Predicate - Shareholder

Value statement : Knowledge about shareholders will allow you to understand

  • the right to receive part of the profit in the form of dividends;

  • the right to participate in management through participation in the general meeting of shareholders;

  • the right to part of the property upon liquidation of the company.
    Definition: Shareholders
    Tooltip definition of the predicate: “The Major shareholders of the company” (
    This means that the company or person owns a share of 5% or more ( under the Exchange Act, shareholders who acquire more than 5% of the outstanding shares of that class must file beneficial owner reports on Schedule 13D or 13G until their holdings drop below 5%.)
    Type of value: Entity
    of accepted values: multiple
    Examples of proper use: ‘Sawai Group Holdings’→ ‘The Master Trust Bank of Japan, Ltd. ’ → ‘Number of Shares Held’ → “6 408 900” (This means that the company owns 6,408,900 of the total number of shares 77,600,000)
    citation: Basic Stock Information|Sawai Group Holdings
    Type Share:

After defining the type of shares “Preferred shares” or “common shares”, the choice of the class of shares is available:

  1. Has no class;
    2.Class A: Held by a regular investor with regular voting rights
    3.Class B: Held by the founders, with Х times the voting power of Class A shares
    4.Class C: No voting rights, typically held by employees and some Class A stockholders
  2. Own class: Any possible class can be specified.

of accepted values class share: multiple

Examples of improper use: The Master Trust Bank of Japan, Ltd. ’ → ‘Number of Shares Held’ → “6 408 900”
citation: The Master Trust Bank of Japan - Wikipedia

Hi! I like this proposal! At the same time I do not quite understand what u mean by shareholder.
So the Tooltip definition of the predicatesays The Major shareholders of the company.
If I understand it correctly, the major shareholder of Sawai Group Holdings is The Master Trust Bank of Japan, Ltd. In this regard, I would like to clarify how to define who is major? Maybe in your example it is quite easy (let’s say 90% belongs to The Master Trust Bank of Japan, Ltd), but let’s take Apple as an example. There is unlikely any entity with more that 2% of the total supply, so who is going to be considered majors in this case? Just to make it short, I suppose that u need to define parameters for shareholders to be regarded as majors.

The second thing I do not quite understand is 6 408 900. Is it the total number of shareholders or shares belonged to the major or total number of shares? If it is about shareholders that would be a good piece of information to know and quite easy to identify. However I believe is should be a separate proposal Number of shareholders with the Type of value number.

Maybe u could consider of creating various separate proposals to make it easier to discuss and adopt.

1 Like

Thanks, good comments. I’ll make adjustments.

1 Like

@jed Please put this proposal to a vote.

@lavvpix This is an interesting proposal but in line with @Ras I think Majority Shareholders would be more feasible.

Most definitions of this have it at 50% (rather than 2% as in your proposal), for example: What Is a Majority Shareholder? Definition, Rights and Privileges

1 Like

@jen A shareholder owning 2% can already influence the company and formally require additional documents from the company. A public company must also list such shareholders in its reports.
Specifying only Majority Shareholders with more than 50% ownership will have low value as a knowledge graph, as it will not allow for a proper analysis of the company.

If the use case here is to track who has influence via voting their shares, then the class of share becomes relevant since not all have a vote. And some shares have more than one vote.
For example Alphabet (parent of Google) has 3 classes of share, with class B shares having 10 votes and class C shares having no vote see Alphabet’s GOOG vs. GOOGL: What’s the Difference?.
Another type is Preferred shares which have no vote at all.

AFAIK the threshold for SEC reporting is 5% rather than 2% of a specific class of share

Overall this can get quite complex, so it’s important to be clear about the use case and purpose and whether/how to include the class at all. The predicate could be defined to represent anyone who owns over a certain percentage of any class of share.
But note that as new shares are issued or repurchased by the company, the same number of shares could represent different levels of ownership. And with stock splits the number of shares will change but not the level of ownership.

Looked at from the shareholder direction, a shareholding represents both an asset and a risk, where the level of voting does not matter.

If you want to discuss more I’ve done a lot of modeling of financial instruments like this in the Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO) which is open source (on GitHub under edmcouncil/fibo) though a lot more complex than we need.

1 Like

Maybe you’re right. I need to study the information you provided. Thanks for the feedback!

@jen @rivettp Corrected the offer. But there are many subentities to this proposal and it depends, among other things, on the country of registration of the company and the laws adopted in the country.

Big improvement @lavvpix . Some minor follow-ups:

  • it’s worth making clear that the A, B, C share classes from Google are just an example. Many companies have only one class of share
  • it would be worth fleshing out the Sawai example to show how the share class would be indicated.
  • it would be worth saying whether Preferred Shares are in scope (which receive a (different) dividend but never a vote

Corrected thanks for your input. Now it looks quite better and can be put to a vote.

I have a few concerns with this predicate:

  • This only applies to public companies where Schedule 13D/13G reports are filed. Compared to the wider universe of companies, this is a relative minority (though obviously prominent companies).
  • Generally we’ve initially resisted implementing predicates where the values could change frequently, and this feels like it could fall in that zone. (Though it also seems like you’re implying that would be implemented through a separate “Number of shares held” qualifier?)
  • I’m not sure how valuable it could be? From my understanding, there’s a relatively small number of investors that tend to have positions of this size in many companies - often the Blackstones & Vanguards that run index funds that buy large stakes in all public companies.
  • Each individual stock has it’s own names/rules/etc. The Class A, Class B, and Class C are listed, and while that’s valid for Google, the names & relative rights could be totally different for different stocks. For example, Snapchat has the names of Class A/B/C but with different meanings, as described here: One way Snapchat’s IPO will be unique: The shares won’t come with voting rights - Vox

I’m trying to put myself in the shoes of a user who’s trying to leverage this. I think it could be valuable to know who the 5%+ shareholders of public companies are, but that’s complicated by the fact that the majority of them will be a relatively small group of investors. And while it then might also be helpful to capture the number of shares or percentage of the company owned, that then becomes something that changes frequently enough to be problematic (from a tokenomics perspective).

Perhaps you are right, and this predicate is more suitable for financial statements and serious investors than for mass users.

The values ​​of this predicate will change no more often than the CEO predicate in about 2-3 years. Investors owning 5% or more of shares are long-term investors with an investment horizon of at least 4-15 years.