Where can I find recent information about which major shareholders changed their positions in a given stock?
For the united States forms must be submitted electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission , they also must be posted to company websites.
"Something to note is that when a company announces a share buyback program there is usually a time frame and amount of shares that are important details as it isn't like the company will make one big buy back of stock generally.  Rather it may take months or even years as noted in the Wikipedia article about share repurchases. Wikipedia covers some of the technical details here but to give a specific set of answers: When a company announces a share buyback program, who do they actually   buy back the shares from?  From the Wikipedia link: ""Under US corporate law there are five primary methods of stock repurchase: open market, private negotiations, repurchase 'put' rights, and two variants of self-tender repurchase: a fixed price tender offer and a Dutch auction."" Thus, there are open market and a couple of other possibilities. Openly traded shares on a stock exchange?  Possibly, though there are other options. Is there a fixed price that   they buy back at? Sometimes.  I'd think a ""fixed price tender offer"" would imply a fixed price though the open market way may take various prices. If I own shares in that company, can I get them to buy back my shares? Selective Buy-Backs is noted in Wikipedia as: ""In broad terms, a selective buy-back is one in which identical offers are not made to every shareholder, for example, if offers are made to only some of the shareholders in the company. In the US, no special shareholder approval of a selective buy-back is required. In the UK, the scheme must first be approved by all shareholders, or by a special resolution (requiring a 75% majority) of the members in which no vote is cast by selling shareholders or their associates. Selling shareholders may not vote in favor of a special resolution to approve a selective buy-back. The notice to shareholders convening the meeting to vote on a selective buy-back must include a statement setting out all material information that is relevant to the proposal, although it is not necessary for the company to provide information already disclosed to the shareholders, if that would be unreasonable."" Thus it is possible, though how probable is another question. While not in the question, something to consider is how the buybacks can be done as a result of offsetting the dilution of employees who have stock options that may exercise them and spread the earnings over more shares, but this is more on understanding the employee stock option scenario that various big companies use when it comes to giving employees an incentive to help the stock price." I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances. "Disclosure: I don't have an iPhone, so I don't use RobinHood.  That being said, I have a less ""they're-out-to-get-ya"" view of what they're doing. As a small business owner (2 businesses), employees cost the most.  If you can create a solid business with few (or no) employees and let robots run it, you will drastically reduce your costs.  Joe Polish said it similarly with sales letters, something along the lines of they never complain about a headache, need to take a year off to discover themself, or just need a personal day.  Robots are the same; they do not have human limits.  Most simple trading can be done and maintained by well written code and AI, there's very little need for humans to do anything other than build it.  Think about the efficiency of bitcoin versus all the central banks combined; how many people are employed by central banks? Robinhood states that they are using technology in these ways to minimize costs and they're using a system that doesn't need physical branches (this doesn't mean they will never have them, just that they don't need them).  Robinhood does not indicate that they allow everything to happen for free; only stock trading.  I worked for a large trading firm once and observed that stock trading wasn't the bulk of where they made their money anyway; trading options, futures, index funds, etc are where the big money was and Robinhood says nothing about those being free.  Like the CQM mentioned too, they'll be charging for margin as well. In a way, the individual stock trader is dead; many people - including this forum - prefer index funds, so more than likely, Robinhood will strike up a deal with an index fund company or create their own (this is just easy, passive income with an expense ratio).  In this category, the markets are their playground, but they do need to attract enough people to their platform, thus free stock trading is a good way to do it. As for selling your information for advertising, that is always a possibility, but they have quite a few other options that would be good for most investors (index funds, affiliating with financial fund companies, etc) where they can start before ever needing to dip their toe in selling information.  This isn't to say they won't do it, but that there are few other options they have. The major concern I have for Robinhood is ongoing security.  Just building it and letting it run kind of assumes that there won't be major compromises in the future and as AI evolves, superior AI might be able to crush older AI." "I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means.  So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public.  That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores.  So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors.  Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal.  And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus.  These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009.  Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care.  So clearly since ""Common Stock"" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split.  Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split.  Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus.  Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though." The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for. The websites of the most publicly traded companies publish their quarterly and annual financials.  Check the investor relations sections out at the ones you want to look at. "One of the things I love to do is to find big patterns in things. When an effect is the result of human decisions, then since people are involved in lots of stuff you should generally be able to find large commonalities of behavior.   In this case, it's really ""Who Moved My Cheese?"" Over and over we see industries that fear change and fight the change with lawsuits and dirty tricks. This can be traced down to the idea that a large number of managers and executives aren't that *creative* but know how to politic their way into jobs. (It's not what you know...) While I doubt they would recognize this, the threat of market upheavals scares them because they don't know how to deal with it - it introduces fear, uncertainty, and doubt. So they use the tools they know - lawyers.   In the meantime, the Sergey/Pages, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, and Reed Hastings of the world see the ""brilliant!"" path and essentially duck through the giant's legs (not all the time, mind you. Ask Preston Tucker)" If the company went bankrupt, the issued public shares that were outstanding at the time most likely were voided, in which case your shares are most definitely gone.  The company might have done a new stock issuance coming out of bankruptcy with a different symbol, and while it could be substantially the same company, it doesn't mean much for you.  It's unfortunate this may be the case, but it is one of the risks of investing.