Who owned my shares before me?
The answer in theory is yes. The answer in reality is no. Let me explain: Combine all of these lists and perhaps you could get a complete record. Not sure about US. In India all Demat shares have a unique identity. Incase of splits or merging of shares, new ID's are created maintaining the linking of older ID's. The Demat holding entity would have all the history of a particular stock. It is mandatory to disclose the name of the person / entity who has purchased the shares. Of Course if shares are purchased by Fund houses or other aggregators then its the aggregators name that would be available. All this data is confidential and not meant for common consumption. "Shares do not themselves carry any identity. Official shareholders are kept at the registrar.  In the UK, this may be kept up to date and publicly accessible.  In the US, it is not, but this doesn't matter because most shares are held ""in street name"". For a fully detailed history, one would need access to all exchange records, brokerage records, and any trades transacted off exchange. These records are almost totally unavailable." A lot will depend on wether you have in your possession the physical share documents or just numbers in your brokerage portfolio. Electronic shares are not traceable as they do not exist as individual entities. ETrade certainly knows who bought how much, but no concept of which ones. Lets say ET buys 1000 shares of Acme, their database looks like this: Now they sell 400 shares to Bob: Bob sells 200, Alice buys 100: ( skipped one transaction for brevity ) Did Alice get 100 shares out of ET's original 1000, or did she get 100 shares that were previously owned by Bob? Or 27 from ET and 73 from ET? Another, less exact way to picture the process is one share is 1ml of liquid. If you return 50ml to the pot it becomes indistinguishable from the rest.
Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything.  He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them.  I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules) I can't tell if he's running something similar to a pyramid scheme  &gt;Everyone would work under the same Spartan conditions that Brito embraced. (In New York, Brito shares a large table with his head of sales and his finance chief.) “We always say the leaner the business, the more money we will have at the end of the year to share,” he said in a speech at Stanford in 2008. “I don’t have a company car. I don’t care. I can buy my own car. I don’t need the company to give me beer. I can buy my own beer.”  That part is awesome though &gt; Is it legal to do this? What if it's a shareholder, lets say, a 20% owner of a company who has their own real estate business as their primary focus, but get most of their income from a set hourly wage from the company they partly own, plus dividends?  To elaborate on this, let's say that the person in question is never involved in the business in any way shape or form except that they own a % share.. They get paid $40 per hour as a W2 employee, plus dividends, yet they contribute to nothing. I guess it's more of an ethics question, but if that's illegal please let me know. :) "This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be ""worth"" something.  However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that ""something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it."" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a  stock might have some ""inherent value"" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder.  If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them ""worth something"" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not." (yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading.  I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol).  I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that).  I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own. "If you swap the word ""shareholder"" for ""investor"" I think it helps clarify things. If you owned 51% of the company you'd get to say what to do with the cash, would you not? Managers are smart and successful, but ultimately just employees. Companies are beholden to their shareholders.   In a more practical sense, I would think the board (representing shareholders) and the upper management would have to come up with a plan. But shareholders have the ultimate say." "It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with ""small cap"" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well." I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO.  They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO.  In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding.  This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other.