As co-founder, does Steve Jobs still own enough Apple shares to control Apple Inc.?
Everyone that owns a share of stock in a company is part owner. Some just own more than others. According to Apple's latest proxy statement he owns 5.5 million shares of the 914 million shares outstanding. So he owns approximately 0.6% of the company.  If he owned more than 50% of the company's outstanding stock he would effectively control the board of directors by being able to pick whoever he wanted.  Then he would control the company. Very few publicly traded companies are that way. Most have sold off parts of the company to the public in order to raise cash for the company and make their investment more liquid.
This is a extremely complicated subject, but I assume you want a very simple answer (otherwise I'm not qualified to answer). The value of most currencies is closely tied to the economy of the county, so if China were to print a huge amount of yuan, then since the value of their economy has not really changed, the international currency markets would devalue the yuan to compensate. (This is rather like, if have shares in, say Apple, and they were to issue an extra billion shares, then the value of your shares would fall (by half), rather than for Apple to be suddenly be worth twice as much) Print too many notes and your currency basically becomes almost worthless, which is what happened to the Zimbabwean dollar. I like the idea of China skipping crate loads of actual yuan or dollars notes to America, but in practice, the borrowing is just a paper exercise, rather like an IOU. As to whether America owes Yuan or dollars, the answer is whatever has been agreed. Assuming the currencies are fairly stable, then since each country has more control over their own currency, it is natural for them to prefer their own currency. However, if America believes the value of the dollar will increase, they may prefer to pay back in Yuan (costing them less dollars), and if China believes the value of the dollar will decrease they may agree to that. "The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position.  The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016.  The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission.  The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20.  The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry.  Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission.  If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission.  Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option.  Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60.  The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60.  You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised.  Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97.  If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97.  This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any  commission payable.  If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker.  Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a ""margin"" requirement.  You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show ""good faith"" so long as the short option position is open.  If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses." Well, it certainly has the first-mover advantage. I imagine Tesla has become pretty efficient in its production of electric cars and they are continuously driving down costs. As production expands, Tesla is gaining economies of scale, allowing it to produce electric vehicles for much cheaper than any other company might do with its patents. I think it would be difficult for new entrants to achieve the same quality and cost that Tesla does, even if they are using Tesla's patents.   Furthermore, Tesla and electric vehicles have become synonymous. If someone is going to buy an electric car, the first thing they are going to think of is Tesla. Owning a Tesla has become (and will likely continue to be) a bit of a status symbol, and because of that, I think they will probably always have the dominant position in the electric vehicle industry, and will likely be able to charge premium prices that competitors might not be able to justify. Similar to the way that despite the ubiquity of smartphones, Apple has a dominant position and an ability to charge premium prices. (Largely because Apple kind of drove the smartphone revolution)   Tesla wants the electric car market to grow as quickly as possible. The more money automobile manufacturers pour into electric cars, the less they will spend on cheaper, fossil-fuel vehicles. Secondly, as more companies start producing electric vehicles, more people will end up owning one, hence more infrastructure will be built to support those people, making owning an electric car a lot easier, hence increasing the value of a Tesla. Making electric cars accessible to the mainstream public is Tesla's ultimate goal, because they know they will likely always have the lion's share of that industry. Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income.    With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that.    With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions. God forbid there is some differing point of views on a tech company's board. Politics aside, Thiel is a genius and a visionary - not to mention one of the huge catalysts to not only Facebook's growth, but also a mentor to Zuckerberg as well. Re-invest it in the business, invest it long-term somewhere. It is a very bad business practice to have too much cash lying around. That cash could either generate a higher profit % used in the business or it could generate more money long term being invested somewhere. It seems apple has now done the latter, up until now it's been largely invested in cash-like things. "How about keep your thieving hands off other people's money, and focus more on how you can trade freely with other individuals to get their compensation via saving them time, energy or money? If you analyze how most people ""get rich"", it's through providing a good or service that is so valuable that other people voluntarily part with their money because the good/service is of higher value to them... i.e. BOTH SIDES WIN IN VOLUNTARY TRADE. I don't hate Steve Jobs because he had $Billions, because I recognize that 1. I want people who produce the most for us to have even more resources than average and 2. he didn't take a dime from me that I didn't have full control over giving him, unlike politicians who just win popularity contests to seize control of 40% of our money (total cost of taxation)." "Absolutely terrible idea(s) on many fronts. Firstly, why are you giving away equity at all? usually it's to attract people you otherwise wouldn't be able to hire (like extremely talented coders or business development managers) but normal employees? Bad idea. If you really want to give up equity, then make sure it's only realized (valued) once certain targets are met (i.e. sales/revenue/share price/investment etc). As for the nomenclature, they're not ""Co-Founders"" - that's typically reserved for the people that foundned the company, not just people who happened to be working for the company it started trading. Call them ""founding employee"" if you must, but they're certainly not founders. Why does this matter? If the company ever takes iff or you get investment, or you fire one of them or one just gets the idea to sue you, their position name suddenly REALLY matters, and by not being careful, they could win a substantial cut of your company in a lawsuit. there's even stories of employees ganging up on their bosses and they end up owning the company. I know someone that's been involved in high 8 figure suit for 7 years for exactly the same reason. So unless they're putting in startup capital or they're taking a serious hit on their salary in return for compensation in the form of equity, don't give anyone equity."