Why don't companies pay dividends on a graduated scale?

[crimsonghost747]

(12-28-2021, 11:05 AM)fenders53 Wrote:

(12-28-2021, 07:34 AM)cemanuel Wrote: Shares dictate ownership of a company. Two people with the same amount of ownership need to have the exact same rights, and get the same amount of shareholder distributions.

Is this correct? If I buy a stock as part of its IPO I will almost certainly have a lock-up period where I will be unable to sell shares - usually several months. But if I buy the stock on the first day it's publicly traded I can sell it tomorrow. I own shares, the IPO participant owns shares, those shares stipulate the same relative ownership of the company, but our rights are different.

So long as a company is clear about what it does why can't it make a stipulation regarding dividend eligibility?

I think it might be possible, but if they didn't start over with a new share class it would be an administrative nightmare.  I really don't trust they have perfect records going 50+ yrs back.  Maybe I am wrong, but I sure wouldn't want to lose any paper stock certificates.

In most cases the company doesn't even know who their shareholders are. 
They are all registered under your brokers name, and then you are the beneficial owner. So VSTO cannot see that hey, it's fenders there holding our shares! They just see you shares, along with everyone else's who uses the same brokerage, under the brokers name. At least that is how I think it works, I'm not 100% sure.

[fenders53]

(12-28-2021, 12:04 PM)crimsonghost747 Wrote:

(12-28-2021, 11:05 AM)fenders53 Wrote:

(12-28-2021, 07:34 AM)cemanuel Wrote: Shares dictate ownership of a company. Two people with the same amount of ownership need to have the exact same rights, and get the same amount of shareholder distributions.

Is this correct? If I buy a stock as part of its IPO I will almost certainly have a lock-up period where I will be unable to sell shares - usually several months. But if I buy the stock on the first day it's publicly traded I can sell it tomorrow. I own shares, the IPO participant owns shares, those shares stipulate the same relative ownership of the company, but our rights are different.

So long as a company is clear about what it does why can't it make a stipulation regarding dividend eligibility?

I think it might be possible, but if they didn't start over with a new share class it would be an administrative nightmare.  I really don't trust they have perfect records going 50+ yrs back.  Maybe I am wrong, but I sure wouldn't want to lose any paper stock certificates.

In most cases the company doesn't even know who their shareholders are. 
They are all registered under your brokers name, and then you are the beneficial owner. So VSTO cannot see that hey, it's fenders there holding our shares! They just see you shares, along with everyone else's who uses the same brokerage, under the brokers name. At least that is how I think it works, I'm not 100% sure.

Yeah I have to send screenshots of my brokerage account so the CEO will listen to me when I call and make suggestions.    I have said for months I wanted a bigger footprint in camping gear and he acquired a small company for me just this morning lol.

[Christinebitg]

(12-26-2021, 11:07 AM)crimsonghost747 Wrote: The reason they don't do this is that it would be illegal. (at least on this side of the pond) And quite frankly, unjust.
Shares dictate ownership of a company. Two people with the same amount of ownership need to have the exact same rights, and get the same amount of shareholder distributions.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of typing that out.

The technical name for not treating all of the shareholders equally is "shareholder oppression."