Who are the real big share holders of $AMDA?
There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common.
I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO.  They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO.  In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding.  This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other. I think the $500mm number was bullshit. A common trick is that a private company will raise $50mm for 10% of the company, and say they're worth $500mm. But then it turns out that the new investors get preferences- like they're guaranteed to be paid back first if the company goes bankrupt, or they're guaranteed to get back the first $100mm of an IPO. Since the company really sold 10% of itself *plus other stuff*, they are worth less than $500mm.   Therefore, I find Ellen Pao's claim that Reddit was worth $250mm in 2015 credible. It is also why I'm suspicious about the $1.7b number today. They have a $1.5 billion buyback in place. The company likely buying back shares here (at 18x declining free cash flow). More leverage for the company, now almost at 3x EBITDA. Don't worry, after they're done fucking the whole world it'll blow up and whoever gets stiffed on the debt will somehow wind up passing the cost onto taxpayers :) I should have been clearer but my point was that the NYSE seems to be blaming third party vendors for reporting invalid test data but their own website reported the same data so it seems like there might be another issue.   Edit: Found the full comment. It seems that NASDAQ distributed the test data and other parties including the NYSE incorrectly displayed it. I can (barely) understand some third parties incorrectly reporting this data but it seems really bizarre that NYSE wouldn't know how to handle this. In addition to the GE move, Buffett's firm also added a large share of Synchrony, equalling about $520.7 in value, and a $418.1 million stake in Store Capital.   So, they bought one regular sized share? This is Why BI-journalists doesnt work in IB... Activist Investor is the entrenched capitalists fake news meme. Trump wants to pass a law that says shareholders don't even get a vote until they pass a certain threshold on ownership % of a company so they can keep all the little people from having any say. Ownership isn't really ownership unless you're rich I guess. Democracy bad! Freedom! America! Look, I'm not an expert in what assets DB has in transportation companies, or to what industries DB's banks lend money. DB is a multinational corporation that probably has its fingers in hundreds of markets and industries. All I am trying to say is that DB is largely disinterested. Just because DB invests marginally in transportation and logistics does not mean that it should be trusted as a significantly invested (and informed) party, any more than I should be trusted as an interested informed party in regards to technology sector because I own shares of a mutual fund that owns shares of Apple and Alphabet. Regardless of the hearsay component, which is inherently untrustworthy, DB is not a market player such that its word should be taken as anything other than with a grain of salt. "The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index.  That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the ""Dow divisor"".  (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.)  This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price.  That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google.  It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share.  Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index.  That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day.  Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share.  At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share.  So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index.  Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason.  (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now.  Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go.  Most indices are weighted by market capitalization.  That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value.  This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok.  Also, notice that I said ""company"" and not ""stock"".  When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow.  (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500.  The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations.  The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand.  If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked.  (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)" Who can buy Uber for anything close to their current valuation? They're worth more on paper than Ford, GM, or Tesla. And founders and execs usually don't get the same seniority of shares and liquidation preferences as VCs. I don't think that you will be able to find a list of every owner for a given stock. There are probably very few people who would know this. One source would be whoever sends out the shareholder meeting mailers.  I suspect that the company itself would know this, the exchange to a lesser extent, and possibly the brokerage houses to a even lesser extent. Consider these resources: Here is a quick quote from an article on Netflix, Uber, and Telsa the biggest cash burners in the business today. &gt;Investing today for profits tomorrow is what capitalism is all about. Amazon lost $4bn in 2012-14 while building an empire that now makes money. Nonetheless, it is rare for big companies to sustain heavy losses just to expand fast. If you examine the members of the Russell 1000 index [a stock market index] of large American firms, only 25 of them, or 3.3%, lost over $1bn of free cashflow in 2016 (all figures exclude financial firms and are based on Bloomberg data). In 2007 the share was 1.4% and in 1997, under 1%. Most billion-dollar losers today are energy firms temporarily in the doldrums as they adjust to a recent plunge in oil prices. Their losses are an accident. "At the bottom of Yahoo! Finance's S & P 500 quote Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSE MKT. See also delay   times for other exchanges. All information provided ""as is"" for   informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or   advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for   any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any   actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By   accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the   information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Historical chart data   and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI).   International historical chart data, daily updates, fund summary, fund   performance, dividend data and Morningstar Index data provided by   Morningstar, Inc. Orderbook quotes are provided by BATS Exchange. US   Financials data provided by Edgar Online and all other Financials   provided by Capital IQ. International historical chart data, daily   updates, fundAnalyst estimates data provided by Thomson Financial   Network. All data povided by Thomson Financial Network is based solely   upon research information provided by third party analysts. Yahoo! has   not reviewed, and in no way endorses the validity of such data. Yahoo!   and ThomsonFN shall not be liable for any actions taken in reliance   thereon. Thus, yes there is a DB being accessed that there is likely an agreement between Yahoo! and the providers." It's not quite that simple... they screwed over Morgan Stanley (?) on the IPO by cooking the books and falsifying their earnings estimates.  So they did lie, cheat, and mislead a lot of people.  But still, you're right. I would imagine that as a holder you will receive information in the post when it's made public, but I don't think it's been decided yet. This thread on the Motley Fool boards is keeping an eye on them - you might want to keep an eye on the thread. Its less about retail investors and more about the large institutions. Harvard's endowment for example, is held in trust. So is the endowment for every university, charity, and foundation.   In terms of retail investors its probably much less than 50%. Its just that the massive amount of wealth in the wealthiest people tips the balance drastically.   The top 20 wealthiest people in the world have ALL of their assets in trust. They probably dont have much personal ownership in anything and they hold more money than almost everyone else combined.