Do shares purchased on FTSE AIM move with company to other markets?
"Any shares you buy when a company is listed on one market will remain yours if the company moves to another market. Markets and exchanges like AIM are just venues for dealing in shares - indeed you can deal in those shares anywhere else that will allow you as well as on the AIM. The benefit of being listed in a market is that trade in the shares will be more ""liquid"" - there's more likely to be people who want to buy and sell them at any given time. The bigger concern would be what happens if the company does badly and drops out of the AIM entirely. You'd still be able to sell your shares to any willing buyer, but finding that buyer might get harder."
"&gt; ""We are making progress on the strategic priorities we outlined earlier this year and remain focused on returning our Company to profitability,"" Sears Holdings CEO Eddie Lampert said in a statement.  It's been how many years? I'm impressed that it could last this long, but if it hasn't happened by now, it's not going to happen, ever. Maybe it would if they got new leadership. In fact,   &gt; We are primarily focused on profitability instead of revenues, market share and other metrics which relate to but don’t necessarily drive profit.   in 2014.   &gt; To this end, we have set out to improve the profitability of our business model. Our objective is disciplined growth. We do not want to grow simply for the sake of becoming bigger. Rather, our aim is to become more profitable, and as such we need to ensure that any revenue growth occurs at an appropriate level of profitability.  2007. [Source](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1310067/000119312507043471/dex992.htm). He's been saying the same line for at least 10 years  I may be a naysayer, but I would absolutely love being proved wrong by Mr. Lampert" Energy Transfer Partners, LP (stock symbol ETP) is the parent company of Dakota Access LLC, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline.  Since ETP is a publicly traded company, it is certainly possible to purchase the stock. To answer your questions: Would it not be possible to buy their stocks, bring down the price of the stocks and keep it there until investors pull out because it is financially unwise to these investors? You cannot artificially bring the price of a stock down by buying the stock.  Purchasing large enough amounts would theoretically cause the price to go up, not down. You could theoretically cause the stock to go down by shorting the stock (borrowing shares and then selling them), but it would take a lot of shares to do this, and may not be successful.  If not successful, your losses are potentially unlimited. Would it alternatively be possible to buy enough stock to have a voice in the operations of the company? Yes, you could theoretically purchase enough of the stock to control the company.  The market capitalization of ETP is currently $17.9 Billion; if you owned half of the stock, you would have complete control of the company.  But buying that much stock would certainly influence the price of the stock, so it would cost you more than half of that amount to buy that much stock. You could get yourself a voice at the table for less without owning a full half of the stock, but you would not have full control, and would need support from others to get the outcome you want. Alternatively, someone determined to exert their influence could theoretically make an offer to purchase the Dakota Access subsidiary from ETP, which might be less costly than purchasing half of the entire corporation. Even if an extremely wealthy person were to try one of these options and destroy this company, it wouldn't necessarily stop another company from building something similar.  The investors you purchased the company from would have billions of dollars to do so with. In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be  short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the  connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it.  Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on.  The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank. Buying a starter home is not a bad idea if you have a stable job and plan to stay in the area for a long time. Owning a house that you can afford is a very good idea.  Purchasing a home that you do not want to live in long term is not a good idea. People who move frequently pay a lot in real estate commissions, as you've mentioned, but they also pay loan origination and title fees. Mortgage interest is tax-deductible, and many people consider home ownership to better than renting because of that fact alone. What they do not consider are costs of property taxes, HOA fees (common in condos and townhouses, but also possible in single family homes), and being tied to piece of real estate if the job market changes and they need to move. The easy rule of thumb is to consider the ratio of total price to one year of rent. If you could purchase for $200k, but you would rent for $800 per month then the price to rent ratio is 20.83. Depending on the market most homes fall between 10 and 20. When the ratio is less than 10, then you would be at a great disadvantage renting instead of purchasing, when the ratio is greater than 20, you would be foolish to buy instead of rent unless there was some other compelling factor motivating the purchase. I did a historical analysis a few years back of all well-known candlestick patterns against my database of 5 years worth of 1-minute resolution data of all FTSE100 shares.  There wasn't a single pattern that showed even a 1% gain with 60% reliability.  Unfortunately I don't have spread data other than for a handful of days where I recorded live prices rather than minutely summaries, but my suspicion is that most of the time you wouldn't even earn back the spread on such a trade. Does me holding stock in the company make me an accredited investor with this company in particular? No.  But maybe the site will let you trade it your shares to another accredited investor. Just ask, if the site operators have a securities lawyer they should be able to accomodate Your existing shares in their existing ISA(s) do not in any way impact on your future ISA allowances. The only thing that uses up your ISA allowance is you paying new cash into an ISA account. So you can leave your existing shares in their existing ISA(s) and simply open new ISA(s) for future contributions which suit your current plans. First and foremost you need to be aware of what you are comparing. In this case, HSBC as traded on the NYSE exchange is not common shares, but an ADR (American Depository Receipt) with a 5:1 ratio from the actual shares. So for most intents and purposes owning one ADR is like owning five common shares. But for special events like dividends, there may be other considerations, such as the depository bank (the institution that created the ADR) may take a percentage. Further, given that some people, accounts or institutions may be required to invest in a given country or not, there may be some permanent price dislocation between the shares and the ADR, which can further lead to discrepancies which are then highlighted by the seeming difference in dividends.