It is worth pointing out that MIT owns Bose. 100%. Omar Bose left it to MIT in his will. He would be rolling in his grave if he saw what MIT was doing with it.
In 2011, Bose donated a majority of the company's non-voting shares to MIT on the condition that the shares never be sold. Because these shares are non-voting, MIT does not participate in operations or governance of Bose Corporation.
What the heck is the point of owning shares if you can't sell them and you can't influence the direction of the company? That sounds like an accountant's joke.
(Presumably the benefit comes from the fact that Bose Corporation pays dividends, but nothing stops the other shareholders from deciding to cut or stop dividend payments. MIT certainly has no way to stop them.)
I wonder how many problems in the world are ultimately caused from shares not being seen primarily as a source of divident, but as an asset to gamble with.
Plenty of stocks don't pay dividends. The point of owning stock is because you think it is a good financial move, and that includes direction of stock, holding it as an asset, and in some cases dividends.
The reason to sell a stock is because you believe the assets you have tied up in the stock would be better elsewhere.
If you view stock ownership as gambling, and dislike gambling, then don't own them. Others view them as owning shares in productive companies and a worthwhile asset for that reason.
Considering that it generally pays (far more) to gamble with them than to sit on them and collect meager dividends slowly over time, it's not a surprise really.
Yeah, it's not a surprise that this happens. I'm just wondering why the system is designed to allow and encourage that, instead of blocking it. I can't see anything good coming out of it.
