If you own 1% of a company's stock, are you entitled to 1% of its assets?
No. You're entitled to 1% of votes at the shareholders' meeting (unless there's class division between shareholders, that is). If more than 50% of the shareholders vote to close the company, sell off its assets and distribute the proceeds to the owners - you'll get 1% share of the distributions. "No.  If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: ""During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company."" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company." "If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your ""aye"" or ""nay"" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share).  We can say, however, that a fall to ""effectively zero"" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded ""over the counter"" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough)."
"Because people are Risk Averse. Suppose that you own an asset worth $10,000 to you.  Suppose that each year, the asset has 1% chance of being stolen (or completely broken).  The expected value is 99% x 10,000 + 1% x $0 = $9,900. This is the average outcome if you do not buy insurance.  Now consider two mutually exclusive outcomes: 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900)  100% chance of keeping $9,900 (expected value: $9,900)  Everyone would choose option 2, even though the expected values are the same.  Option 2 is an insurance that cost $100 (Actuarially fair, aka the odds are fair).  Now suppose the insurance costs $150 instead of $100 (despite that the bad probability is still 1%). You are faced with  99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900)  100% chance of keeping $9,850 (expected value: $9,850)  Some people would still choose option 2, even though the expected value is actually lower.  The $50 is called Risk Premium, which people are willing to pay in order to avoid uncertainty. The odds are unfair, but the Risk Premium has its value.  That being said, competition between insurance companies would drive down the premium until the insurance is close to actuarially fair, but they have cost to cover (sales, administration, etc), making the odds ""unfair""." "I finally found it! Johnson Controls International PLC FORM 8-K/A (Amended Current report filing) Filed 10/03/16 for the Period Ending 09/02/16 from http://investors.johnsoncontrols.com/financial-information/johnson-sec-filings, says on page II-6: (my emphasis for the relevant paragraph) On September 2, 2016, Johnson Controls and Tyco completed their   combination pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger   Agreement”), dated as of January 24, 2016, as amended by Amendment No.   1, dated as of July 1, 2016, by and among Johnson Controls, Tyco and   certain other parties named therein, including Jagara Merger Sub LLC, an   indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco (“Merger Sub”).   Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, on September 2, 2016,   Merger Sub merged with and into Johnson Controls with Johnson Controls   being the surviving corporation in the merger and a wholly owned,   indirect subsidiary of Tyco (the “merger”).   Following the merger, Tyco changed its name to “Johnson Controls   International plc.”  Immediately prior to the merger and in connection   therewith, Tyco shareholders received 0.955 ordinary shares of Tyco   (which shares are now referred to as “combined company ordinary shares”)   for each Tyco ordinary share they held by virtue of a 0.955-for-one   share consolidation. In the merger, each outstanding share of common   stock, par value $1.00 per share, of Johnson Controls (“Johnson Controls   common stock”) (other than shares held by Johnson Controls, Tyco and   certain of their subsidiaries) was converted into the right to receive   either the cash consideration or the share consideration (each as   described below), at the election of the holder, subject to proration   procedures described in the Merger Agreement and applicable withholding   taxes.   The election to receive the cash consideration was undersubscribed. As a   result, holders of shares of Johnson Controls common stock that elected   to receive the share consideration and holders of shares of Johnson   Controls common stock that made no election (or failed to properly make   an election) became entitled to receive, for each such share of Johnson   Controls common stock, $5.7293 in cash, without interest, and 0.8357   combined company ordinary shares, subject to applicable withholding   taxes.   Holders of shares of Johnson Controls common stock that elected to   receive the cash consideration became entitled to receive, for each such   share of Johnson Controls common stock, $34.88 in cash, without   interest, subject to applicable withholding taxes.   In the merger, Johnson Controls shareholders received, in the aggregate,   approximately $3.864 billion in cash. Immediately after the closing of,   and giving effect to, the merger, former Johnson Controls shareholders   owned approximately 56% of the issued and outstanding combined company   ordinary shares and former Tyco stockholders owned approximately 44% of   the issued and outstanding combined company ordinary shares. This answers what actually happened in the transaction; as far as my cost basis in the new JCI, it's a little more obscure; on page II-7 it says: For pro forma purposes, the valuation of consideration transferred is   based on, amongst other things, the adjusted share price of Johnson   Controls on September 2, 2016 of $47.67 per share and on page II-8: Johnson Controls adjusted share price as of September 2, 2016 (2): $47.67 (2) Amount equals Johnson Control closing share price and market   capitalization at September 2, 2016 ($45.45 and $29,012 million,   respectively) adjusted for the Tyco $3,864 million cash contribution   used to purchase 110.8 million shares of Johnson Controls stock for   $34.88 per share. and both agree with the information posted at http://www.secinfo.com/dpdtb.w6n.2n.htm#1stPage (R66 Merger Transaction Fair Value of Consideration Transferred (Details)) which I can't seem to find on an ""official"" website but it purports to post from the SEC EDGAR database.    So for each share of JCI, it had a fair value of $47.67 prior to the acquisition, and transformed into $5.7293 in cash, plus 0.8357 of ""new"" JCI shares with a basis of $47.67 - $5.7293 = $41.9407. Stated in terms of ""new"" JCI shares, this is $50.1863 (=$41.9407/0.8357) per ""new"" JCI share. (I'm not really 100% sure of this calculation though.)  I also found JCI's Form 8937 which states Fair market value generally is the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the facts. U.S. federal income tax law does not specifically prescribe how former JCI shareholders should determine the fair market value of the Tyco ordinary shares received in the merger.  One possible method of determining the fair market value of one Tyco ordinary share is to use the average of the high and low trading prices on the date of the merger, which was $45.69. Other methods for determining the fair market value of Tyco ordinary shares are possible. Former JCI shareholders are not bound by the approach described above and may, in consultation with their tax advisors, use another approach.   as well as similar text on the IRS website: One possible method of determining the fair market value of one Tyco ordinary share is to use the average of the high and low trading prices on the date of the merger, which was $45.69. Using this figure, former JCI shareholders that elected to receive shares in the merger would receive cash and Tyco ordinary shares worth approximately $43.91 per share of JCI common stock exchanged in the merger (assuming no cash received in lieu of fractional shares)." The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc).  Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option.  However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price. "The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index.  That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the ""Dow divisor"".  (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.)  This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price.  That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google.  It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share.  Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index.  That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day.  Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share.  At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share.  So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index.  Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason.  (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now.  Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go.  Most indices are weighted by market capitalization.  That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value.  This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok.  Also, notice that I said ""company"" and not ""stock"".  When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow.  (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500.  The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations.  The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand.  If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked.  (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)" Shareholders provide their capital to the company via buying issued stock from said company. In a way they are owning the company through that transaction by a percentage. Ownership is now in question depending on how big the company is. Apple? You have a snowballs chance in Hell trying to assert your 'ownership' of your one share of their stock. So in theory yes they technically own part of the company but the decision making is up the board. Though the shareholders can voice their opinion and give up their vote via proxy voting. I'm a little rusty please correct me if you must. Assuming no debt, as you've specified in the comments to your question, the assets should generally be distributed proportional to ownership share.  BUT, without any sort of agreement, there might be contention on what each investor's share is and that might get fought out in court.  With a corporation issuing shares, the corporate charter probably defines the relationship between different classes of shares (or specifies only one class).  For a partnership though, you could conceivable have people making claims of ownership stake based on labor in addition to any cash that they put up.  Messy if there's no up-front agreement. "As an owner of a share of a business you also ""own"" profits made by the business. But you delegate company management to reinvest those profits, on your behalf, to make even more profits. So your share of the business is a little money-making machine that should grow, without you having to pay taxes on the dividends and without you having to decide where to reinvest your share of the profit." Say the company has created 500 shares [or whatever number]. You have 10 shares [equivalent of 2%]. Now when new capital is needed, generally more shares are created. Say they create 100 more shares and sell it to venture capital to raise funds. After this happens; Total Shares: 500+100 = 600 You own: 10 shares Your Ownership % = 1.66% down from 2% Like wise for other older shareholder. The New Venture guy gets 16.66% of ownership.   More funds would mean more growth and overall the value of your 10 shares would be more depending on the valuation.