What is a stock warrant? How do warrants work?
In general, a warrant is a security issued by a company allowing the holder to purchase a certain number of a particular class of shares at a certain price for a particular period of time.  They differ from exchange traded options (i.e. calls and puts) in that they are issued by the company that issued the underlying shares that they allow you to purchase whereas calls and puts are generally written by other investors. The other big difference between options and warrants is that options are standardized.  Any call or put you buy on a particular exchange has basically the same set of rules governing use.  By contrast, a warrant may have all kinds of stipulations that must occur before you can execute, such as price events (e.g. only if the stock hits a certain price) or business events (e.g. only if the company elects to defer payment on a bond issued at the same time as the warrant). Warrants are generally a bad choice for small and inexperienced investors since each warrant issue is different and you often need a lawyer or other qualified professional to fully understand all to possible outcomes. In Australia there are 2 type of warrants (I don't know if it is the same in the US, UK and other countries), the first are trading warrants and the second are instalment warrants. The trading warrants are exactly what it says, they are used for trading. They are similar to option and have calls and puts. As Cameron says, they differ from exchange traded options in that they are issued by the financial companies whereas options are generally written by other investors. Instalment warrants on the other hand are usually bought and sold by investors with a longer term view. There are no calls and puts and you can just go long with them. They are also issued by financial companies, and how they work is best explained through an example: if I was to buy a stock directly say I would be paying $50 per share, however an instalment warrant in the underlying stock may be offered for $27 per warrant. I could buy the warrant directly from the company when it is issued or on the secondary market just like shares. I would pay the $27 per warrant upfront, and then in 2 years time when the warrant expires I have the choice to purchase the underlying stock for the strike price of say $28, roll over to a new issue of warrants, sell it back on the secondary market, or let it expire, in which case I would receive any intrinsic value left in the warrant. You would have noticed that the warrant purchase price plus the strike price adds up to more than the share price ($55 compared to $50). This is the interest component inherent in the warrant which covers the borrowing costs until expiry, when you pay the second portion (the strike price) and receive the underlying shares. Another difference between Instalment warrants and trading warrants (and options) is that with instalment warrants you still get the full dividends just like the shares, but at a higher yield than the shares.
"In that case, he was not arrested for being unable to pay his bill. He received a summons to court, failed to appear, and so a warrant was issued for his arrest. The $350 was his bail amount, which is funds that must be provided to the court in order to be released while pending trial (you get this money back once you appear before court). He also wasn't convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail in this case, just arrested. He would be ""kept"" by the courts (if he couldn't post bail) until his court date as a way of being forced to appear. If a judgement was awarded against him, it still doesn't always mean he has to pay. If someone refuses to pay a judgement (but did show up to court) then typically their wages are garnished, which means the court orders that a certain amount of money be withheld from income, tax refunds, etc. until the judgement is paid. However, if the person ordered to pay can prove that they would not be able to have sufficient money to survive if they are garnished (I'm not a lawyer so I am unclear as to the exact process/standards) then there is a chance that nothing will be garnished at all.  So in short, no, there is no such thing as debtor's prison in the USA. There is definitely such a thing as being arrested / put in jail for defying court orders, and I'm sure if you took out loans while knowing you have no ability to repay them that you might be able to be charged with some sort of fraud, but just not being able to pay your bills doesn't mean you can go to jail. Of course, there is very little protecting you from simply running out of money and becoming homeless, but that's not your question." If you move money - you don't need to pay any taxes. If the money was not there before and magically appeared at some point and now you want to move it - you'll have to explain a thing or two to the IRS and FinCEN. Generally, if you're a green card holder - you pay taxes on your worldwide income. So if you have a foreign account that earns interest - that interest is taxable to you in the US. In the year you earned it, not in the year you moved the money to the US. There are also reporting requirements (FBAR notably, and others). If you haven't filed FBAR with regards to the accounts which you now want to move, and especially if that also includes unreported income (interest and other) - you may find yourself in a very deep s#!t. Sorry, very deep troubles. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). A proper consultation is warranted, if you haven't had one already. You might need a tax attorney. outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS. Probably to some degree, but if it isn't connected to the internet it's much more difficult.  They can't legally listen to you without a wire tap warrant, but they could ask Microsoft to listen, record, and share your information since you gave Microsoft permission to constantly listen in.   And it isn't just the government.  Who knows what Microsoft is listening for.  Target has used purchase records to [figure out who is pregnant](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/).  Microsoft would have a perfectly legal way to spy *much* more intrusively than Target.  [Polls show](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying) that government spying (the NSA issues being the most well known) are a big concern.  I'd be very surprised if I was the only one came to the same conclusion.  And yes.  Microsoft changed their policies on the constant internet connection and mandatory always on Kinect, but I think the damage was already done. "Well, they don't ""make"" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public).  The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price.  It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares." The check is written to BigCo. Jack is being diluted, corporation issues more shares. There's no gain, no change in Jack's equity value. Jack didn't lose or win anything. BigCo was worth $1M before the additional money, it is worth $1.25M after the additional money, with Jack owning the same $1M, but the cake is now bigger (obviously the numbers are wrong in your example, but you get the point). I know that in the case of cash dividends I will get the dividend as long as I bought the stock before the ex-date but what happens in the case of an stock dividend? This is same as cash dividends. You would receive the additional stock. 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.