Corporations Act actually doesn't use the term "own" to define...

you are right - collectively, yes that is how a company is owned. Individually, a shareholder owns shares. Not the company.

its subtle but its accurate.

i also agree about the importance of shareholders in governance, they get voting rights as well as dividend rights and preemptive rights etc.


what I'm calling out here for CXO is a bit of an issue I have with a pattern / attitude towards his position as a large shareholder... You may have to go back a few posts to see how CXO was talking like he owned the joint and posted as if he had more rights (e.g. demanding updates) or obligations (e.g. posting thoughts on selling shares) than any other individual shareholder.

AND there are a few whew he seemingly believed he had the right to speak on behalf of and represent the interests of other shareholders...

the attitude is plain wrong.

then there are statements, to the effect of, owning the company.

NO. He owns shares in the company, has not been elected to the board, not been engaged to represent other shareholders.

ill keep jumping on it whenever I see it...

Corporations Act actually doesn't use the term "own" to define the term "shareholder"... It uses "holder of shares".

its an important and deliberate distinction because the term "own" sometimes implies control... An individual shareholder does not HAVE control (unless they owned a majority stake) hence they avoid the word.

so when you say stuff like "own", and share your other posts as if you are obligated or have extra entitlements - I will be here to nudge you...

I saw some pretty desperate looking posts previously, and I thought maybe you should focus on the shares you hold not extend that to the way the company runs or what other shareholders might need, maybe that's less of a burden to reduce some of the anxiety.

then also there is Xanax