Why would a company invest in another company in stages?
336100
I am assuming you are referring to the purchase of the underlying equity by a larger, more established company. The reason for this could be two-fold. There could be restrictions in place regarding the institutional ownership of the stock and subsequent purchases made there-in. Another reason, and more likely, is the fact of liquidity. Garnering a large number of shares of an illiquid stock could single-handedly manipulate the given equity leading to SEC investigations and such. And by investing in stages (known predominatly as "scaling into a position", they could evaluate on the go. For instance, the company that is being bought could have some current hindrances surrounding it. By scaling in, you can watch as some of the shady situations resolve themselves and you become more comfortable with the current share price.
133584
Some may be oughtright frauds where no such stock exists.  Some may be frauds wherein a licensed broker wants you to invest with him and it's all a big boiler room scam.  Some may be actual listed companies that are not following SEC rules on truthfully reporting their finances.  \n\nBut all are attempts to get you to part with your money.
648960
Um...ok, I'm pretty knowledgeable about this stuff, but I don't know what a 'reverse merger' is in this context.  Normally this term is used when a private company merges with a public one.  But a pink sheet company isn't private, so I assume you mean that they will get the OTC listing from the dormant public shell company. Which company's shareholders are you concerned about?  Because, in any merger, there are two companies involved. In itself, there's nothing patently wrong with it, and getting the listing would normally be a good sign, if it's the right kind of listing.  But are we talking NASDAQ listing or just OTC?  I mean, OTC could still be Pink Sheets, right?  So it may not be beneficial.  I guess you really need to clarify some of this before I try to make sense out of it.  Which company do you own shares in?  What type of OTC listing are they getting?  etc.
269790
many studies have been done on this subject. here is just one of them www.cob.ohio-state.edu/fin/journal/dice/papers/1998/98-1.pdf\n\nforward splits can have the effect of bringing in more investors by a lowered entry price. many investors don't realize that it does not effect the overall value of the stock or the company. the real tough part is knowing if the stock has run up prior to the split because of leaked information or if it will move afterwards.\n\nmy personal observation has always been that a stock tends to move prior to the split, then settles down afterwards. very unscientific on my part.
329745
Money invested in a project is not available for other projects that come along which may be more profitable.  By investing in the current project, you lose the opportunity to be able to participate in those future projects.  This difference is the opportunity cost.
271922
Because you want to increase the number of shares in general, to allow for more trading.\n\nEspecially if you own a significant amount of the company, it benefits you to have a 2-2 split because you can sell more shares but maintain your equity position.\n\nSuppose a company has 100,000 shares of common stock and the majority owner holds 60% of those shares (60,000). If he sells 10,000 shares, he only owns 50% of the company; meaning he's probably in charge, but could be overruled.\n\nIf there's a 2-2 split, he can still sell 10,000 shares, but hold a 55% majority -- he's still in charge of the company.
142034
You need to be more clear.\nDid the company lose the money?\nOr did shareholders lose money?\n\nSirius is a good example of a company that lost money. Anyone that owns IBM shares are underwater.
846842
This happnds to companies that have a low vaule on the stock price but, high asset value. This happended to my company (Disney) a while back when Comcast tried to take us over. Bascilly it means they come in and buy up all the avaialbel stock to have an ownership and then they control the board and it's decsions which the board could sell the whole company for the price they are offering. In the Disney case we fought it off ad won they did not take us over.\n\nSometimes companies offer a leverged buyout like US Air is doing to Delta right now. They see vaule in the compnay and offer a premium to all stock holders above the market price hopeing to buy it out and merge and that is what hapoends most of the time. Hostile take overs don't happen often but, when they do look for lots of media coverage. Look for some article about Disney and Comcast.
17630
A company does not benefit directly by appreciation in its stock price. A company's stock represents ownership interest in the company. Stock holders (e.g. individual investors, mutual funds, etc) own the stock of a company and therefore benefit when the stock price rises, because now they can sell the stock for a higher price than before.\n\nA company can indirectly benefit from stock price appreciation. When company A acquires another company B, the purchase price is usually paid in cash or company A's stock. So if company A's stock price is higher, then it could afford to pay more or buy more using its stock. Another benefit is employee moral. Many companies offer employees stock options, stock grants, or employee stock purchase plans to encourage employee ownership of company stock. So when the company stock price rises, the employees' investment is worth more.
655158
From observation Companies today are too diversified and need to consolidate if they are to survive.I see the push toward companies managing their separate department totally autonomously from each other in order to better evaluate their performance and profitability. I worked in a company many years ago which used the profitable divisions to prop up those divisions which were not so profitable which, to my way of thinking, was a huge mistake even for those days.I have seen many a company collapse under the weight of excessive diversification
129706
If you are an investor in a Private company that is going public with an IPO there is the advantage of selling your stock going up and there is the disavvantage of your stock going down. If you are a private company you don't have a million investor wondering about your finances and about your accounting practices.\nIf you are an investor in a company merging with another one, there is a very good chance you end up making a lot of mnoney because after merger usually thousands of employees get fired and you save millions in payroll and many other benefits. Of course mergers can go wrong and you end up losing money. \nIf you question is about the positive or negative risk to the consumer or to the employees in those companies the answer is entirely diferent.
594166
there is no direct relation but it is an investment option and if one is lot lucrative then the investor moves to the other so they are related one goes down the other goes up and vise versa
261721
sponsor puts together a basket of stocks or bonds and sells units to the public. sponsor takes management fees and the firm that sells it to you takes a big fat commission. usually not as liquid as a mutual fund or ETF. not the best way to invest your money.
203768
You can buy a corporation in many different ways.  \n\nThe simplest way to explain this is to build up the amount of stock you own of that company, if it is publicly offering stock.  After you own more than 50% of the stock of the company, usually you will be able to make all of the decisions of the company.  Thus, you have bought the corporation.\n\nAlso, you can be another corporation that offers a deal to the corporation you want to "buy" by offering a merger.  This way, your company will merge with the other company at their own will.  The two corporations are normally friendly to one another.  You haven't really bought the other corporation, but the two corporations are now working as one.\n\nYou can also have a friendly takeover.  This is when another company actually buys a lot of a corporation's stock, but this buying is agreed upon.  After a while, one company owns the other.\n\nThere's another way of buying a corporation which is called a hostile takeover.  Basically, you and others from one corporation decide to buy stock from another corporation.  After you own a large amount of stock of the other corporation, you have a large say over what the company does (even if you don't have over 50% of the corporation's stock), even if the company doesn't like it.  One thing you can do is called "greenmail".  Basically, you tell the other company that you won't try to buy them, but what you do is sell the stock you have of their company at a very high price back to them, so you get profit from buying and selling their stock.  Normally, companies can be so fearful that another company is going to buy them that they'll pay you the higher price of stock you are selling back.\n\nHowever, there are tons of strategies for preventing hostile takeovers, and some people dedicate their careers to this sort of job.\n\nNow to answer your subquestions.  It isn't really possible to research everything about a corporation, and some corporations try to be more transparent than others (that is, they tell you more about their thoughts and debts and so on).  And a corporation that isn't registered as such is no longer a corporation.
586942
i believe is the same as reverse takeover. It is when a private held company buys the mayority interest in a publicly trated company. They do that to avoid the burocratic process that involves filling a new company with the SEC, and the other regulators.
867640
The problem is more with the question than with your ability to understand. It's vague to the point of being meaningless. I hope the person who asked it isn't, like, in the position to give you a grade or anything.\n\nOf course, government initiatives often influence companies' decisions to set up shop in one place or another. One key way is through infrastructure. Government paves roads, lays water and sewer pipe, and provides other infrastructure-related kinds of services. When these things are more easily available, companies are more likely to move in.\n\nLocal governments also often offer tax incentives to companies that are thinking about moving in -- although, probably not to "secondary industry." But often the biggest companies -- automobile makers who are building a new manufacturing plant -- benefit from government financial incentives. Then, typically, a slew of "secondary" companies move in to provide services related to the big-dog manufacturing plant.
822952
Contrary to popular belief, most companies do not have unlimited resources. Through strategic planning a company is able to marshall resources into its core competencies, leverage other business units to grow the bottom line and identify future growth opportunities for the company. All of these factors increase the value of the company which as far as shareholders are concernd, is the only thing that matters. Esp., if the value translates into greater profits, an appreciated stock value, higher dividend payouts....