Is Volvo a public company?
"There are two different companies named ""Volvo."" The publicly-traded company with ticker symbol VOLV-B is called Volvo Group, or AB Volvo.  They primarily build trucks, buses, and construction equipment. The company that makes the Volvo branded cars is called Volvo Cars.  It is a privately-held company currently owned by the Chinese Geely Holding Group. It was all one company until 1999, when AB Volvo sold off its car brand to Ford.  Because of the history, the two companies share the same logo."
I am looking at size by revenue.  Looking at market capitalization gives a much different list.  I don't think market cap is a good metric for this discussion.  According to market cap Telsa is the largest automotive company in the US, but that is because it is expected to do well in the future by the investment community.  According to market cap what is reddit worth? This caught my eye because the auto industry and the parts manufacturers are notorious for pushing output and human productivity to the point where working conditions are very unsafe.  If Musk is doing exactly the same thing that is newsworthy imo. You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk. Most biotech companies do not have a product they are selling.   They have a set of possible drugs that they are developing.     If any of these drugs get proven to be better than the current drugs they can be sold at a great profit. Therefore as soon as a biotech company proves a drug candidate is likely to pass large scale trials the company is often taken over by a large pharmaceutical company and is therefore no longer listed on the stock market. So mostly profit comes after the company stops being listed, therefore the profit will be negative for most biotech companies that are publicly traded. Bullshit, I'm guessing you don't know many CEOs and what they provide for a company, do you?   Also, your idea about private management is meaningless. The shareholders manage the company. End of story. They are also the owners. Shareholders provide their capital to the company via buying issued stock from said company. In a way they are owning the company through that transaction by a percentage. Ownership is now in question depending on how big the company is. Apple? You have a snowballs chance in Hell trying to assert your 'ownership' of your one share of their stock. So in theory yes they technically own part of the company but the decision making is up the board. Though the shareholders can voice their opinion and give up their vote via proxy voting. I'm a little rusty please correct me if you must. "This information is clearly ""material"" (large impact) and ""non-public"" according to the statement of the problem.  Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such.  Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions." No. Loss of most senior executives is the worst possible thing, short of an accounting scandal, which can happen prior to an IPO.  Mind you, if Uber ever *does* IPO it will be yuge and drop precipitously. The company is worth maybe 5% of its most recent funding round valuation. People need to get a grip. Gartner heeft haar voorspellingen voor de komende jaren gepubliceerd, een tiental op het gebied van IT. Business managers gaan meer controle hebben over budgetten die voorheen beheerd werden door IT, zij zal een coördinerende rol krijgen om de verschuiving in controle te kunnen compenseren. Daarnaast is er een groeiende hoeveelheid aan data en de uitdaging is om hier mee om te gaan. Deze ineffectiviteit verhinderd organisaties om belangrijke kansen te identificeren, binnen de ‘window of opportunity’. I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/talkbusiness] [Tesla saves the day In PR](https://np.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/78q6ni/tesla_saves_the_day_in_pr/)  [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*  [](#bot) Look up the pure-play beta method.  (It also can be called project beta. On mobile or else I would link.)  Essentially, you find a public company that business is the same (or as similar as possible) to the sub-unit business. You take this company's beta, unlever it from their capital structure, and relever it to the capital structure of the whole multinational company.  This new beta can be considered the beta of the sub-unit. "&gt; All companies are incorporated. It's the definition of a company.  That is incorrect; you have to follow specific legal procedures (the exact procedure seems to vary per state) to give a company the legal status of being ""incorporated"".  Dunno about incorporated companies automatically being ""public institutions"", but all companies are definitely not automatically incorporated." The answer to this question is given by the fact that many public companies have people who are opposed to the company's aims or practices and who own their stock, often a single share, for the purposes of turning up to shareholder meetings and haranguing directors/asking awkward questions/disrupting proceedings, etc. If public companies could stop these campaigning shareholders from owning stock they would. "A company whose stock is available for sale to the public is called a publicly-held or publicly-traded company.  A public company's stock is sold on a stock exchange, and anyone with money can buy shares through a stock broker. This contrasts with a privately-held company, in which the shares are not traded on a stock exchange. In order to invest in a private company, you would need to talk directly to the current owners of the company. Finding out if a company is public or private is fairly easy.  One way to check this is to look at the Wikipedia page for the company.  For example, if you take a look at the Apple page, on the right sidebar you'll see ""Type: Public"", followed by the stock exchange ticker symbol ""AAPL"".  Compare this to the page for Mars, Inc.; on that page, you'll see ""Type: Private"", and no stock ticker symbol listed. Another way to tell: If you can find a quote for a share price on a financial site (such as Google Finance or Yahoo Finance), you can buy the stock.  You won't find a stock price for Mars, Inc. anywhere, because the stock is not publicly traded." There is some truth to this. But the reverse could be seen as Apple. Where they did this, and it blew up until they gave it back to Jobs.  Similarly, Bezos seems to be doing a good job as CEO. Gates and Ellison also were pretty successful!  I agree though that when companies start to get major investors/go public, there should be some planning/thought to see if the Founder/CEO is actually a CEO type