Why would I vote for an increase in the number of authorized shares?
"I'll skip the ""authorizing...."" and go right to uses of new shares: Companies need stock as another liquid asset for a variety of purposes, and if not enough stock is available, then may be forced to the open market to acquire, either by exchanging cash or taking on debt to get the cash." Why would I want to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares? Because you trust management to use those shares wisely. What it comes down to is, management is asking for money. While it may not be cash they're asking for, it has the same effect. Before you approve this, you have to evaluate the request (similarly to how a bank would evaluate a loan request), and ask if you approve of their reasons for needing the money, and if you think that it will be used to increase the value of the company (making your shares more valuable in the process). "As a common shareholder, why would I want to approve an increase in the number of authorized shares?"" Because it could increase the value of your existing shares. Companies sell new shares to raise capital, and they use capital to (among other things) expand. If Whole Foods issues new shares and uses the capital to opens new stores, then profit could increase enough to offset the dilution effect, and your stock price will go up. You should ask yourself:  What areas is is your company of choice planning on expanding into? Will they do well there? Are there better ways for the company to raise capital (debt, cash in hand, cut expenses elsewhere, etc)? If you think that the management has a good plan for expanding, then authorizing new shares makes good sense for you personally."
Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus. The reason a company creates more stock is to generate more capital so that this can be utilized and more returns can be generated. It is commonly done as a follow on public offer. Typically the funds are used to retire high cost debts and fund future expansion. What stops the company from doing it?   Are Small investors cheated?   It's like you have joined a car pool with 4 people and you are beliving that you own 1/4th of the total seats ... so when most of them decide that we would be better of using Minivan with 4 more persons, you cannot complain that you now only own 1/8 of the total seats. Even before you were having just one seat, and even after you just have one seat ... overall it maybe better as the ride would be good ... :) "As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a ""friendly merger""; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a ""tender offer"" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a ""hostile takeover"". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any ""holdouts"" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are ""squeezed out""; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home." Because people bought their shares under the premise that they would make more money and if the company completely lied about that they will be subject to several civil and criminal violations. If people didn't believe the company was going to make more money, they would have valued their shares lower during the IPO by not forming much of a market at all. Many brokerages offer automatic dividend reinvestment. It is very infrequent that these dividends are exactly a whole share. So, if you have signed up for automatic dividend reinvestment, many brokerages will reinvest your dividends and assign to you a fractional share. I can't speak for how these shares work with regards to voting, but I can say that the value of these fractional holdings does change with stock price as if one genuinely could hold a fraction of a share. The main reason is that a public company is owned by its share holders, and share holders would care about the price of the stock they are owning, therefore the company would also care, because if the price go down too much, share holders become angry and may vote to oust the company's management. Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company.  Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future).  From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off.  That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend).  And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important.  A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners.  But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value. No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public.  However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital. "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." I would prefer a dividend paying company, rather than share appreciation. And I would prefer that the dividends increase over time. Generally speaking, having more institutional investors is a good sign. Of course there are many types of institutions.  Normally we are thinking of mutual funds, pension funds, endowments, and hedge funds.  They may not all have the same implications.  Hedge funds, in particular, are out to make a buck with very little restriction on how they do it.  They may buy an undervalued stock and then use their voting power to improve the company or they may do something more questionable, like pump up the stock price and then sell at the high, causing volatility.  The people you are referring to may be thinking of something like the latter. Those concerns are generally small when compared with the known positives of institutional ownership. No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels.  Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note. 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. To quote Adam Smith, 'Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it'. In this case, that means, the value of a stock is equal to the price that someone will pay for it. If you buy shares in a company, the number of people who want shares in that company has just gone up by 1. If you buy shares in companies profiting from the DAPL, you are increasing demand for those shares. You are actually making those shares more valuable, not less. If you bought all those shares, then you could simply shut the pipeline down. But that means you'd be spending billions of dollars to do so - and that money would go to the people who own the company now. The concept of 'Shareholder Activism' that you refer to, is actually more that an individual who owns a substantial number of shares (usually in the 10% ballpark) will become outspoken on the direction of the company, and attempt to elect board members who will take action to suit their liking. This is done to increase the profits of the company, so that the shareholder can make more money off of their investment. It is very expensive, and not generally done for reasons of 'ethics', unless those ethics align with a view to long-term profit (in this case, you'd need at least $1Billion to buy enough of a stake in the DAPL to make a difference). What you may instead want to consider is 'ethical investing'. This refers to the concept that you should only put your investments in companies which act ethically. For example, you could buy shares in a solar company, if you felt that was an ethical industry. In this way, you drive up demand for those types of companies, and reward the business owners who act in that fashion. Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares.  The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake.  Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each.  The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000.  Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling.  When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is.  When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital.  In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders.