Was what m.moore said true? (oil shareholders)

Kel Varnsen

blondieblue227 wrote:

read post #16
i said that wasn't my problem with it. :rolleyes:

What exactly is your problem with it I read post 16 I still don't understand. Especially this line:

Who raised the percentage of what shareowners own?

Once a company releases shares anyone can buy them. If they want to make some more money they release more shares after that. If you had enough money you could buy all the outstanding shares of any given company. And in your other post about the presidential canidates you mention oil companies specifically. How are oil companies different then any other publicly traded company?

blondieblue227

they can buy them sure.
and i can base my vote on who owns more stock too.

it's just how I view it.

blondieblue227

Kel Varnsen wrote:

What exactly is your problem with it I read post 16 I still don't understand. Especially this line:

Who raised the percentage of what shareowners own?

Once a company releases shares anyone can buy them. If they want to make some more money they release more shares after that. If you had enough money you could buy all the outstanding shares of any given company. And in your other post about the presidential canidates you mention oil companies specifically. How are oil companies different then any other publicly traded company?

i asked because i truly didn't know.
moore said something like ten years ago people own 1%, now they own around 15%.

why didn't people go crazy and buy up more stock before ten years ago?

or am i misunderstanding?
or was moore lying?

Kel Varnsen

blondieblue227 wrote:

i asked because i truly didn't know.
moore said something like ten years ago people own 1%, now they own around 15%.

why didn't people go crazy and buy up more stock before ten years ago?

or am i misunderstanding?
or was moore lying?

Who are you talking about when you say "people" are you talking about people in general or are you talking about politicians like you were in some of your other posts. Personally I don't see what is wrong with a company making its stock available to the general public. The larger a percentage of a company available for purchase as stock the more democratic it becomes. I mean if an oil company was owned by one guy he could pretty much do whatever he wants within the limits of the law. But if it is a public company the share holders have a say. If you own shares you can go to the general meetings and voice your opinions on how you think the company should be run, as well as vote on major company issues?

Plus I am curious why you are singling out oil companies. It is true that people rely on things like gasoline, natural gas and heating oil. But people don’t require oil to survive like they would food or clothing. So do you have a problem with people owning stock in companies that make money selling food or clothing?

blondieblue227

so is anybody going to answer my question?

why the huge jump in the last ten years?
and did moore just pull that figure out of his ass?

jeffbr

blondieblue227 wrote:

so is anybody going to answer my question?

why the huge jump in the last ten years?
and did moore just pull that figure out of his ass?

Not sure what hasn't been answered, but...

Why the huge jump? Probably because oil companies have a solid business with a product that is in demand, and they keep turning record profits. More people have seen it as a solid investment so ownership increases.

Did Moore pull it out of his ass? Who knows. But at the same time, who cares? I guess I don't see this as an issue so it is hard to have an opinion. People own shares of lots of public companies (by definition), and that includes oil. Some sectors have seen investments go down (financial services, real estate), and some have seen investments increase (oil). That all could completely change next year or in 5 years.

blondieblue227

k, i'll shut up about it now.

jeffbr

blondieblue227 wrote:

k, i'll shut up about it now.

I'm not telling you to shut up, and I hope you didn't take it that way. I just honestly don't know what issue Moore was trying to make of this.

blondieblue227

i didn't exactlly understand it either.
which is why i started a thread.

but i think 'the horse is dead' now........can't beat it anymore.