Can a company control its stock through contracts with stockholders?
Your first scenario, involving shareholders in a private corp being limited by a contractual agreement, is common in practice. Frequent clauses include methods of valuing the shares if someone wants to sell, first right of refusal [you have to attempt to sell to the other shareholders, before you can sell to a 3rd party], and many others. These clauses are governed by contract law [ie: some clauses may be illegal in contract law, and therefore couldn't be applied here]. A Universal Shareholders' Agreement is just the same as the above, but applied to more people. You would never get an already public company to convert to a universal shareholders' agreement - because even 1 share voting 'no' would block it [due to corporate law limiting the power of a corporation from abusing minority shareholder value]. In practice, these agreements universally exist at the start of incorporation, or at least at the first moment shares become available. An example is the Canadian mega-construction company PCL*, which is employee-owned. When the original owner transferred the corporation to his employees, there was a USA in place which still today governs how the corporation operates.  In theory you could have a 'public company' where most shares are already owned by the founders, and 100% of remaining shares are owned by a specific group of individuals, in which case you may be able to get a USA signed. But it wouldn't really happen in practice.  *[Note that while PCL is broadly owned by a large group of employees, it is not a 'public company' because any random schmuck can't simply buy a share on the Toronto Stock Exchange. I assume most exchanges would prevent corporations from being listed if they had ownership restrictions like this].
Would you consider the owner of a company to be supporting the company? If you buy stock in the company you own a small part of that company. Your purchase also increases the share price, and thus the value of the company. Increased value allows the company to borrow more money to say expand operations. The affect that most individuals might have on share price is very very small. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing for you to do if it is something you believe in. After all if enough people followed those same convictions it could have an impact on the company. I believe, I could be wrong, it has been a long day. By exercising this right you have the right to purchase the equivalent of their current share.  Eg. Someone owns 50 of 100 shares. and the company does a rights offering and is expanding the shares to 200. That person has first right to purchase 50 more shares to keep his share from being diluted. It depends. If the investor bought newly-issued shares or treasury shares, the company gets the money. If the investor bought shares already held by the owner, the owner gets the money. A 100% owner can decide how to structure the sale. Yet, the investor may only be willing to buy shares if the funds increase the company's working capital. "What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline?  Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called ""valuation"", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting." Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure. Alot of these answers have focused on the dilution aspect, but from a purely legal aspect, there are usually corporate bylaws that spell out what kind of vote and percentage of votes is needed to take this type of action.  If all other holders of stock voted to do this, so 90% for, and you didn't, so 10% against, it's still legal if that vote meets the threshold for taking the action. As an example of this, I known of a startup where employees got $0/share for their vested shares when the company was sold because the voting stock holders agreed to it.  Effectively the purchase amount was just enough to cover debts and preferred stock. "It's called ""dilution"". Usually it is done to attract more investors, and yes - the existing share holders will get diluted and their share of ownership shrinks. As a shareholder you can affect the board decisions (depends on your stake of ownership), but usually you'll want to attract more investors to keep the company running, so not much you can do to avoid it. The initial investors/employees in a startup company are almost always diluted out. Look at what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple, as an example." "Owning more than 50%  of a company's stock normally gives you the right to elect a majority, or even all of a company's (board of) directors. Once you have your directors in place, you can tell them who to hire and fire among managers. There are some things that may stand in the way of your doing this. First, there may be a company bylaw that says that the directors can be replaced only one ""class"" at a time, with three or four ""classes."" Then it could take you two or three years to get control of the company. Second, there may be different classes of shares with different voting rights, so if e.g. ""A"" shares controlled by the founding family gives them ten votes, and ""B"" shares owned by the other shareholders, you may have a majority of total shares and be outvoted by the ""A"" shares." In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability.  The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment.  If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt.  Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement. "The answer to your question is ""no"". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account.  If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days.  Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker.   Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership.  Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house." "During GM's Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, a new company was formed, with new stock.  The old General Motors Corporation was renamed to ""Motors Liquidation Company,"" and the new company was named ""General Motors Company.""  The new company purchased some of the assets from the old company, and the old company was left to sell off the remaining assets and settle the debts. None of the stock transferred from the old company to the new one; if you were a GM stockholder of the old company and didn't sell, it is now worthless. When the new company formed, the stock was not traded publicly.  The company was primarily owned by the United States and Canadian governments; together, they owned 72.5%.  In 2010, GM had an IPO, and the US government sold most of their stake.  By the end of 2013, the US government sold the remaining stake; the government no longer has any ownership in GM. When we talk about voting rights for stockholders, we are mainly talking about voting for the members of the board of directors.  And yes, the government did indeed have a hand in selecting the board of the new company.  The Treasury Department selected 10 members of the board, and the Canadian government selected 1 member.  There were 19 board members total. (Source) Unlike some companies, there are not ""voting"" and ""non-voting"" classes of GM stock.  All the shares sold by the US government are voting shares. Additional Sources:" Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm.   Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase. The answer to your question as asked is no.  Call options, even those issued by the company, cannot create new shares unless they are employee stock options. Company-issued warrants, on the other hand, can create new shares. "No, assuming by ""public company"" you mean a corporation.  The shareholder's individual liability is limited to their investment.  Your shares can go to zero value, but that's the limit. EDIT In regard to the follow-up question in the comments: ""Are all companies in the stock market corporations?"" the answer is definitely ""no.""  I cannot say much about other countries, but the US markets have some entities which are known as ""master limited partnerships.""  These trade shares on the market by the usual rules, but if you buy you become a partner in the company rather than a shareholder.  You still have limited liability in this case, but there will be differences, for example, in how you're are taxed." "&gt;As a legal matter, shareholders who purchase shares of stock in a  corporation own nothing more than that—shares of stock. Similarly, bondholders own only bonds, and executives with employment contracts own their contracts. None of these types of ownership give shareholders, bondholders or executives the right to control the firm. The right to control the firm’s assets and actions rests in the hands of its board of directors, and only when they act as a body and follow proper board procedures.  All this says is ""decisions are made by the board."" This is not news, and it doesn't mean that shareholders do not own the company. Shareholders elect the board, by the way.  &gt;An important consequence of this governance structure is that shareholders not only have no legal right to control the firm, they also have no legal right to help themselves to the corporation’s    assets.  Well, that's wrong.  &gt;In fact, the only time shareholders receive any funds directly from the corporation’s coffers is when they receive a dividend or the corporation repurchases their shares.  Or, you know, in the case of bankruptcy.  &gt;This only happens when the directors vote to declare a dividend or a corporate repurchase.  The same directors who were appointed by shareholders.  &gt;At law, a principal has a right to control her agent. But shareholders can’t exercise direct control over corporate directors.  I suppose this is true in the sense that shareholders cannot practice slavery. But shareholders can, again, vote on issues relating to the governance of the company.  &gt;It is thus wildly misleading to describe shareholders as the sole residual claimants in companies that aren’t actually in bankruptcy.  This is only true if you're retarded and don't know what ""residual"" means.  &gt;This idea is supported by modern options theory. In effect, bondholders own the right to access cash flow but have sold a call to shareholders, while shareholders own the right to access the cash flow but have sold a put to bondholders. Neither shareholders nor bondholders can claim an exclusive right to “own” the company’s cash flow, much less the company.  This is a made up explanation that doesn't mean anything. The real options model of corporate assets is that corporate debt is a risk-free bond with a short put option and equity is a call option. There is no ""deal,"" in actuality or in spirit, between debt and equity owners.  You can dismiss the article as ""shit."""