they just injected capital.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/classbshares.asp

[ Parent | on HN ]