Shareholders meetings — the announcement of significant news
SE:Personal Finance user Ray K says in a comment on this question that his or her broker said: a company cannot release any significant news in a share-holder meeting that is not publicly accessible / open, similar to how earnings releases are available to the entire public at the same time, not just to a few attending a meeting.
"Share sales & purchases are accounted only on the balance sheet & cash flow statement although their effects are seen on the income statement. Remember, the balance sheet is like a snapshot in time of all accrued accounts; it's like looking at a glass of water and noting the level.  The cash flow and income statements are like looking at the amount of water, ""actually"" and ""imaginary"" respectively, pumped in and out of the glass. So, when a corporation starts, it sells shares to whomever.  The amount of cash received is accounted for in the investing section of the cash flow statement under the subheading ""issuance (retirement) of stock"" or the like, so when shares are sold, it is ""issuance""; when a company buys back their shares, it's called ""retirement"", as cash inflows and outflows respectively. If you had a balance sheet before the shares were sold, you'd see under the ""equity"" heading a subheading common stock with a nominal (irrelevant) par value (this is usually something obnoxiously low like $0.01 per share used for ease of counting the shares from the Dollar amount in the account) under the subaccount almost always called ""common stock"".  If you looked at the balance sheet after the sale, you'd see the number of shares in a note to the side. When shares trade publicly, the corporation usually has very little to do with it unless if they are selling or buying new shares under whatever label such as IPO, secondary offering, share repurchase, etc, but the corporation's volume from such activity would still be far below the activity of the third parties: shares are trading almost exclusively between third parties. These share sales and purchases will only be seen on the income statement under earnings per share (EPS), as EPS will rise and fall with stock repurchases and sales assuming income is held constant.  While not technically part of the income statement but printed with it, the ""basic weighted average"" and ""diluted weighted average"" number of shares are also printed which are the weighted average over the reporting period of shares actually issued and expected if all promises to issue shares with employee stock options, grants, convertibles were made kept. The income statement is the accrual accounts of the operations of the company.  It has little detail on investing (depreciation & appreciation) or financing (interest expenses & preferred dividends)." If the market believes that the company is overstaffed, then management acknowledging the issue and resolving the problem can result in the price going up.  It can also mean that external events drove the price up, and the bad news was lost in the other issues of the day. Sometimes layoffs are a sign of the company entering a long downward spiral; in other cases it is a sign of the beginning recovery. The layoffs can also be viewed as good news if they weren't as big as some experts feared.  You have to look at the exact situation to understand why news x impacts the companies price. Is it normal for such transactions to create new outstanding shares? Yes a company can create new shares or a Majority share holder can sell some of his stake or it can be a mix of both. how will this news affect the short-term and long-term price of the company's stock? This is opinion based and not apt for this site. It can be positive or negative depending on how the market reacts to the news. So from Investopedia - Who actually declares a dividend states that the Board of Directors of a company sets the 4 key dates: As these dates are chosen by the Board of Directors, either by internal corporate convention or special situation. Conceivably a Board may choose a Payable Date greater than 2 weeks which may make sense if their accounting partners are unavailable, i.e. extended national holiday. I assume that any period of time longer that what may seem reasonable and customary will be a topic at the next shareholder meeting. In reality, shareholders have very few rights other than the right to profits and the right to vote on a board.  In general, a proxy fight to replace the board is complicated and expensive, so unless the interested parties buy close to 50% of the shares it's unlikely to be successful.  Furthermore, a lot of the shares are held by insiders and institutions.    I suppose if a large group of shareholders got together and demanded this, the existing directors may listen and give in to avoid unhappy shareholders being a general annoyance.  That seems pretty unlikely unless the stake gets large.  There's a great episode of NPR Planet Money [board games](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/19/538141248/episode-594-board-games) which talks about one man's struggle to get the company to take some action. "It means that the company earned 15 cents per share in the most recently reported quarter. Share price may or not be affected, depending on how buyers and sellers value the company. Just because profits ""jumped,"" does not mean the shares will follow suit. An increase in profits may have already been priced into the stock, or the market expected the increase in profit to be even higher. As the shareholder, you don't actually get any of these profits into your hands, unless the company pays out a portion of these profits as a dividend." The person holding the majority of shares can influence the decisions of the company. Even though the shareholder holds majority of the shares,the Board of Directors appointed by the shareholders in the Annual General Meeting will run the company. As said in the characteristics of the company,the owners and the administrators of the company are different. The shareholder holding majority of the shares can influence the business decisions like appointing the auditor,director etc. and any other business decisions(not taken in the ordinary business) that are taken in the Annual General Meeting. "What in the world to shareholders have to do with it?  Nowadays, the vast majority of the shares in most big corporations are ""owned"" via intermediaries (i.e. mutual funds and 401K's, IRA's and Pension Funds) that do not ALLOW the actual end owners to have any say whatsoever.  All those investment vehicles *allow* people to care about ... is the share price." There are multiple places where you can see this.  Company house website On any financial news website, if you have access e.g. TESCO on FT On any 3rd party website which supply information on companies e.g. TESCO on Companycheck An observation though, FT lists down more shareholders for me than Companycheck as I pay for FT. There would be small generic risk that the company stock goes down real fast by more than 15% in a specific event to the company [fraud, segment company operates suffers a shock, etc] or a generic event to the stock market like recent events of Greece etc. No. You're entitled to 1% of votes at the shareholders' meeting (unless there's class division between shareholders, that is). If more than 50% of the shareholders vote to close the company, sell off its assets and distribute the proceeds to the owners - you'll get 1% share of the distributions. If the period is consistent for company X, but occurs in a different month as Company Y, it might be linked to the release of their annual report, or the payment of their annual dividend. Companies don't have to end their fiscal year near the end of the Calendar year, therefore these end of year events could occur in any month. The annual report could cause investors to react to the hard numbers of the report compared to what wall street experts have been predicting. The payment of an annual dividend will also cause a direct drop in the price of the stock when the payment is made. There will also be some movement in prices as the payment date approaches. In simplest terms, when a company creates new shares and sells them, it's true that existing shareholders now own a smaller percentage of the company.  However, as the company is now more valuable (since it made money by selling the new shares), the real dollar value of the previous shares is unchanged. That said, the decision to issue new shares can be interpreted by investors as a signal of the company's strategy and thereby alter the market price;  this may well affect the real dollar value of the previous shares.  But the simple act of creating new shares does not alter the value in and of itself. "Here is one ""other consideration"": don't, don't, don't sell based on insider information. Insider trading can land you in jail. And it's not restricted to top executives. Even overhearing a discussion about the current status of the acquisition talks can mean that you have insider information that you legally cannot act on in many jurisdictions. If you are just a regular employee, the SEC will likely not subject your dealings to special scrutiny, especially since lots of your colleagues will likely trade your company's shares at this point in time. And if you definitely hold insider info (for example, if you are intimately involved with the acquisition talks), you will likely have had a very serious warning about insider trading and know what you can and what you cannot do. Nevertheless, it's better to be careful here." The fact you are asking this question, the number of up votes, uncovers the real cause of the banking crisis.    Answers which mention that shareholders will fire a public company board are on the bottom. It is obvious that a company owners are interested in company value. And should have direct and easy impact on a directors board if management doesn't increase shareholders wealth.  With large number of passive shareholders and current stock market system that impact is very limited. Hence your question.  So bank directors, upper management aren't that interested in company value. They are mostly interested in theirs bonuses, their wealth increase, not shareholders. And that's the real problem of capitalism. Public companies slowly drift to function like companies in former socialistic countries. These is no owner, everything is owned by a nation.