Do stock splits make one's shares double in voting power?
"Ordinarily a stock split increases all shareholders' share counts, so that there is no change in anybody's voting power.  For example, if you owned 1% of the company before the split, after the split you now have twice as many shares, but there are now twice as many shares outstanding, so you still own 1% of the company.  Also, stock splits are not ordinarily ""triggered"".  Usually they happen when the board decides that for one reason or another it's desirable to increase the number of shares in circulation, which causes the price of each share to decrease proportionally.   I'm not familiar with the show, and in particular I don't know what the action is that the character being addressed is thinking of taking, but it sounds like they are describing something akin to a ""poison pill"".  In these arrangements, the ""pill"" is triggered by some predefined condition, say a party acquiring shares in excess of a defined threshold.  What typically happens is that shareholders other than the ones who triggered the pill get a chance to buy shares at a substantial discount, thereby diluting the shares of the party that triggered it.  Because the other shareholders have to buy their additional shares, albeit at a discount, and because it applies only to certain shares, it's not really a split, but it's close enough that the writers of the show may have felt it was worth using the term that is more familiar to the public."
"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares)  and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE.  Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity.  There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these ""Baby Berks"" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's.  So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa." Large-scale price range of a stock isn't directly meaningful; that reflects how many shares exist, not just how desirable they are. A stock split, for example, doubles the number of shares everyone holds while cutting the value of each share in half; that's meaningless except that it makes the shares a bit easier to trade in. Change in price is more interesting. In the case of energy companies, that often reflects major changes in energy supply, distribution, use, or how well positioned people feel the company is for the next change in these. Fracking's surge and the questions raised against it, whether a major pipeline will or won't be built, international energy price trends, breakthroughs in renewables... if it might affect energy price, it might affect the company's strength, both absolute and relative to others. In other words, the same kinds of things that affect any stock. Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits.  If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated.  There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value.  It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something.  Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value.  (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.) "In most cases, the other classes of shares are preferred stock (example, JPM-F). Preferred stock usually pays higher dividends and shareholders get preferential treatment in the event that the company goes under. (Preferred shareholders are behind bondholders in line, but ahead of common stock holders) In other cases, different classes of shares have different voting rights or pricing. Examples include Berkshire Hathaway B shares. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway B shares, the stock has 1/500th of the rights and 1/10,000th of the voting rights of an ""A"" share.  You need to be cautious about investing in anything other than common stock -- make sure that you understand what you are getting into. This is not to say that other share classes are 'bad' -- just that many preferred stocks are thinly traded and are difficult to buy and sell." "So item 1  The two investors leading the suit say ""it's because we want lots of control"" and sue founder.  The standard share holders want equal voting - as would I.  Founder appoints two new board members to ensure this happens.  Item 2 the suit:  The suit is to remove the ability to appoint new board members from the founder correct?  After he has appointed two new ones to implement the changes the other shareholders want correct?  But somehow the suit is ""on behalf"" of the other share holders?  Do I have you explanation right?" You will not get a vote on any issues of the underlying stock.   The mutual fund owner/manager will do the voting. In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) required that   fund companies disclose proxy votes, voting guidelines and conflicts   of interest in the voting process. All funds must make these   disclosures to the SEC through an N-PX filing, which must either be   available to shareholders on the fund company's websites or upon   request by telephone. You can also find your fund's N-PX filing on the   SEC website.  -- http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/08/acting-in-interest.asp This is how capital shares in split capital investment trusts work they never get any dividend they just get the capital when the company is wound up Your broker should make you whole by adjusting the quantity of the underlying (see: http://www.schaeffersresearch.com/education/options-basics/key-option-concepts/dividends-stock-splits-and-other-option-contract-adjustments) but I would check with them that this will happen. You will then have an option on 4 times the underlying for each option. Unless the price has risen in the interim or you bought them after the split was announced you should not make a loss.