(no title)
sertorius | 6 years ago
Realistically, it won't matter either way, but at least as an unhappy shareholder you have infinitesimally more power to influence the company than a grumbling outsider. Certainly more than the tiny amount of "support" that your stock purchase will cause should they issue more shares.
totalZero|6 years ago
First of all, buying a stock generates upward impact (that is, contributes to an increase in market cap) and puts volume/liquidity on the tape, two things that generally benefit a company.
Activists push for shareholder returns, so that they can turn a profit on their investment. Do you know who else tends to hold shares? Board members and executives. But those activists don't generally accomplish their goals by voting their shares. No, they publicize their views, putting pressure on the board by making open arguments for why their plans are more profitable for shareholders. In reality, shareholder votes are generally not dominated by retail investors, who lack the clout to sway other shareholders.
Note also that many short-sellers do the same thing: position themselves quietly, publicize their short thesis, wait for the price to move, and then cover slowly. In either case, in my view it's hard to argue that this is market manipulation -- so long as the arguments are simple revelations of fact, or otherwise in the best interest of shareholders. But the fact remains, a retail investor is not in a position to make either such move.
I don't see what share issuance has to do with any of this. You generally buy shares in the secondary market, on an exchange. Companies don't have to issue new shares for you to buy part of the float.
AnthonyMouse|6 years ago
sertorius|6 years ago
hirundo|6 years ago