What happens to public shareholders when a public stock goes private?
"I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the ""market"" part of ""stock market"". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with." If a deal is struck, you're part of that deal because you own shares.  If someone offers $10/share for the entire company, you'll get that.  If the stock price is $1.50 and someone offers $2/share, you'll get that.
"It could be just as exploitable given the current system.  Also, who is this ""owner""?  A large shareholder of a public corporation isn't just going to come into 16 houses.  There's a board of directors, and about a million other shareholders, including those in blackrock and vangaurd who have nothing to gain from allowing such corruption.  A private company's owner who decided to buy himself a house on the company's dime and not tell the IRS can do so at his peril regardless of tax policy.  I still don't understand the point." Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it.  This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy.  Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC "I was being a bit facetious, but in general the public accounting profession  should be dedicated to the public good. Any scope restrictions placed on the auditors while performing the engagement should immediately be reported by the staff to accounting management. Basically any shady acts of the client should be noted in the work papers and reported. There's a whole bunch of rules to tell an audit staff accountant when to go above their own seniors/management if there is collusion or fraud.   Scope restrictions, ie. ""Hey you can't go in the warehouse to count inventory"", depending on the severity could qualify the audit report, disclaimer of an opinion, or withdrawal from the engagement. Therefore it's the auditors responsibility to refuse to provide a false audit report to the public or otherwise users of the financial statements. They should never act in the manner most profitable for the firm when faced with an ethical dilemma.   Then there's practicality and most audit partners will do anything it takes to keep their largest clients. On the same coin, those clients want a clean bill of reference for their creditors. Long standing relationships are most vulnerable to letting things slide in favor of the client.   There are thousands of companies and even ones publicly traded. The government would have to grow exponentially to actually audit all of these companies. That'll never happen, they have no idea where their own money goes as long as the revenues cover the expenditures." &gt;The EU focus on fiscal deficit is completely mistaken. They are the result of the crisis, not the cause.  The fiscal deficit was *increased* by the crisis, but there would not have been a crisis at all if nobody had been running up debts either.  It's possible to shift private deficits to public (as happens if people borrow more money than they are taking in, default on loans, cause a bank to run out of money, and the government decides to transfer the bank's losses to its taxpaying public).  However, it's still ultimately driven by running a deficit until an unsustainable amount of debt is public, via one mechanism or other. There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common. You'd likely be subject to a lock-up period before you could sell the shares along with possibly having other rules about how you could sell your shares as you'd likely be seen as an insider that may have information that gives you an unfair advantage for selling the stock possibly. Depending on how far in advance you hold the shares, you may or may not have adjustments in the valuation and number of shares as some companies may do a split or reverse split when preparing for an IPO. A company I worked for in the late 1990s had an IPO and my stock options had a revised strike price because of a reverse stock split that was done prior to the IPO. The original investors and founders own them. Think about it this way - When you hear that an IPO priced at $10 opened at $50, is that 'good or 'bad'? Of course, it depends who you are. If you are the guy that got them at $10, you're happy. If you are the founder of the company, you are thinking the banker you paid to determine a market price for the IPO failed. Big. He blew it, basically as you just sold your company for 20% of the perceived value. But, instead of selling all the shares, just sell, say, 5%. Now, the IPO opening price is just a way to understand the true value of your company while keeping 95% of the upside once the market settles down to a regular trading pattern. You can slowly sell these shares into the market or you can use them as cash to take over other companies by buying with these shares instead of actual cash.  Either way, the publicly traded shares should trade based on the total value of the company and the fraction they represent. this is not necessarily true. sometimes it makes sense for a public company to go private. usually a private equity firm will buy up the shares. the private equity firm would usually be financed by a bank and the cash flow from the company will help pay off the financing. there are pros and cons to both private and public companies. a pro for a private company is the reduced regulation and there is no need to follow sarbanes-oxley act.