What is the purpose of a Share owner services?
"Wells Fargo Shareowner Services main job is as a Transfer Agent and Dividend Paying Agent. They work on behalf of a company (say Acme Inc.) to keep track of who the shareowners are, their job is to constantly update the official record of who owns how many Acme shares. (Also, obviously, they pay out dividends). You can see how they got involved: they are the ones who were able to ""rename"" your deceased relative's shares so they are now in your name, no one else can do that. Now, however, they don't have to keep your shares, you can transfer them elsewhere if you wish. You will have to legally prove your identity, which is not difficult to do in most cases (assuming you  are in US, have a government issued ID and a bank account, and some time to do some paperwork)."
"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas.   The stock market is not like a supermarket.  With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding.  When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives.  The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company.   ""When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the   company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your   stock for the company's assets."" The statement does have backing.  It's backed by the US Judicial system.  But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company.  You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets.  Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue).  Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism.  The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies.  Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise.   Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity.  You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock.  You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer.  You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell.  You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer.   Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands.  Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after.  You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc.  Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are)." You may also want to consider Delaware and Nevada as possible corporate homes.  They are common choices for out of state corporations.  You may find that they are better options.   Will earnings prior to forming the LLC have to be claimed as self-employment income? If so, would it be easier to wait until the next calendar year to form the LLC? Earnings after forming the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) will probably have to be claimed as self-employment income.  See How LLC Members Are Taxed for more discussion.  In particular, read the section on self-employment taxes:   The current rule is that any owner who works in or helps manage the business must pay this tax on his or her distributive share (rightful share of profits). However, owners who are not active in the LLC -- that is, those who have merely invested money but don't provide services or make management decisions for the LLC -- may be exempt from paying self-employment taxes on their share of profits. The regulations in this area are a bit complicated, but if you actively manage or work in your LLC, you can expect to pay self-employment tax on all LLC profits allocated to you. As I read it, you actively work in the LLC, so it is unlikely that you can avoid paying self-employment taxes.  So it shouldn't make any difference when you officially start an LLC.  You'll have to pay self-employment taxes before and after creating the LLC regardless.   If you don't want to pay self-employment taxes, you may want to consider forming a Subchapter C corporation.  They don't have the same tax structure as Subchapter S corporations or LLCs.  You would be paid some kind of wage, salary, or commission and the corporation would pay the employer's side of the payroll taxes.   Note that Subchapter S corporations and LLCs exist because they usually pay less in tax than Subchapter C corporations do.  Even including the self-employment taxes that you owe.   A CPA should be able to guide you in making these decisions and help you with setup.   The one time that I started a corporation, I just paid a few hundred dollars to a service and they filed the paperwork for me.  That included state fees and notice costs.  The CPA probably has a service association already. "If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just ""bought a dividend:"" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend.  So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000.  What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier.  Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend.  What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased." It sounds like something is getting lost in translation here. A business owner should not have to pay personal income tax on business expenses, with the caveat that they are truly business expenses. Here's an example where what you described could happen: Suppose a business has $200K in revenue, and $150K in legitimate business expenses (wages and owner salaries, taxes, services, products/goods, etc.) The profit for this example business is $50K. Depending on how the business is structured (sole proprietor, llc, s-corp, etc), the business owner(s) may have to pay personal income tax on the $50K in profit. If the owner then decided to have the business purchase a new vehicle solely for personal use with, say, $25K of that profit, then the owner may think he could avoid paying income tax on $25K of the $50K. However, this would not be considered a legitimate business expense, and therefore would have to be reclassified as personal income and would be taxed as if the $25K was paid to the owner. If the vehicle truly was used for legitimate business purposes then the business expenses would end up being $175K, with $25K left as profit which is taxable to the owners. Note: this is an oversimplification as it's oftentimes the case that vehicles are partially used for business instead of all or nothing. In fact, large items such as vehicles are typically depreciated so the full purchase price could not be deducted in a single year. If many of the purchases are depreciated items instead of deductions, then this could explain why it appears that the business expenses are being taxed. It's not a tax on the expense, but on the income that hasn't been reduced by expenses, since only a portion of the big ticket item can be treated as an expense in a single year. Here's another way that I look at it:  Say you and me were 50-50 partners in a small business. Suppose we wanted to expand our business but that needed money. Someone (let's call him Warren) has the money we need & hence in return for the money we offer Warren an equal stake in the business.  i.e. All three of us own 33% stake now. For both you and me our stake reduced from  50% that it was before Warren's entry to only 33% now.  While that reduction in our share may seem at first sight a bad deal for us, we both agreed to give Warren his share consciously not out of altruism but because it made business sense to helps us expand.  Ergo, what matters is not just your share of the pie but the size of the pie itself! And hence dilution of stake can make sense under certain circumstances.  Two small points: (a) This doesn't  in any way show the dilution must make sense. Only that it can sometimes make sense (b) Of course, in the case of a large corporation they do not need your personal approval for the dilution. But hey, neither do they ask you when they buy a new plant or start a new product. Credit Unions are structured such that the account holders are in fact the owners of the institution. Thus, the money invested in your savings account is in fact a share of ownership, and the interest paid to you is dividend. Tax-wise, these dividends are usually treated as interest income. I'm really unsure what you are trying to tell me. I don't see how knowing CEOs would aid me in forming an opinion on this issue.  Your second statement is simply foolish, shares of a company, represent ownership. Therefore shareholders are the owners.  These shareholders elect a board, this board acts like a proxy between the managers (CEO's) and the owners (shareholders).  This is how every public company operates.   The problem that arises is that managers have an incentive to act in their own best interests, not in the interests of shareholders.  So to solve this manager compensation is aligned with company performance so that if the shareholders are better off the managers are better off. Absolutely nothing, and it's not their call to make.  The shareholders will want to cut it into as many parts as they  can sell to recoup some of their lost investment. The judge will demand it even if they suddenly had a moral thought.  This will happen when this (and all those other companies) go under, refocuses priorities, or shuts down departments.