Does a stock holder profit from a reverse-stock split?
"If I held stock in these companies yesterday, would I have profited by these gains? No.  For DZSI, your 5 shares at $1.10 would now be 1 share at $5.50, so you would have the same total amount.  For SGY, they closed at $6.95, and opened at $32.80, so your five shares at $6.95 would now be one share at $32.80, so you would have actually lost money (not purely because of the split, but because the ""new"" shares are trading lower then the expected 1:5 split price).  A split in general does not affect market cap (how much your total shares are worth) but there may be residual effects that cause the market value to fluctuate after a split that affect the price." These are not real gains. Wherever you're looking this up, the prices are not adjusted for corporate actions. In a reverse stock split the price of a single share multiplies by five, but as a shareholder you hold only one share after for every five that you did before. I just had a reverse split done 1 to 35. I went from 110,000 shares and a negative 13k to 3172 shares, and I still had a negative 13k. If your company does a reverse split take the lost and get out, it's bad news all the way around.
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. They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short. You didn't give enough information.  What is your goal?  What is your financial situation?   A discount to buy company stock can seem very tempting.  I was tempted by it myself, gee, almost 20 years ago.  I still own some of the stock.  But I held mutual funds first. There are two disadvantages that have disuaded me from partaking in the ESPP of my subsequent employers (one of which was a spin-out company of the stock-issuing company, the other having bought the spin-out).  First, putting a bunch of money in a single stock is rather risky.  single stocks will drop dramatically due to market conditions.  Generally market conditions don't act so dramatically on all stock.  Second, is it wise to put not only your salary but also your saved wealth all in one basket? It worked out reasonably well for me.  The stock doubled right before my division was spun out -- I sold half of my position.    And the resulting stock has continued to provide opportunities to diversify.  However, it could have just as easily dropped in half instead of doubled. What is your timeline for holding the stock -- for realizing any gain?  Can you afford patience if the stock value should drop in half? I have co-workers who continue to invest through our new company's ESPP.  At least one co-worker has the stated goal to sell after every purchase -- he holds the stock long enough to make a long-term gain instead of short term, but he sells after every purchase.  And it seems to him that the stock always drops right when he wants to sell. Is my understanding correct? It's actually higher than that - he exercised options for 94,564 shares at $204.16 and sold them for $252.17 for a gain of about $4.5 Million.  There's another transaction that's not in your screenshot where he sold the other 7,954 shares for another $2 Million. What do executive directors usually do with such profit?  It's part of his compensation - it's anyone's guess what he decided to do with it. Is it understood that such trade profits should be re-invested back to the company? No - that is purely compensation for his position (I'm assuming the stock options were compensation rather then him buying options in the open market).  There generally is no expectation that trading profits need to go back into the company.  If the company wanted the profits reinvested they wouldn't have distributed the compensation in the first place. I do not fully understand the transactions involved, but it appears that there was a reverse stock split (20:1) and some legal status change as well on June 29th. This seems to be the cause for the change in valuation of the stock as the dates match the drop. https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/RMSLD/filings "Vitalik has mentioned this in a comment but I think it ought to be expanded upon: Companies that aren't already penny stocks really don't stand to gain anything from trying to prevent short interest.  Short selling does not inherently lower the stock price - not any more so than any other kind of selling.  When somebody shorts a stock, it's simply borrowed from another investor's margin; as long as it's not a naked short resulting in an FTD (Failure To Deliver) then it does not add any ""artificial"" selling pressure. In fact, shorting can actually drive the price up in the long term due to stops and margin calls.  Not a guarantee, of course, but if a rally occurs then a high short interest can cause a cascade effect from the short ""squeeze"", resulting in an even bigger rally than what would have occurred with zero short interest.  Many investors actually treat a high short interest as a bullish signal. Compare with margin buying - essentially the opposite of short selling - which has the opposite effect.  If investors buy stocks on margin, then if the value of that stock decreases too rapidly they will be forced to sell, which can cause the exact same cascade effect as a short interest but in the opposite direction.  Shorting is (in a sense) evening out the odds by inflating the buying pressure at lower stock prices when the borrowers decide to cover and take profits. Bottom line is that, aside from (illegal) insider trading, it doesn't do businesses any good to try to manipulate their stock price or any trading activity.  Yes, a company can raise capital by selling additional common shares, but a split really has no effect on the amount of capital they'd be able to raise because it doesn't change the actual market cap, and a dilution is a dilution regardless of the current stock price.  If a company's market cap is $1 billion then it doesn't matter if they issue 1 million shares at $50.00 each or 10 million shares at $5.00 each; either way it nets them $50 million from the sale and causes a 5% dilution, to which the market will react accordingly. They don't do it because there'd be no point." Yes, because most were holding it from 50-300 dollars cost pre-split, giving them a very healthy dividend yield today.  The question is upside if you buy today, not upside from 5 years ago.  I bought it at 300 too, but today other stocks are making me money... "First, do you get charged a commission or other fee for reinvesting?   Second, why would capital gains and dividends be grouped together? If the broker charges you for that run away. As Joe explained, it is done as a courtesy. Doesn't this mean if I sell the stock, the profit will be used to buy   that stock right back? No, this is only the capital gains distributions of funds. Lastly, there are two additional checkbox options I was hoping   somebody could explain: ""All equity positions currently held in this   account"" and ""Future equity purchases, transfers, and deposits to this   account"". ""All equity positions"" means your selection will be valid for all the positions you already have. ""Future positions"" means it will only affect future positions, not the ones you already have. For example: FOLLOW-UP: Looking around, some people suggest not doing this for   taxable accounts because it complicates cost basis reporting. Is this   a valid concern? Doesn't the brokerage handle that and send you the   information when you sell the stock? Yes, because you end up with tons of positions and you need to track the cost basis for each. Brokers are required to report cost-basis on 1099-B now, so its less of a problem, but before 2011 you'd have 10's of positions each year (if you have a monthly dividend, for example) each with different cost basis, and you'd usually sell them all at once. Go figure the gain. So the new 1099-B reporting regulations help a little on this, but it only kicks in for everything starting of 2013 IIRC. Fortunately, for some investments (mutual funds, mainly) you may chose averaging, but it has drawbacks as well." If you have a public company and shareholder A owns 25% and shareholder B owns 25%, and lets say the remaining 50% is owned by various funds/small investors.   Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically. Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free. Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money.  And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time. In an open corporation scenario a stock holder may well be found liable. It's a very narrow and uncommon bunch of scenarios but it's well worth sharing. See the paragraph on open corporations in the following document: http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/businessLaw/RightsOfShareholders/LiabilityOfShareholders.asp Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange. You'd likely be subject to a lock-up period before you could sell the shares along with possibly having other rules about how you could sell your shares as you'd likely be seen as an insider that may have information that gives you an unfair advantage for selling the stock possibly. Depending on how far in advance you hold the shares, you may or may not have adjustments in the valuation and number of shares as some companies may do a split or reverse split when preparing for an IPO. A company I worked for in the late 1990s had an IPO and my stock options had a revised strike price because of a reverse stock split that was done prior to the IPO. You have stumbled upon a classic trading strategy known as the carry trade. Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment. In reality this doesn't happen (on average). There are even ETFs that automate the process for you (and get better transaction costs and lending/borrowing rates than you ever could): DBV and ICI.