Historically how do share prices perform after mass selling after an employee reward scheme?
Like others have already said, it may cause an immediate dip due to a large and sudden move in shares for that particular stock. However, if there is nothing else affecting the company's financials and investors perceive no other risks, it will probably bounce back a bit, but not back to the full value before the shares were issued. Why? Whenever a company issues more stock, the new shares dilute the value of the current shares outstanding, simply because there are now more shares of that stock trading on the market; the Earnings Per Share (EPS) Ratio will drop since the same profit and company value has to be spread across more shares. Example:  If a company is valued at $100 dollars and they have 25 shares outstanding, then the EPS ratio equates to $4 per share (100/25 = 4).  If the company then issues more shares (stock to employees who sell or keep them), let's say 25 more shares, then shares outstanding increase to 50, but the company's value still remains at $100 dollars. EPS now equates to $2 per share (100/50 = 2). Now, sometimes when shareholders (especially employees...and especially employees who just received them) suddenly all sell their shares, this causes a micro-panic in the market because investors believe the employees know something bad about the company that they don't. Other common shareholders then want to dump their holdings for fear of impending collapse in the company. This could cause the share price to dip a bit below the new diluted value, but again if no real, immediate risks exist, the price should go back up to the new, diluted value. Example 2: If EPS was at $4 before issuing more stock, and then dropped to $2 after issuing new stock, the micro-panic may cause the EPS to drop below $2 and then soon rebound back to $2 or more when investors realize no actual risk exists. After the dilution phase plays out, the EPS could actually even go above the pre-issuing value of $4 because investors may believe that since more stock was issued due to good profits, more profits may ensue. Hope that helps!
Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend. I'm really unsure what you are trying to tell me. I don't see how knowing CEOs would aid me in forming an opinion on this issue.  Your second statement is simply foolish, shares of a company, represent ownership. Therefore shareholders are the owners.  These shareholders elect a board, this board acts like a proxy between the managers (CEO's) and the owners (shareholders).  This is how every public company operates.   The problem that arises is that managers have an incentive to act in their own best interests, not in the interests of shareholders.  So to solve this manager compensation is aligned with company performance so that if the shareholders are better off the managers are better off. "I did once read a book titled ""How I made a million dollars on the stock market"". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck.  (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, ""smart"" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal).  Clearly not a matter of ""playing your cards right"", but of having an enormous amount of luck." "I worked for a small private tech company that was aquired by a larger publicly traded tech company.  My shares were accelerated by 18 months, as written in the contract.  I excercised those shares at a very low strike price (under $1) and was given an equal number of shares in the new company.  Made about $300,000 pre tax.  This was in 2000. (I love how the government considered us ""rich"" that year, but have never made that amount since!)" Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory "The basic theoretical reason for a company to return money to shareholders is that the company doesn't need the money for its own purposes (e.g. investment or working capital). So instead of the company just keeping it in the bank, it hands it back so that shareholders can do what they think fit, e.g. investing it elsewhere. In some cases, particularly ""private equity"" deals, you see companies actively borrowing money to payout to shareholders, on the grounds that they can do so cheaply enough that it will improve overall shareholder returns. The trade-off with this kind of ""leveraging up"" is that it usually makes the business more risky and every so often you see it go wrong, e.g. after an economic downturn. It may still be a rational thing to do, but I'd look at that kind of proposal very carefully. In this case I think things are quite different: the company has sold a valuable asset and has spare cash. It's already going to use some of the money to reduce debt so it doesn't seem like the company is becoming more risky. Overall if the management is recommending it, I would support it. As you say, the share consolidation seems like just a technical measure and you might as well also support that. I think they want to make their share price seem stable over time to people who are looking at it casually and won't be aware of the payout - otherwise it'd suddenly drop by 60p and might give the impression the company had some bad news. The plan is to essentially cancel one share worth ~960p for every payout they make on 16 shares - since 16x60p = 960p payout this should leave the share price broadly unchanged." Which is actually not usually the case. The bonus is typically in shares which they can only cash in after so many years, to try and align the C-suite's interest with long term plans for the company.   What most screws things over is being in the share market, when management makes itself slave to the vagarities of the intraday price. There are a very few number if companies that have realized this and gone back to annual rather than quarterly reporting. "You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value.  Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so.  A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money.  It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds.  Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls ""the stock market"") is a giant confidence game.  And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value." "I'm sorry, unless the employee has a contract he need not be rewarded during successful periods. However, the shareholder does have such a contract: the articles of incorporation.   Your quasi-communist ideology might characterize this situation as also unfair, but the fact remains that an investor is more valuable to a company than an employee is. Furthermore, an investor takes on risk, something an employee does not do. When I purchase CAT stock, I may very well lose everything. I am the last in the long line of creditors. However, the employee does not stand to lose anything, and is much higher in the line of creditors.   The days of Sinclair's ""The Jungle"" are over in this country. CAT has no obligation to pay above-market wages to its employees." There has been a lot of research on the effects of stock splits. Some studies have concluded that: However note that (i) these are averages over large samples and does not say it will work on every split and (ii) most of the research is a bit dated and more recent papers have often struggled to find any significant performance impact after 1990, possibly because the effect has been well documented and the arbitrage no longer exists. This document summarises the existing research on the subject although it seems to miss some of the more recent papers. More practically, if you pay a commission per share, you will pay more commissions after the split than before. Bottom line: don't overthink it and focus on other criteria to decide when/whether to invest. I did a historical analysis a few years back of all well-known candlestick patterns against my database of 5 years worth of 1-minute resolution data of all FTSE100 shares.  There wasn't a single pattern that showed even a 1% gain with 60% reliability.  Unfortunately I don't have spread data other than for a handful of days where I recorded live prices rather than minutely summaries, but my suspicion is that most of the time you wouldn't even earn back the spread on such a trade. The future shares will be fewer in number, yet have claim to less cash in the bank. All in all, there's little reason the shares would rise in value.  Say there are 1M shares, trading at $10. Market cap is $10M of course. Now, there happens to be $2M cash in the bank so each share had about $2 cash. By taking the $2M and buying 200K shares, 800K shares remain, but why would you think they'd be valued at $12.50? The same $10 value per share is now an $8M market cap as $2M has been disbursed, no less so than if it were given out in a dividend. You are assuming the price increase will continue. The people selling are assuming that the price increase will not continue.  Ultimately that's what a share transaction is: one person would rather have the cash at a particular price / time, and one person would rather have the share. "The company was paying ""only"" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be ""too high,"" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out ""most"" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being ""stingy,"" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10." No the government got screwed. They only made a profit if you squint very hard and ignore lots of things.  They should have done what Buffett did, or more, offering to buy as many share as needed at 1c a share. No-one need to bust but stupid greedy people needed to learn a lesson.  Of course they did learn a lesson: America is the home of socialized losses and privatized profits.