|
|
|
|
|
by dilippkumar
1092 days ago
|
|
You are right that it does muddle definitions. However, in this case, it actually helps to squint and see a blurry picture to get a better sense of the bigger picture. Unless you are buying enough of a company to get access to a board seat, you effectively have zero control over a company. Buying 1 share of Google gets you such an insignificant fraction of a company. Yes, buying shares is theoretically equivalent to buying an ownership into a fraction of the company. But that’s not actually a useful model. Asking “do I want to give money to this company that they may choose to never return?” helped me understand a lot of what investing really was much much better. |
|
I have zero interest in having control over any company I'm invested in. Which I assume is the case with the overwhelming majority of retail shareholders.
> But that’s not actually a useful model. Asking “do I want to give money to this company that they may choose to never return?” helped me understand a lot of what investing really was much much better.
I am having a hard time understanding why this is a useful way of thinking about equity investment. In the most common case i.e. in secondary markets, you aren't giving the company any money by buying stock. And in the most common case you don't want the company to return the money.