Theoretically, if I bought more than 50% of a company's stocks, will I own the company?
You'll own whatever fraction you bought. To own the company (as in, boolean - yes or no) you need to buy 100% of the outstanding stock. RE controlling the company, in general the answer is yes - although the mechanism for this might not be so straight forward (ie. you may have to appoint board members and may only be able to do so at pre-set intervals) and there may be conditions in the company charter designed to stop this happening. Depending on your jurisdiction certain ownership percentages can also trigger the need to do certain things so you may not be able to just buy 50% - in Australia when you reach 20% ownership you have to launch a formal takeover bid. "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." "I believe Tom Au answered your key question. Let me just add in response to, ""What if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company?"" This happens all the time. Bob Senior is a brilliant business man, he starts a company, it is wildly successful, then he dies and Bob Junior inherits the company. (If it's a privately owned company he may inherit it directly; if it's a corporation he inherits a controlling interest in the stock.) Bob Junior knows nothing about how to run a business. And so he mismanages the company, runs it into the ground, and eventually it goes bankrupt. Stock holders lose their investment, employees lose their jobs, and in general everyone is very unhappy. I suppose it also happens that someone gets rich doing thing A and then decides that he's going to buy a business that does thing B. He has no idea how to run a business doing thing B and he destroys the company. I can't think of any specific examples of this off the top of my head, but I've heard of it happening with people who make a ton of money as actors or professional athletes and then decide to start a business." "The usual pattern is that shareholders don't run companies in a practical sense, so ""if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company"" doesn't change anything. In large companies, the involvement of shareholders is limited to a few votes on key issues such as allocating profit (how much to keep in company vs pay in dividends) and choosing board members. And board members also don't run the company - they oversee how the company is being run, and choose executives who will actually run the company. If a rich person simply buys 50% and doesn't desire to get personally involved, then they just vote for whatever board members seem apropriate and forget about it." I almost agree. I am not completely sure about the ownership of stock, but to have the majority ownership of any company you must own more than 50% of a company's outstanding shares. Although a board in majority, could out vote a majority shareholder in most cases depending on the company policy regarding shareholders and the general law of the country, and to how the company is managed. The person holding the majority of shares can influence the decisions of the company. Even though the shareholder holds majority of the shares,the Board of Directors appointed by the shareholders in the Annual General Meeting will run the company. As said in the characteristics of the company,the owners and the administrators of the company are different. The shareholder holding majority of the shares can influence the business decisions like appointing the auditor,director etc. and any other business decisions(not taken in the ordinary business) that are taken in the Annual General Meeting. It is also worth noting that one of the character defining features of a publicly traded company is that the management that is responsible for the day to day operations of the stands independent of those who have ownership. Shareholder of a public company typically don't have influence over the day to day running of the company. You guys seem to have forgotten the most important part of this equation ... i work for a bank and I can tell u this as a painful fact ... every business is governed by its paperwork ... articles bylaws operating agreements amendments and minutes .. if a companys paperwork says that the 51% owner can fire everyone and move to Alaska and that paperwork is proper (signed and binding) it is with minimal excavation law... case in point every company is different .. and it is formed and governed by its paperwork.
A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely.   Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely. I believe you can easily make tresholds for what constitute a partial owner. If I work for GE and buy a share, I'm not exactly a partial owner.  Anything under 10% for companies making, I don't know, less than 50 Mil in revenue, you're an employee. Larger companies, 5%.  That's just an idea, could be refined but, yeah... "I find the question interesting, but it's beyond an intelligent answer.  Say what you will about Jim Cramer, his advice to spend ""an hour per month on each stock"" you own appears good to me. But it also limits the number of stocks you can own. Given that most of us have day jobs in other fields, you need to decide how much time and education you can put in. That said, there's a certain pleasure in picking stocks, buying a company that's out of favor, but your instinct tells you otherwise. For us, individual stocks are about 10% of total portfolio. The rest is indexed. The amount that ""should be"" in individual stocks? None. One can invest in low cost funds, never own shares of individual stocks, and do quite well." Regardless of whether a stock is owned by a retail investor or an institutional investor, it is subject to the same rules.  For example, say that as part of the buyout, 1 share of Company B is equivalent to 0.75 shares of Company A and any fractional shares will be paid out in cash.  This rule will apply to both the retail investor who holds 500 shares of Company B, as well as the asset manager or hedge fund holding 5,000,000 shares of Company B. There is a fundemental misunderstanding:   the business and the owner are not the same entity.  You said:   I give the business $25,000 and take 50% of the business. No you can give the owner of the business 25K, and now he has 25K and 50% of a 50K business.   That 25K sits in Mr. Smith's bank account, not Acme Widget's account.   A more simple example is when you buy a car.  The money goes to the car dealership, it does not get put into the car's glove box. You may be thinking of an investor in a business.  He could pump $$ into the business as operating capital for a share of the business.  In that case, it would be a bit unfair to get 50% of the business for a 25K.  However, the owner may be interested in doing such a deal because value of the investor can add more than just $$ to the business.  Having a celebrity investor might do more good for the business than the actual dollars. Another situation is that the owner might be desperate.  Without a influx of cash the whole business might end. There are guidelines to business evaluation, but valuing them is not an easy thing. Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares. Depends on the structure of the company and what shares are outstanding.  If the pink sheet stock has no voting power then buying all that stock doesn't get you any control at all.  On the other hand, if the outstanding shares only represent 20% of the company's overall shares, then buying all the shares isn't likely enough to have a controlling interest. Thus, you'll have to dig into the details.  If you want an example of where I'd have my doubts, look at Nestle's stock which has the ticker of NSRGY.  There can be companies that are structured with stock on multiple exchanges that can also be a challenge at times.  There is also something to be said if you own enough stock in a company that this has to be disclosed to the SEC when you buy more. "It works if after the price has halved and you buy more the price then rises, however if you are attempting to do this you are basing you ""doubling down"" on hope, and if you are basing a purchase on hope you are gambling. In many cases if the price has halved it could be because there is something very wrong with the company, so the price could easly half again. In that case it hasn't worked. You are better off waiting to see if the company makes a turn around and starts improving. Wait for confirmation that the stock price is heading back up before buying." "Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% ""free money"" they're giving you.  Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to ""double down"" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify." 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. "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." Does Coke count as one of his operating businesses though?  He's the biggest shareholder but wikipedia says it's around 26%.  There are some other huge cash cows in there as well; BNSF Railroad's earnings were like $3.5 billion last year, and Berkshire own 100% of the business. When you own a share, you also own a vote (in most cases). That vote is your means of controlling the assets and management of the company. If you had enough votes and wanted to trade a share for an iPhone or liquidate the company entirely, you could do it. The only thing that prevents you from doing that is that companies are not set up to handle the transaction that way. Stock holders are usually trying to buy investments, not iPhones. There are companies that have more cash in the bank than the market cap (total value) of their stock. They usually don't remain as public companies for long in that case. An investor or group of investors buy them up and split the cash. If you had enough shares of Apple, you could do that to; or, just trade one for an iPhone. Only if you sell the stock in question, and use the proceeds to buy other stock. (You should probably never feel bad about selling your company stock, even if it goes up a lot later, because from a risk-exposure basis you are already exposed to your company's performance through your career. Unless you have a lot of other savings, you should diversify.) I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is.  Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.