I am interested in the mechanisms which a company can use the money that investors give them when they buy a public stock since they are being bought and sold constantly. How can a company spend other people's assets when the shareholders still own their stocks and they still retain a liquid value? To me it seems like stocks are a case of "having your cake and eating it too".
A very simplified version of what's going on is the company raises capital (money) by selling a portion of itself (an ownership stake) to the investors — the first purchasers of the stock. The existing owners allow this in the belief the capital raised from this one time sale will be used to increase the value of the company enough so they are better off than before.
This kind of thing must be approved by the company's board of directors, who are elected by shareholders and exist to act on behalf of the shareholders rather than the management team or employees. One of the board's primary duties is the hiring and firing of the senior management team. In this way, shareholders can be said to have ultimate ownership and set ultimate direction for a company, by selecting board members who will choose a management team that sets priorities in line with shareholder interests.
When you buy a stock, you're buying a very small ownership stake in the company1. Buy enough of a company's stock, and you get a say in who gets to sit on the board of directors for the company, and therefore a say in what the company does and how it behaves, or even a potential claim on its assets. This is part of what gives a stock value on the open market2. But the money went to the previous owner of the stock, which is usually not the company itself.
The other way a stock has value is through dividends. A business exists to make money for it's owners. That is it's purpose. Large public corporations are no exception, and they do this by sometimes taking a portion of their profits and paying it out to shareholders. That is a dividend. So owning the right stocks means sometimes getting "free" money above and beyond the value of the stock itself. A stock with a reputation for paying dividends may have more demand, and therefore a higher stock price3.
But the important thing to understand relative to this question is the stocks are a one-time sale for the company. The company receives capital once from the initial sale, and doesn't get any input or return when (or if!) the stocks are bought/sold afterwards.
The company does still care about the stock price, though, because of the shareholders who own those stocks (and therefore own the company). If the stock performs poorly, the shareholders will get the board to replace the company's management team (by first replacing board members if necessary). Or they'll sell the stock in order to purchase another stock that is more valuable, which helps the stock price trend lower-still, which will further encourage other shareholders to take action.
The other thing that can happen if the stock prices trends too low is the company becomes vulnerable to take-over by a rival. Remember ownership of stock is ownership of the company, and a rival need only purchase 51% of the stock to control the board — often even less if there is a sympathetic investor with the ailing company. Thus a low stock price can be dangerous for a company's very existence.
In other words, if a C-level executive wants to keep that nice six or seven figure salary, they better keep that stock price healthy4.
Of course, you, I, or any other average Joe are unlikely to ever reach the level where we have a meaningful reason to attend a shareholders meeting and actually vote on anything that matters to us5. We don't really care about the ownership stake so much. We do care that stocks have shown stable and even increasing value over time. This makes them a useful place to park savings, that might even provide a good return.
As a practical matter, the stock market as a whole cannot indefinitely out-perform the general economy, relative to the portion of said economy devoted to investment practices. Over time the stock market and larger economy should rise or fall at about the same rate. But there are variances between the two, where sometimes the stock market can lead or trail what the larger economy is doing, and some individual stocks can out-perform the economy while others languish. Individual investors can sometimes do very well for themselves this way (and the reverse is also possible). Sometimes the tail can even wag the dog, and investment behavior can actually spur real economic growth or decline.
2. This has interesting implications in the face of investment vehicles like mutual funds, where you don't own shares in the fund companies directly. Instead, you own a share in the fund. You give up any ownership voting rights you may have had, and instead help the fund managers (often banks) amass larger stakes in a company than they could using their own money.
3. In practice, dividends also have some negative attributes, such as higher tax rates, that don't attract as many investors as you might think.
4. "Healthy" here means not simply stable, but steadily increasing. Once a company sells itself in this way, where ownership in the company has primarily become an investment vehicle, it's no longer good enough for a company to be simply stable and profitable. If a company is not also growing as quickly as it can, it's in trouble. More than that, just showing good growth is often not enough. It must also beat expectations to keep investors happy, because stock prices have often already accounted for expected growth. To raise the price further, you must exceed your own projections, which were already often optimistic in order to keep investors happy in the first place. This never-easing pressure has a profound impact on how corporations behave.
5. The prevalence of small investors can have an interesting impact on corporate ownership structures. If most of a company's stock is spread around among these small investors, a comparatively small investment stake in a company might be enough to effectively control it. Think about this point some more in relation to footnote #2.
The company got its money for those shares when it issued them. When they're subsequently sold (assuming it's not the company doing the buying or selling), that sale doesn't change the company's bank account balance -- the proceeds from the sale (minus commissions) go directly from buyer to seller.
I think you are missing something about how stocks work. I myself was confused about this for a long time, and so I think I know where you are coming from.
Imagine you need $10,000,000 to start a business, but have only $5,000,000. So you find someone else with $5,000,000 who wants to own half of the business. Now say that the business is successful and ten years later the two of you sell it to a larger company for $25,000,000. You get $12,500,000 and he gets $12,500,000. You have each make $7,500,000 profit.
But what if five years ago someone offered your partner $7,000,000 for his half. He decided to take the $2,000,000 profit and get out. Now when the business is sold the person who bought your partner's half gets the $12,500,000 and so earns his own $5,500,000 profit.
When your partner sold his half, no money was added to or removed from the business. The buyer gave your partner money and your partner gave him a document showing that he is the new owner of half the business.
Stocks are simply a way of breaking ownership of a business into tiny pieces called "shares". To raise money the founders sell off a bunch of these little pieces of the business. The owners of these little pieces can sell then them to other people if they decide they want to use their money for something else, but this does not take any money away from the business. The business still has the money it got from selling the shares in the first place.
So once a company has sold stock, the investors generally cannot get their money back from the company. Investors who want out have to find someone who will take their place as investors. This is what stock markets are for. On the stock market buyers pay according to what they think that little piece of the company is worth now.
Can potentially have a rights issue - more shares are issued by the company which are bought, often by existing investors - this is one way a company raises capital.
The more the stock is worth, the more valuable the company is perceived, which can then lead to it being easier to secure funding/debt for the company, which makes it potentially easier for the company to operate successfully.
The company still owns more shares, and can sell them on the open market at the higher price to new investors. The company gets the new investor money, and the new investor gets shares. The company doesn't get any money when two private investors buy or sell shares to each other, but they do get advantage as the stock price goes up.
The company can keep the shares. Those shares have an increased market value, so the total value of the company's assets is increased. This increased "valuation" could get them loans at a better rate, and the shares can be used for collateral.
When a company initially goes public (sells shares), the company receives the investments (minus the cut from the investment banker that structures and markets the deal). Once trading takes place in the secondary market (the stock exchange) the trades have no impact on the capital raised and held by the company during the initial public offering (IPO).
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged stocks investing financial-literacy or ask your own question.
Is there an academic framework for deciding when to sell in-the-money call options?
Can a company control its stock through contracts with stockholders?


Women in India prefer IAS rather IPS and IFS. There was a high preference to Indian Administrative Service in the 2016-2017 batch. The most important factor for choosing this particular field is the 'Pay scale'. And it comes with other perks and facilities. And a Physical test which includes Height, chest and athletic skills isn't needed for IAS.


text:
WonderWork Co-Founder is No Mr. Wonderful
"From its inception, [WonderWork] has been a fundraising vehicle in search of a mission."
– Final Report of Examiner, In re WonderWork, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court)
Brian Mullaney, the man who popularized the dubious "100% to Program" claims advertised by charities like Smile Train and WonderWork, may face legal action and tax penalties, potentially for unjust enrichment, self-dealing, tax avoidance, and other claims related to his tenure as WonderWork co-founder, president, and CEO from 2011 to 2017. This comes on the heels of WonderWork's bankruptcy and Mullaney's subsequent resignation from the charity following an arbitration judgment against it in 2016 amounting to over $16 million in compensatory damages and legal fees. As part of WonderWork's bankruptcy proceedings, a nearly 300-page Final Report of Examiner was filed in November of 2017 by the court-appointed Examiner detailing Mullaney's history of employing questionable fundraising practices to play on the emotions of empathetic donors, using most of the funds raised to pay for more fundraising while also enriching himself.
"Simply an Inefficient Fundraising Operation"
Since its founding in 2011, WonderWork has raised approximately $54.4 million in donations under its legal name and the doing business as (dba) names 20/20/20, BurnRescue, FirstStep, Hole in the Heart, and Hydrocephalus. Despite WonderWork's claims that "100% of all donations [go] towards our free surgery programs," the charity spent very little of its resources on vision surgery, burn treatment, or other programs. According to the Final Report, WonderWork "has historically spent only 17% of the amount raised in donations on grants, and more than three times that amount on fundraising materials and supposed public education campaigns, sent with its fundraising materials to prospective and current donors." More than $25 million was spent on printing, publication and postage, according to the Final Report.
The Examiner's findings about WonderWork's low program spending and high fundraising costs are consistent with the "F" ratings that CharityWatch has assigned WonderWork in our several years of reporting on the organization. The Overview of Misrepresentations contained in the Examiner's Final Report states:
The Examiner's review revealed that [WonderWork's] fundraising materials are replete with misleading statements…[WonderWork] is not the highly-efficient charity, that is run like a business with virtually no overhead as its solicitation materials claim it to be. Nor is it the transformative charity that is directly saving lives through its surgical programs that donors are led to believe. In reality, [WonderWork] is simply an inefficient fundraising operation, often for other charities and NGOs, with millions of dollars spent on fundraising and only a small percentage of funds going to actually help people in need.
Among the misrepresentations cited were WonderWork's claims to donors that "donations would be matched – resulting in double or triple the number of surgeries – when in fact the 'matching funds' were not used for surgeries but used instead to pay other expenses," and claims that WonderWork "incurs virtually no overhead when in fact, donations were used for overhead expenses." In the words of the Examiner, some of WonderWork's fundraising practices "appear outright fraudulent."
Misleading Solicitations Exploit Empathy for Children & Overstate Programs
Even the programs that WonderWork does fund are not always as advertised in the charity's solicitations. Over a four-year period, WonderWork sent out 54.6 million pieces of direct mail solicitations under the 20/20/20 dba name, most of which featured photos of children suffering from blindness. Yet, according to the Final Report, "The average age of the patient is 60. Out of the 7,498 patients sampled, only 116 children – or 1.55% – were blind pre-operation according to the WHO (World Health Organization) blindness standards." Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the surgeries were performed on adults, not children, mostly to remove age-related cataracts. When Mullaney was asked why children are emphasized in WonderWork's solicitation campaigns, he responded, "Because we emphasize with photos, but when I write all the copy…I always [include] children and adults." He added, "We do have some adults in the brochure. But people have much more empathy for children than adults. That's why we use kids."
WonderWork, contrary to what some donors might infer from its solicitations, does not run its own surgery programs. Instead, it acts as a middle man, raising funds from donors to grant to other organizations that perform surgeries. On its 20/20/20 solicitations, giving levels are featured describing what services WonderWork will fund based on the donation amounts given. It promises that for a $300 donation it will be able "to provide a full eyesight-restoring surgery." A $150 donation will "pay for half a[n] eyesight-restoring surgery." Lower donation levels of $75, $50, and $25 are said to provide anesthesia, surgical supplies for two surgeries, or surgical supplies for one surgery, respectively. However, the Examiner's review revealed that WonderWork "never paid $300 for a surgery, and nothing close to it. Instead, in virtually all cases, [WonderWork] paid only $25 towards a surgery," and "also never made any grants for the purpose of providing anesthesia or surgical supplies…" According to the Final Report, even if WonderWork had spent a higher portion of the donations it collected on surgeries it would have had no way to ensure that specific donations funded specific surgeries or supplies, as it "did not track, record or monitor amounts donated for specific purposes." In the Examiner's opinion, "The device was simply a tool to manipulate donors into giving higher sums of money."
In its marketing materials, WonderWork leads donors to believe that its programs are far-reaching, with "74 partners, programs, and partner hospitals in 60 of the world's poorest countries." The Examiner describes this characterization as a "gross overstatement," stating that WonderWork "is simply a United States based fundraising organization that makes grants overseas." WonderWork made grants in only 22 countries, and these grants were made to grantees, not partners. Essentially, WonderWork "is effectively taking credit for the global work of these other entities [its grantees]," according to the Final Report.
Separate "Payroll Ledger" for Mullaney Raises Questions
Beginning in 2012, WonderWork president Brian Mullaney received an annual salary of $475,000. He also received discretionary bonuses of $250,000 in each of the years 2013, 2014, and 2016, and a bonus of $200,000 in 2015. Despite being cautioned by an outside consulting firm that Mullaney's base salary "was at the high end of competitive for the peer group considered," and that his bonuses were "a very high amount in a non-profit environment" and based on an "unorthodox approach" to compensation structuring, WonderWork's board reluctantly approved Mullaney's salary and bonuses – with one exception. In a June 2012 board meeting, WonderWork's board of directors approved a base salary increase for Mullaney from $275,000 per year to $475,000 per year, which Mullaney then instructed the CFO to put into effect retroactively for the year, apparently without any records detailing the board's decision. Mullaney justified his high compensation to WonderWork's board of directors by citing his decade-long track record of fundraising at the charity he formerly headed, SmileTrain, and by claiming to hold multiple titles as WonderWork's CEO, Chief Marketing Officer, and Chief Development Officer. This information contradicts WonderWork's annual IRS Form 990 tax filings, which reflect that Mullaney worked an average total of 40 hours per week as "Co-founder, president & CEO." No other job titles are listed.
According to the Final Report, after Mullaney was terminated as SmileTrain's CEO in 2010 in the midst of internal feuding at the charity, he took much of the executive staff with him to his new venture, WonderWork. This included SmileTrain's Vice President of Finance and Administration, Hana Fuchs, who, also according to the Final Report, was terminated by Smile Train not long after Mullaney's departure. Fuchs was appointed as WonderWork's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in 2011 at a salary of $200,000 per year, plus a $120,000 signing bonus. Fuchs had over 37 years of experience working in accounting functions at Smile Train, Avon, and Sesame Workshop, but, as stated in the Final Report, had "no professional training in finance or accounting" and "learned her accounting skills on the job."
At Mullaney's instruction, Fuchs maintained a separate payroll ledger for his compensation in a spreadsheet that was not integrated with WonderWork's formal accounting system. Fuchs used this spreadsheet to tally Mullaney's personal and claimed business expenses, which she then charged against his compensation in the ledger. According to the Final Report, many of these expenses, which in total exceeded $400,000, were not substantiated with receipts or other documentation. The apparent purpose of this ledger was to help Mullaney avoid paying income taxes on his bonus pay by subtracting personal and claimed business expenses from it, then only reporting the net amount of cash he received after expenses as income to the IRS – a scheme blatantly against IRS rules. In total, WonderWork failed to report $700,000 of Mullaney's 2012 through 2015 bonus compensation to the IRS, according to the Final Report, which stated that "…Mullaney has never paid taxes on any bonus, no bonus has ever appeared on [WonderWork's] Form 990, no bonus was ever reported on any W-2 Form, no FICA taxes were paid with respect to any bonus and no bonus to Mullaney has ever appeared on [WonderWork's] general ledger or in its audited or unaudited financial statements."
Among the expenses charged against Mullaney's compensation in the ledger were $82,000 in commuting costs and 100 five-star hotel stays in New York City amounting to more than $44,000; a dinner with friends; a limousine for his wife's birthday; a hotel stay for a trip his daughter took; $12,000 to pay for the cost of a writer to accompany Mullaney to India and assist him with writing a book; over $2,000 for Harvard Club membership dues; and $25,000 toward defraying the costs of a trip taken by Mullaney, his wife, and his daughter that was only partially program-related. Other expenses included a camera that Mullaney verbally claimed cost "about $3,500;" $3,000 for Photoshop lessons in April 2015; $3,750 for more Photoshop lessons in August 2016; and $5,000 for a computer in October 2016. Legitimate business expenses such as Mullaney's health insurance and program-related trips "appear to represent only a small percentage of the overall deductions made by Fuchs over the years. And in any case the concept that Mullaney was actually 'paying' them was bogus," stated the Examiner in his Final Report. WonderWork also paid expenses related to Mullaney's various personal legal disputes, such as $14,000 for travel to London, and $58,539 in legal invoices. In addition to his generous salary, Mullaney also enjoyed perks on WonderWork's dime, such as first and business class air travel for himself and in some cases, his spouse, and non-program related overseas travel with WonderWork staff members to the Taj Mahal and on safari.
When the Examiner conducted formal interviews of select WonderWork staff in August through October of 2017, he noted that he "found Fuchs to be evasive and inconsistent throughout the interview, and when confronted with e-mails or with documents, forgetful, particularly with respect to Mullaney's [compensation]." The Examiner further stated that "by facilitating Mullaney's concealment of his salary from the state and federal taxing authorities and the public, Fuchs exhibited her loyalty to Mullaney, which was fostered over a course of a fifteen year working relationship, over her loyalty to [WonderWork]." The Examiner expressed a general view that "several of the interviewees were less than candid" and that WonderWork's employees, "all deferred to Mullaney to provide answers to topics that should have been within their purview and knowledge."
Is There Legal Trouble Ahead for WonderWork's Leadership?
As previously reported by CharityWatch, Mullaney resigned from WonderWork in November of 2017 amid allegations of fraud and misdeeds, about 11 months after WonderWork filed for bankruptcy in the wake of an arbitrator's decision requiring WonderWork to pay another charity, HelpMeSee, $16 million in legal fees and damages. The judge in the bankruptcy case called for an independent trustee to take over management of WonderWork. The Examiner's analysis concluded that of WonderWork's total net assets of $20.2 million, $16.3 million are legally restricted for use in specific programs like 20/20/20, BurnRescue, and FirstStep, and only $3.9 million are unrestricted and can be used for other purposes, such as paying debts. This makes it unclear if HelpMeSee or WonderWork's other creditors will ever receive payment for the debts the charity incurred.
The Final Report included an "Attorney General Referral" of WonderWork to the New York Attorney General's office for investigation and further action, stating:
Mullaney and Fuchs, and potentially the Board of Directors, may be subject to claims by the Attorney General for breach of fiduciary duty under…the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law for failing to maintain proper financial records, failing to comply with the terms of restricted gifts, failing to account for and track restricted donations, and for engaging in improper fundraising practices. In addition Mullaney and Fuchs may be subject to additional duty of loyalty claims for structuring and perpetuating improper compensation and expense arrangements for personal benefit. Should the Attorney General become involved, the Examiner believes it would have viable causes of action to pursue.
For example, the Examiner suggested that Mullaney may be forced to pay back a portion of his compensation to WonderWork under unjust enrichment or excess benefit claims. The Examiner also suggested that Mullaney and WonderWork both face potential tax liabilities and penalties for failing to properly report his compensation to tax authorities.
Because WonderWork conducted business in multiple states, New York is not the only state that can pursue legal action against the charity and its officers. As of this article's publication date, CharityWatch is not aware that any states have yet taken steps to legally bar Mullaney from working for or with other charities in the future. CharityWatch believes that Mullaney should no longer be allowed to work in the nonprofit sector so that he will never again be in a position to prey upon unsuspecting donors.
Click on the links below to view the Final Report of the Examiner and WonderWork's Response:
Filed 11/3/17: Final Report of Examiner, In re WonderWork, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court)
Filed 11/8/17: Debtor's Response to Order to Show Cause Dated October 31, 2017 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court)
Related Charities
'100% to Program' Claims Confuse Donors
Claims made in charity solicitations and marketing materials that promise 100% of your donation will fund charitable programs certainly sound enticing as you consider which nonprofits will use your contributions most efficiently. ...
Claims made in charity solicitations and marketing materials that promise 100% of your donation will fund charitable programs cert...
Solicitation Train
"Make one gift now and we'll never ask for another donation again!" If you receive a solicitation in the mail from any charity that makes the above promise, you would be wise to be skeptical. No donor should ever feel obligated to...
"Make one gift now and we'll never ask for another donation again!" If you receive a solicitation in the mail from any charity tha...
A Wink and a Smile Train
100% of your donation goes toward programs -- 0% goes toward overhead. Many AIP members have seen the above language in solicitations from Smile Train, a charity that treats children born with cleft lip and palate. One may wonder...
100% of your donation goes toward programs -- 0% goes toward overhead. Many AIP members have seen the above language in solicitat...
CharityWatch Hall of Shame: The Personalities Behind Charity...
The most important lesson to be learned from the following colorful stories of charity scoundrels is that regardless of how distinguished, well-connected and honored a charity leader is, he is only human and may be tempted to use ...
The most important lesson to be learned from the following colorful stories of charity scoundrels is that regardless of how distin...
Have You Been Wondering About WonderWork?
Many CharityWatch members have recently been receiving a deluge of similar-looking direct mail solicitations from several charities with different, unfamiliar names: BurnRescue, FirstStep, and 20/20/20...
Many CharityWatch members have recently been receiving a deluge of similar-looking direct mail solicitations from several charitie...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


I studied at Oakville College School of Hair Design where I graduated top of my class. I then got hired by the owner of a salon in downtown Oakville where I stayed for !2 years, building up a reputation for working with curly hair, as well as creating the latest styles for all hair types in cuts, colour, and up-do's.
One of my favourite parts about my job is doing hair for a wedding party. I'm very professional and will conveniently come to where ever the bride and her wedding party is getting ready, and give them exactly the hair they wanted that will last all day!
I am creative, and a perfectionist, and you won't be disappointed!


text:
Can A Gas Station Remember A Murder?
Bryant's Grocery & Meat Market, where Emmett Till allegedly whistled at Carolyn Bryant (pictured here), September 17, 1955, Money, Mississippi, Getty Images.
by Dave Tell
Southern Cultures, Vol. 23, No. 3: Things
"Ben Roy's reveals the fickleness of southern things: while such things can bear witness to the realities of the southern past . . . in this case, the affective power of southern things hinges on their capacity to elide essential features of that past."
The ruins of Bryant's Grocery & Meat Market and the beautifully restored Ben Roy's Service Station stand sixty-seven feet apart from each other on the southern edge of Money, Mississippi, the small hamlet visited by Emmett Till in August 1955. Both stores are now owned by a trio of siblings with a personal investment in the memory of Till's murder. Annette Morgan, Harry Tribble, and Martin Tribble are the three children of Ray Tribble, an unrepentant juror from the 1955 trial of Till killers Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam. After the trial, the elder Tribble excelled in business, the family accrued farmland around Money and, in the mid 1980s, the Tribble brothers purchased the two-story building that once housed Bryant's Grocery. After Annette and Harry purchased Ben Roy's Service Station in 2003, the family owned everything in Money except the Baptist church and the decommissioned post office. While only Bryant's Grocery had a direct link to the murder of Emmett Till, both stores have come to play a large, if competing, role in the commemoration of the crime.
This is a Reflection: Participatory Documentary in Tutwiler, Mississippi
Shelby Foote, Memphis, and the Civil War in American Memory