Content Domicile 2007: Fill & Download for Free

DisclaimerThis is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content.Section 10 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 prescribes the conditions for granting Pakistani citizenship to foreign spouses of Pakistani men (Pakistan 1951b, Sec. 10). Specifically, the Section states that the wife of a Pakistani citizenshall be entitled, on making application therefore to the Federal Government in the prescribed manner, [and] if she is an alien, on obtaining a certificate of domicile and taking the oath of allegiance in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act, to be registered as a citizen of Pakistan whether or not she has completed twenty one years of her age and is of full capacity. (ibid.para.2)Section 10 of the Act also renders eligible for citizenship the widow of a man who would have himself been eligible for citizenship (ibid.,para.3).A private member's bill, introduced in February 2010 by a member of the Pakistan National Assembly, seeks to amend Section 10 of the Citizenship Act because the Act does not allow the foreign spouses of Pakistani women to acquire citizenship (Pakistan 17 Feb. 2010). As reason for the amendment, the Bill states that the Federal Shariat Court had, in accordance with Pakistan's Constitution, required "the President of Pakistan to take suitable steps" and amend the Act and thereby correct the "discriminatory section of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951" and that the Bill was an effort to fulfil this requirement (ibid.). According to the Internet edition of the Pakistani daily newspaper Dawn, it was on 19 December 2007 when the Federal Shariat Court had declared the Citizenship Act to be "discriminatory against women" and had "asked the president to amend it within six months" (Dawn 20 Dec. 2010). But, says the article, the government opposed an amendment on the grounds that "it would not only legalise the stay of a large number of illegal immigrants, but also increase their influx" (ibid.).Information on the status of the Bill to amend the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 since being introduced could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.Requirements, procedures and documentationApplication Form F, "Application by a Married Woman for a Certificate of Citizenship of Pakistan by Registration," is provided in Appendix VI of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952 (Pakistan 1951). In addition to asking for personal information about the applicant, the form requests the applicant prove her identify and her relationship with a Pakistani citizen by providing the following information:Nationality of the applicant.Marriage with person named in para 3.Pakistan Citizenship of husband mentioned in para 3 of this application.Domicile---Taking the oath of allegiance---Facts which would have entitled the person mentioned in para 3 of this application to be a citizen of Pakistan if he were alive.Certificate of preconsent of Federal Government in case of loss or deprivation of citizenship of applicant. (ibid., http://App.VI)The website of the Pakistan Ministry of Information and Broadcasting provides information on the different categories of people eligible to receive Pakistani citizenship and the documents required to apply for it (Pakistann.d.a). Among the various categories are "[f]oreign ladies married to Pakistani nationals" (ibid.). The lists of documents which they require to provide in addition to those requested in the Application Form are as followsPrescribed application form F (in quadruplicate)An affidavit on Rs.20/ [20 Pakistani Rupees = 0.238844 Canadian Dollars (http://XE.com 24 Sept. 2010)] - non judicial stamp paper from the applicant and her husband regarding detail facts of the case.A similar affidavit from the husband on Rs.20/- non judicial stamp paper.Photostat copies of relevant pages of applicant's foreign passport.Photostat copy of residential permit.Photocopy of marriage certificate.Photostat copy of domicile certificate of the applicant (in case of applicant other than [C]ommonwealth Citizen)List of close-relations residing in India on the prescribed form.Photostat copies of Pakistan Citizenship Certificate/Domicile Certificate of the applicant's husband (in case the husband has been issued such certificate).Six color photographs with light blue background size 2X1 1/2. One attested on front and one on back by Notary public/Oath Commissioner.Photostat copies of the relevant pages of the Pakistani passport and national identity card of the husband.NOTE: All of the mentioned documents may be attested by Notary public/Oath Commissioner except the photographs which have to be attested in a manner specified at sub para No.x. [sic] above.Bank challan of prescribed amounts Rs.40/-Oath of allegiance taken before 1st Class Magistrate (in case of citizen other than Commonwealth)Attested copy of domicile of the lady (in case of citizens other than [C]ommonwealth).Two certificates [from] two different Government Officers not less than B-17 confirming the date national status of the applicant's husband. Such certificates must also indicate the date and place of birth of the applicant's husband and his income. (Pakistan n.d.a)The website also states that[a]pplication form[s] can either be submitted to Directorate General Immigration & Passports Islamabad or its RPO [Regional Passport Offices (Pakistann.d.b)] at Lahore & Karachi or in the offices of Deputy Commissioners of other Districts in Pakistan. (ibid.n.d.a)This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of sources consulted in researching this Information Request.ReferencesDawn [Karachi]. 20 December 2007. Nasir Iqbal. "Citizenship Act Discriminatory."

Without a link, we can’t look over your shoulder and advise you.Regardless, Quora can do whatever they want, it’s a private company, and we are all volunteer content providers serving at their pleasure.Yup, Quora is a crapshoot.Like different cops, one will give a warning, one will drag you from you car and arrest you.Here’s my suggestion to eliminate bias: Peter Blaise's answer to Does Quora moderation have bias or dependent on the specific moderator?Yes, some Quora moderators have personal struggles with understanding context, language, and so on, so I wait eight to twelve hours or even a week to respond, to “appeal”, and hope I get a different Quora moderator to review the challenge, whereas if I respond immediately to a Quora moderator challenge, I usually just get re-hit by apparently the same moderator who merely reiterates their first decision from a moment ago.It would be better if Quora itself took no action until 3 moderators independently and unaware of each other all came to the same conclusion about a content provider’s post.It would be a simple programming solution to eliminate Quora moderator whimsey.Update:Look below to see Quora moderators arguing with each other over this very question, asking for improvements, getting improvements, then reverting improvements.This is both problems:Whimsical moderators.Quora empowering whimsical moderators.How to resolve this? Again:It would be better if Quora itself took no action until 3 moderators independently and unaware of each other all came to the same conclusion about a content provider’s post.It would be a simple programming solution to eliminate Quora moderator whimsey.- - - - -Keep asking until Quora sees the light?- - - - - - - - - -In response to others:Prior post:“… Until and unless there are laws that regulate Quora (and other “social media”) as public utilities (where adherence to first amendment is a given) this nonsense will continue …”What “public utility” to you consider Quora to be or Quora services to provide ( Quora is also advertising based, and it’s international, too, ya know )?A public utility ( defined at Wikipedia ) company is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service [ Quora does no such thing ]. Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies.A public service ( defined at Wikipedia ) is a service intended to serve all members of a community. It is usually provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction [ but Quora is international ], either directly (through the public sector) or by financing provision of services. The term is associated with a social consensus (usually expressed through democratic elections) that certain services should be available to all [ Quora is estimated to have ~3 million sign-in accounts, not all active, requiring internet communications, definitely not “all” people ], regardless of income, physical ability or mental acuity. Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, for social and political reasons they are usually subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors. Public policy when made in the public's interest and motivations can provide public services. Public service is also a course that can be studied at a college or university. Examples of public services are the fire brigade, police, air force, and paramedics.Compare by posting something averse over at LifelessSightless via Disqus and see where their deletion and banning policy takes over immediately, without even Quora’s “appeal” courtesy.Disqus is a worldwide blog comment hosting service for web sites and online communities that use a networked platform. The company's platform includes various features, such as social integration, social networking, user profiles, spam and moderation tools, analytics, email notifications, and mobile commenting. Wikipedia Parent organization: Zeta Global, Founded: October 30, 2007, San Francisco, CA, Headquarters location: San Francisco, CA, CEO: Daniel Ha (Apr 2007–), Number of employees: 61 (2014), Founders: Daniel Ha, Jason YanOr BiteFart and other sites representing the Christian Brotherhood, Christiban Militia, Christian Mafia, Christapo, such as Charisma, CrisisMagazine, CNS Christian News Network, MRC Media Research Center, Your News Right Now, The Daily Wire, and more.They would LOVE government bureaucratic regulation - NOT!=8^oThanks for exploring this.- - - - -Prior post:“… I have no problem with a site that declares what it wants off-limits upfront. ie “Be Honest, Be Transparent” is my policy. If you are a Christian site and you don’t want liberal Jews posting inflammatory comments on your site, I don’t see an issue with it. They declared who they are upfront. They were honest about who they were and what viewpoints are welcome and what viewpoints are not welcome …”Wow, “… liberal Jews …”!No, the sites I mentioned - Charisma, CrisisMagazine, CNS Christian News Network, MRC Media Research Center, Your News Right Now, The Daily Wire, and more - ban ardent believers who know more and practice more Christian doctrine, and offered alternative and loving Jesus-based, Gospel-based, bibles-based Christian insight in response to the willful ignorance, fear, hate, and bigotry on those sites.“… liberal Jews …”, really?- - - - -Prior post:“… Quora is a website that pretends to be neutral, and open to all. Regulation doesn’t automatically mean beauracrats. It means a federal law. Passed by majorities in both chambers of Congress and signed into law by president Donald J. Trump. If you want be a “social media platform” open to all, then you cannot suppress speech in any manner that would be deemed a violation of the first amendment. Else you won’t be granted a “license” …”You call for laws without bureaucrats - reality much?Laws are enforced by bureaucrats who write the regulations and rules.You call for a license in order to practice free speech - reality much?It’s not free if you need a license.And a “license” for free speech is unConstitutional.If and when you come to the US, these things are easy to learn, most grammar school children pick it up in public school civics and social studies classes.- - - - -Why Quora Exists, Quora’s mission is to share and grow the world’s knowledge. A vast amount of the knowledge that would be valuable to many people is currently only available to a few — either locked in people’s heads, or only accessible to select groups. We want to connect the people who have knowledge to the people who need it, to bring together people with different perspectives so they can understand each other better, and to empower everyone to share their knowledge for the benefit of the rest of the world. https://www.quora.com/aboutThanks for exploring.- - - - -“… liberal Jews …”, wow.Just, wow.- - - - - - - - - -Prior post:“… The “license” is not for speech. Else, how would you explain the FCC? …”The FCC Federal Communications Commission licenses and regulates private use of publicly owned airwaves, for the benefit of the public, the public who owns the airwaves.The FCC has absolutely nothing to do with licensing or regulating speech.The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the United States government created by statute to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. WikipediaAre you suggesting that any non-publicly owned venue that offers their goods and services to the public for comment should be licensed and regulated and … prohibited from not publishing all comments?Newspapers and magazines must publish all letters to the editor?Talk radio should answer all calls and broadcast them?Ellen should allow any and all guests equal time to present their opinion?Reality much?- - - - -Prior post:“… Laws are not enforced by bureaucrats. Any more than the constitution (the supreme law of the land) is … Thank you for the civics class …”Oy, as I already wrote:Laws are enforced by bureaucrats who write the regulations and rules. If and when you come to the US, these things are easy to learn, most grammar school children pick it up in public school civics and social studies classes.Let’s take patents, trademarks, and copyrights, all in the US Constitution, all regulated by bureaucracies who develop regulations and rules, enforce those regulations and rules, and even have in-house judicial courts to resolve conflicts - bureaucrats every one of them.USDA US Department of Agriculture - do you think factory farms regulate themselves?ATF Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms - do you think manufacturers, distributors, sellers, consumers, just regulate themselves?And so on.Please, come to Washington DC US and take one of the many tours that show how laws and regulations and rules are made and enforced and adjudicated, in bureaucracies.- - - - -Prior post:“… Is the word “Liberal Jew” derogatory these days? If that is the case my sincere apologies to “Liberal Jews”. My sincere apology to “Conservative Christians” or any other group that my take offense … The christian sites you referenced are irrelevant … I see as many problems with “christians” as I see with “jews” and “muslims” …”Why would anyone put the words Christians, Jews, and Muslims in quote marks as if they thought that Christians, Jews, and Muslims were faking it, as if Christians, Jews, and Muslims were “so-called” … but not really real?And you wrote “… liberal Jew …” regarding posting to supposedly self-described conservative Christian comment sites, you do not write “… liberal, or Jew …”, but regardless, no one knows anyone’s political leaning or religion.Conservatives, as mentioned in the opening question, are supposedly defined as“… holding to traditional attitudes and values, and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion …”You seem to be saying that wilful ignorance, fear, hate, and bigotry are conservative values, even Christian values, especially conservative Christian values.So if someone who considers themselves a conservative Christian who is not willfully ignorant, not fearful, not hateful, not bigoted wants to comment on a self-defined conservative Christian site, even just offer a “… what if … what about …“ alternative question, and immediately gets banned, how would your proposed licensing and regulating of publicly accessible comment sites handle that?Absolutely nothing will happen until after someone inside a bureaucracy has received a complaint, then then, and only then, can they act on it.The sites I mentioned are social comment sites that are open to all comers ( with computers and internet access ) but those sites immediately ban even comments that quote their own policies and reasons for being, no one knows anyone’s religion, if any, no one knows anyone’s conservative/progressive leaning, if any.I mentioned them in context of your response to the opening question, your demand that all social comment sites to be licensed and regulated in order to open them up to all comments from all people.I mentioned them because they are on topic, as a comparison to Quora.- - - - -Prior post:“… Quora’s mission sounds like the platitudes of Mayor Pete … “Be Honest Be Transparent” …”Your assessment of that speech ( calling Quora’s “about” statement a “… mission …” ) is kind of in the eye ( ear? ) of the beholder … and somehow you want to have government bureaucrats license and regulate speech on privately owned publicly accessible venues?We don't even do that for publicly owned venues.And your gratuitous off-topic swipe at Pete Buttigieg kind of explains the opening question perfectly:Quora has collapsed many of my answers that support conservatism. How are they allowed to get away with this?Becausegratuitous off-topic swipes are averse to the purpose of Quora,and Quora is not a publicly owned venue that would be subject to any government laws, or bureaucratic licensing, regulations, rules, and enforcement.Plus, gratuitous swipes at Quora, and at candidates for office, are not conservatism, per se.Though it sure makes sense why Quora might collapse them, though no evidence of any such thing happening has been presented in support of the opening question’s claim.Thanks for exploring.- - - - - - - - - -Prior post:“… The reason to put “jew”, “christian” etc between quotes is that to the best of my knowledge this is what they call themselves. Hence the quote marks to err on the side of caution in case calling them jew, christian etc is now deemed bigoted by guardians and custodians of safe spaces, or by members of these groups themselves. DO you get the point? …”Homo phobes put quotes on same-sex “marriage” to indicate that they don't believe it’s a real marriage.Your use of small letters and quote marks fits that pattern of denying other people equivalent consideration for their self-identification, the same consideration you probably want for and believe you give to yourself.- - - - -Prior post:“… The FCC can effectively shut your “speech” altogether by refusing you a “license” to transmit your speech over the publicly-owned airwaves (which extends to cable, fiber optic networks, ie other mediums that carry the information) …”No, they cannot.Plus, the FCC licenses and regulates a publicly owned airwaves on a broadcast spectrum, and has no jurisdiction over free speech.Our public property - airwaves - are not a privately owned enterprise.- - - - -Prior post:“… I am in a favor of a simple standard: If you proclaim yourself a “social medium” open to everyone (as per legal definition), and you want your bits and bytes (aka information) to cross state lines (airwaves) then you must not prejudice the free speech rights of the members of your medium. Plain and simple. There is no regulation of speech here. If anything it is a curb on the anti-speech tycoons and oligarchs and other unaccountable entities in society. Next question …”You haven’t answered the previous questions yet:Should newspapers and magazines be licensed and regulated to publish all letters to the editor?Should talk radio be licensed and regulated to answer all calls and broadcast them?Should Ellen and other TV dialog presentations be licensed and regulated to allow any guest equal time to present their opinion?Like that.And a follow up question regarding the prior post:“… If you proclaim yourself a “social medium” open to everyone (as per legal definition) …”What “… legal definition …”?Thanks for exploring.- - - - - - - - - -I’m gaining insight on the full spectrum of the topic of this thread:Quora has collapsed many of my answers that support conservatism. How are they allowed to get away with this?... by the off-topic diversions.It’s not about conservatism, it’s about diversions, unaware that Quora is NOT a “social media” site, but is a knowledge building site.Prior post: “… I am not writing a book. For that I have microsoft word, spell check, and grammer check. AND proof readers ...”That’s off topic.Yet it begs explanation that:Quora IS for writing a book, an knowledge encyclopedia, that’s why we are here,All browsers have spill chick, and can add in grandma checkers,And proofreaders are other people, like our fellow voluntary Quora content provider’s feedback, and our own endless ability to edit our Quora posts ( Facebook, too, though Disqus limits to 7 days, many others limit self-editing to 5 minutes ).But hey, that’s all off topic, even my responding to it.So the main subject challenge is becoming more and more clear … by more off-topic diversions:it’s not about conservatism,it’s about diversions:Prior post: “… The FCC … can deny you license for a specturm band. Which means that your free speech would be limited to your living room ,,.”Do you mean like all of us here on Quora? I’m in my living room with a worldwide Quora and Google audience ( yeah, Google search is probably my most important audience ).Oh wait a minute, that’s all off topic.And onto more off-topic diversions:it’s not about conservatism,it’s about diversions:Prior post: “… “legal definition” means the same way we created a fictional legal entity called “corporation”, we can create a fictional legal entity called “social media”. If you want to register your site as a “social medium” open to all, you must not prejudice free speech rights of your users. If you want to be some other legal fictional entity, you can …”Again, off topic, free speech is not licenseable or regulatable.And what about a “social media” enterprise, self-described or described by others as whatever “social media” means to whomever ( according to bureaucrat’s regulations and rules and adjudication? ), who decides not to register, or “social media” sites that are not even domiciled in the US?All off topic .. and more:it’s not about conservatism,it’s about diversions:Prior post:“… The fact that you bring newspapers as your model should tell the reader everything they need to know. Newspapers are dead, and fertilizing the ground from below. And one reason for their death and hopefully the death of all mainstream media is what Chomsky in his book labelled “Manufacturing Consent”. These people are liars. Through and through. It is only because of money, power, and corruption (not free speech absolutist principles) that they were able to reach the masses the way they did, deceive and lie to them for so long, and now whine about what has befallen them (and the Russians of course) on MSNBC …”Seriously, an answer to“… Why does Quora moderation behave the way they do? …”… is ...“… newspapers are dead …”?Oh now I so fully understand the opening question in far greater perspective, thank you.It’s not about conservatism,it’s about diversions.( An aficionado of Chomsky’s manufacturing-consent calling for government licensing and regulation of free speech is entertaining, thanks for that. )Could there be more off topic? Oh yes:it’s not about conservatism,it’s about diversions:Prior post: “… Speech must be “democratized”. Not “oligarchized”. Chose the latter and you will get the very extremists that you complain of in far more plentiful numbers …Well, that explains an unknown entity ( Gregg Mikulla ) accusing Quora of an unknown behavior. ( “… Quora has collapsed … my answers that support conservatism …” with no links ) … NOT!Thanks for exploring and revealing what is going on.It’s not about conservatism,it’s about diversions.- - - - -Prior post: “… the very extremists that you complain of …”… must be aimed at someone, but not me.Oh, I know, off topic:it’s not about conservatism,it’s about diversions.Thanks for …?- - - - - - - - - -I think we have found the answer, and it is folks who think that Quora is an open, free speech, no-holds-barred, social media platform, and not an knowledge-encyclopedia-building platform, as stated in https://www.quora.com/about.Some folks here do not understand that Quora is a private, non-government platform that is neither licensable nor regulatable.Here, in response to the opening question is a response from a compatriot aligned with the opening questioner, hip boots required:Q: Quora has collapsed many of my answers that support conservatism. How are they allowed to get away with this?A: “… You sound like one of the $hillary’s consultants and one of the (intersectional) victimhood merchants wrapped into one. In other words not at all an extremist.Free speech is what George Soros, AIPAC, the gender police, $hillary, and Zuckerberg (who censors on behalf of said AIPAC ethnostate) want to give us. Its range of of views varies from Mayor Pete (on the right) to Kamala Harris (on the left).And Chomsky I am sure is very much on board with that. Because Chomsky believes money is speech, oligarchs are benevolent, and the censorship that happens behind the scenes, carefully engineered to deceive obfuscate and lie, isn’t at all sinister in its objectives. But that is off-topic.Yes, people of intellect, can agree with Chomsky some. But also be on the opposite end of the political spectrum. That must shock you now doesn’t it? But that is off-topic.Quora (and its censorship, along with other social media) subscribes in full to the Geroge Soros BNBR worldview. An oligarchial worldview that I am against. But that is off topic I am sure.Your copy-paste lengthy police-wording concern-trolling messages are the ones are on topic indeed. They never miss the larger point. Nor ever twist it. Not to mention easy on the eye and easy to read. I will ask you kindly not to post any more replies. Otherwise I will be forced to close comments. I’d like to hear what others want to say. Thank you …”So … nothing on topic, nothing referential to build a Quora encyclopedia of knowledge that is not gathered elsewhere.Got it.And that, folks is why some people on Quora complain that their posts get collapsed ( though the opening questioner has been unable to document such a happening ), and those folks blame it on their supposedly “conservative” content …… unable to recognize that they are dumping meaningless crap, which, unrelatedly, has absolutely nothing to do with “conservative” content.Absolutely nothing in the above answer quote is “conservative” content.It’s pure conspiracy theory that is demonizing “other”.If that’s what “conservative” content has become - like BiteFart, LiflessSightless, FυckSnooze, and so on, then “conservative” people have nothing.Certainly nothing to contribute to Quora.Trying to stay on topic is considered “extremist” by self-called “conservatives”.Got it.Thanks for sharing.- - - - - - - - - -From the comments under the header for this question:“… How should Quora treat conservative answers? Should such answers be protected in some way, and if so, how? …”“… All answers should be protected. Conservative answers should be treated like liberal answers. That shouldn't even be the question. The question should be, should I be censored because of my harmless opinions? Why should anything receive special treatment if it doesn't violate policy? …”“Opinion” is defined as “belief not based on fact”, and has no place on Quora’s knowledge encyclopedia.“Harmless” has nothing to do with Quora, knowledge does.Collapsing or deleting or banning is not censorship … it’s collapsing or deleting or banning.Quora is a private non-governmental enterprise paid for by advertising, and as such Quora can create any rules it wants to for us voluntary content providers, and Quora can break or evolve those rules at will, without any legal ramification.Try posting what you think is “harmless” and or “conservative content” to BiteFart and other sites representing the Christian Brotherhood, Christiban Militia, Christian Mafia, Christapo, such sites as Charisma, CrisisMagazine, CNS Christian News Network, MRC Media Research Center, Your News Right Now, The Daily Wire, and more - they ban in response to first post, no dialog, no engagement, no “thank you for sharing”, no appeal, no nothing.What part of volunteering to write clickbait content on Quora for advertising revenue do you not understand, with comments like “… Quora has collapsed … my answer … How are they allowed to get away with this? …”No one “allows” free speech.Quora cannot be licensed or regulated.Who do you think “allows” our own inborn unalienable equal rights?Do you think there is someone in superior permissioning authority over Quora?Who?- - - - - - - - - -Your answer is getting views but doesn't have a credential. Add a credential to get more views. Question added by Gregg Mikulla “… Quora has collapsed any of my answers that support conservatism. How are they allowed to get away with this? (Quora has collapsed many of my answers that support conservatism. How are they allowed to get away with this?) …” #941029068 · Thank · Report · 23 Dec 2019 12:51 AM.

Stock marketFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFinancial marketsPublic marketExchange · SecuritiesBond marketBond valuationCorporate bondFixed incomeGovernment bondHigh-yield debtMunicipal bondSecuritizationStock marketCommon stockPreferred stockRegistered shareStockStock certificateStock exchangeOther marketsDerivatives(Credit derivativeFutures exchangeHybrid security)Foreign exchange(CurrencyExchange rate)CommodityMoneyReal estateReinsuranceOver-the-counter (off-exchange)ForwardsOptionsSpot marketSwapsTradingParticipantsRegulationClearingRelated areasBanks and bankingFinance corporatepersonalpublicvteA stock market, equity market or share market is the aggregation of buyers and sellers (a loose network of economic transactions, not a physical facility or discrete entity) of stocks (also called shares), which represent ownership claims on businesses; these may include securities listed on a public stock exchange as well as those only traded privately. Examples of the latter include shares of private companies which are sold to investors through equity crowdfunding platforms. Stock exchanges list shares of common equity as well as other security types, e.g. corporate bonds and convertible bonds.Contents[hide]1Size of the market2Stock exchange3Trade4Market participant4.1Trends in market participation4.1.1Indirect vs. direct investment4.1.2Participation by income and wealth strata4.1.3Participation by head of household race and gender4.1.4Determinants and possible explanations of stock market participation5History5.1Early history5.2Birth of formal stock markets6Importance6.1Function and purpose6.2Relation to the modern financial system6.3United States S&P stock market returns6.4Behavior of the stock market6.5Irrational behavior6.6Crashes6.7Stock market prediction7Stock market index8Derivative instruments9Leveraged strategies9.1Short selling9.2Margin buying10New issuance11ASX Share Market Game12Investment strategies13Taxation14See also15References16Further reading17External linksSize of the market[edit]Stocks can be categorised in various ways. One way is by the country where the company is domiciled. For example, Nestlé and Novartis are domiciled in Switzerland, so they may be considered as part of the Swiss stock market, although their stock may also be traded on exchanges in other countries, for example, as American depository receipts (ADRs) on U.S. stock markets.At the close of 2012, the size of the world stock market (total market capitalisation) was about US$55 trillion.[1]By country, the largest market was the United States (about 34%), followed by Japan(about 6%) and the United Kingdom (about 6%).[2]These numbers increased in 2013.[3]As of 2015, there are a total of 60 stock exchanges in the world with a total market capitalization of $69 trillion. Of these, there are 16 exchanges with a market capitalization of $1 trillion or more, and they account for 87% of global market capitalization. Apart from the Australian Securities Exchange, these 16 exchanges are based in one of three continents: North America, Europe and Asia.[4]Stock exchange[edit]Main article: Stock exchangeCourtyard of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (or Beurs van Hendrick de Keyser in Dutch), the world's first formal stock exchange. The first formal stock market in its modern sense – as one of the indispensable elements of modern capitalism[5]– was a pioneering innovation by the VOC managers and shareholders in the early 1600s.[6][7]A stock exchange is a place where, or an organization through which, individuals and organizations can trade stocks. Many large companies have their stock listed on a stock exchange. This makes the stock more liquid and thus more attractive to many investors. It may also act as a guarantor of settlement. Other stocks may be traded "over the counter" (OTC), that is, through a dealer. Some large companies will have their stock listed on more than one exchange in different countries, so as to attract international investors.[8]Stock exchanges may also cover other types of securities, such as fixed interest securities (bonds) or (less frequently) derivatives, which are more likely to be traded OTC.Trade[edit]The New York Stock ExchangeThe London Stock ExchangeTrade in stock markets means the transfer for money of a stock or security from a seller to a buyer. This requires these two parties to agree on a price. Equities (stocks or shares) confer an ownership interest in a particular company.Participants in the stock market range from small individual stock investors to larger trader investors, who can be based anywhere in the world, and may include banks, insurance companies, pension funds and hedge funds. Their buy or sell orders may be executed on their behalf by a stock exchange trader.Some exchanges are physical locations where transactions are carried out on a trading floor, by a method known as open outcry. This method is used in some stock exchanges and commodity exchanges, and involves traders shouting bid and offer prices. The other type of stock exchange has a network of computers where trades are made electronically. An example of such an exchange is the NASDAQ.A potential buyer bids a specific price for a stock, and a potential seller asks a specific price for the same stock. Buying or selling at the market means you will accept any ask price or bid price for the stock. When the bid and ask prices match, a sale takes place, on a first-come, first-served basis if there are multiple bidders or askers at a given price.The purpose of a stock exchange is to facilitate the exchange of securities between buyers and sellers, thus providing a marketplace. The exchanges provide real-time trading information on the listed securities, facilitating price discovery.The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is a physical exchange, with a hybrid market for placing orders electronically from any location as well as on the trading floor. Orders executed on the trading floor enter by way of exchange members and flow down to a floor broker, who submits the order electronically to the floor trading post for the Designated Market Maker ("DMM") for that stock to trade the order. The DMM's job is to maintain a two-sided market, making orders to buy and sell the security when there are no other buyers or sellers. If a spread exists, no trade immediately takes place – in this case the DMM may use their own resources (money or stock) to close the difference. Once a trade has been made, the details are reported on the "tape" and sent back to the brokerage firm, which then notifies the investor who placed the order. Computers play an important role, especially for program trading.The NASDAQ is a virtual exchange, where all of the trading is done over a computer network. The process is similar to the New York Stock Exchange. One or more NASDAQ market makers will always provide a bid and ask price at which they will always purchase or sell 'their' stock.The Paris Bourse, now part of Euronext, is an order-driven, electronic stock exchange. It was automated in the late 1980s. Prior to the 1980s, it consisted of an open outcry exchange. Stockbrokersmet on the trading floor of the Palais Brongniart. In 1986, the CATS trading system was introduced, and the order matching process was fully automated.People trading stock will prefer to trade on the most popular exchange since this gives the largest number of potential counterparties (buyers for a seller, sellers for a buyer) and probably the best price. However, there have always been alternatives such as brokers trying to bring parties together to trade outside the exchange. Some third markets that were popular are Instinet, and later Island and Archipelago (the later two have since been acquired by Nasdaq and NYSE, respectively). One advantage is that this avoids the commissions of the exchange. However, it also has problems such as adverse selection.[9]Financial regulators are probing dark pools.[10][11]Market participant[edit]The offices of Bursa Malaysia, Malaysia's national stock exchange (known before demutualization as Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange)Market participants include individual retail investors, institutional investors such as mutual funds, banks, insurance companies and hedge funds, and also publicly traded corporations trading in their own shares. Some studies have suggested that institutional investors and corporations trading in their own shares generally receive higher risk-adjusted returns than retail investors.[12]A few decades ago, most buyers and sellers were individual investors, such as wealthy businessmen, usually with long family histories to particular corporations. Over time, markets have become more "institutionalized"; buyers and sellers are largely institutions (e.g., pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, index funds, exchange-traded funds, hedge funds, investor groups, banks and various other financial institutions).The rise of the institutional investor has brought with it some improvements in market operations. There has been a gradual tendency for "fixed" (and exorbitant) fees being reduced for all investors, partly from falling administration costs but also assisted by large institutions challenging brokers' oligopolistic approach to setting standardised fees.[citation needed]A current trend in stock market investments includes the decrease in fees due to computerized asset management termed Robo Advisers within the industry. Automation has decreased portfolio management costs by lowering the cost associated with investing as a whole.Trends in market participation[edit]Stock market participation refers to the number of agents who buy and sell equity backed securities either directly or indirectly in a financial exchange. Participants are generally subdivided into three distinct sectors; households, institutions, and foreign traders. Direct participation occurs when any of the above entities buys or sells securities on its own behalf on an exchange. Indirect participation occurs when an institutional investor exchanges a stock on behalf of an individual or household. Indirect investment occurs in the form of pooled investment accounts, retirement accounts, and other managed financial accounts.Indirect vs. direct investment[edit]The total value of equity-backed securities in the United States rose over 600% in the 25 years between 1989 and 2012 as market capitalization expanded from $2,790 billion to $18,668 billion.[13]Direct ownership of stock by individuals rose slightly from 17.8% in 1992 to 17.9% in 2007, with the median value of these holdings rising from $14,778 to $17,000.[14][15]Indirect participation in the form of retirement accounts rose from 39.3% in 1992 to 52.6% in 2007, with the median value of these accounts more than doubling from $22,000 to $45,000 in that time.[14][15]Rydqvist, Spizman, and Strebulaev attribute the differential growth in direct and indirect holdings to differences in the way each are taxed in the United States. Investments in pension funds and 401ks, the two most common vehicles of indirect participation, are taxed only when funds are withdrawn from the accounts. Conversely, the money used to directly purchase stock is subject to taxation as are any dividends or capital gains they generate for the holder. In this way the current tax code incentivizes individuals to invest indirectly.[16]Participation by income and wealth strata[edit]Rates of participation and the value of holdings differs significantly across strata of income. In the bottom quintile of income, 5.5% of households directly own stock and 10.7% hold stocks indirectly in the form of retirement accounts.[15]The top decile of income has a direct participation rate of 47.5% and an indirect participation rate in the form of retirement accounts of 89.6%.[15]The median value of directly owned stock in the bottom quintile of income is $4,000 and is $78,600 in the top decile of income as of 2007.[17]The median value of indirectly held stock in the form of retirement accounts for the same two groups in the same year is $6,300 and $214,800 respectively.[17]Since the Great Recession of 2008 households in the bottom half of the income distribution have lessened their participation rate both directly and indirectly from 53.2% in 2007 to 48.8% in 2013, while over the same time period households in the top decile of the income distribution slightly increased participation 91.7% to 92.1%.[18]The mean value of direct and indirect holdings at the bottom half of the income distribution moved slightly downward from $53,800 in 2007 to $53,600 in 2013.[18]In the top decile, mean value of all holdings fell from $982,000 to $969,300 in the same time.[18]The mean value of all stock holdings across the entire income distribution is valued at $269,900 as of 2013.[18]Participation by head of household race and gender[edit]The racial composition of stock market ownership shows households headed by whites are nearly four and six times as likely to directly own stocks than households headed by blacks and Hispanics respectively. As of 2011 the national rate of direct participation was 19.6%, for white households the participation rate was 24.5%, for black households it was 6.4% and for Hispanic households it was 4.3% Indirect participation in the form of 401k ownership shows a similar pattern with a national participation rate of 42.1%, a rate of 46.4% for white households, 31.7% for black households, and 25.8% for Hispanic households. Households headed by married couples participated at rates above the national averages with 25.6% participating directly and 53.4% participating indirectly through a retirement account. 14.7% of households headed by men participated in the market directly and 33.4% owned stock through a retirement account. 12.6% of female headed households directly owned stock and 28.7% owned stock indirectly.[15]Determinants and possible explanations of stock market participation[edit]In a 2002 paper Anntte Vissing-Jorgensen from the University of Chicago attempts to explain disproportionate rates of participation along wealth and income groups as a function of fixed costs associated with investing. Her research concludes that a fixed cost of $200 per year is sufficient to explain why nearly half of all U.S. households do not participate in the market.[19]Participation rates have been shown to strongly correlate with education levels, promoting the hypothesis that information and transaction costs of market participation are better absorbed by more educated households. Behavioral economists Harrison Hong, Jeffrey Kubik and Jeremy Stein suggest that sociability and participation rates of communities have a statistically significant impact on an individual’s decision to participate in the market. Their research indicates that social individuals living in states with higher than average participation rates are 5% more likely to participate than individuals that do not share those characteristics.[20]This phenomenon also explained in cost terms. Knowledge of market functioning diffuses through communities and consequently lowers transaction costs associated with investing.History[edit]Early history[edit]In 12th-century France, the courretiers de change were concerned with managing and regulating the debts of agricultural communities on behalf of the banks. Because these men also traded with debts, they could be called the first brokers. A common misbelief[citation needed]is that, in late 13th-century Bruges, commodity traders gathered inside the house of a man called Van der Beurze, and in 1409 they became the "Brugse Beurse", institutionalizing what had been, until then, an informal meeting, but actually, the family Van der Beurze had a building in Antwerp where those gatherings occurred;[21]the Van der Beurze had Antwerp, as most of the merchants of that period, as their primary place for trading. The idea quickly spread around Flanders and neighboring countries and "Beurzen" soon opened in Ghent and Rotterdam.In the middle of the 13th century, Venetian bankers began to trade in government securities. In 1351 the Venetian government outlawed spreading rumors intended to lower the price of government funds. Bankers in Pisa, Verona, Genoa and Florence also began trading in government securities during the 14th century. This was only possible because these were independent city-states not ruled by a duke but a council of influential citizens. Italian companies were also the first to issue shares. Companies in England and the Low Countries followed in the 16th century.Birth of formal stock markets[edit]See also: Economic history of the Dutch Republic, Financial history of the Dutch Republic, and Dutch East India CompanyOne of the oldest known stock certificates, issued by the VOC chamber of Enkhuizen, dated 9 Sep 1606.[22][23][24][25]A 17th-century engraving depicting the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (Amsterdam's old bourse, a.k.a. Beurs van Hendrick de Keyser in Dutch), built by Hendrick de Keyser (c. 1612). The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was the world's first official (formal) stock exchangewhen it began trading the VOC's freely transferable securities, including bonds and shares of stock[26].Courtyard of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (Beurs van Hendrick de Keyser) by Emanuel de Witte, 1653. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange is said to have been the first stock exchange to introduce continuous trade in the early 17th century. The process of buying and selling the VOC's shares, on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, became the basis of the world's first official (formal) stock market.[27][28][29]Established in 1875, the Bombay Stock Exchange is Asia's first stock exchange.In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Dutch pioneering several financial innovations that helped lay the foundations of modern financial system.[30][31][32][33]While the Italian city-states produced the first transferable government bonds, they did not develop the other ingredient necessary to produce a fully fledged capital market: corporate shareholders. In the early 1600s the Dutch East India Company (VOC) became the first company in history to issue bonds and shares of stockto the general public.[34]As Edward Stringham (2015) notes, "companies with transferable shares date back to classical Rome, but these were usually not enduring endeavors and no considerable secondary market existed (Neal, 1997, p. 61)."[35]The Dutch East India Company (founded in the year of 1602) was also the first joint-stock company to get a fixed capital stock and as a result, continuous trade in company stock occurred on the Amsterdam Exchange. Soon thereafter, a lively trade in various derivatives, among which options and repos, emerged on the Amsterdam market. Dutch traders also pioneered short selling – a practice which was banned by the Dutch authorities as early as 1610.[36]There are now stock markets in virtually every developed and most developing economies, with the world's largest markets being in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, India, China, Canada, Germany (Frankfurt Stock Exchange), France, South Korea and the Netherlands.[37]Importance[edit]As the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises noted, "A stock market is crucial to the existence of capitalism and private property. For it means that there is a functioning market in the exchange of private titles to the means of production. There can be no genuine private ownership of capital without a stock market: there can be no true socialism if such a market is allowed to exist."[38]Function and purpose[edit]The stock market is one of the most important ways for companies to raise money, along with debt markets which are generally more imposing but do not trade publicly.[39]This allows businesses to be publicly traded, and raise additional financial capital for expansion by selling shares of ownership of the company in a public market. The liquidity that an exchange affords the investors enables their holders to quickly and easily sell securities. This is an attractive feature of investing in stocks, compared to other less liquid investments such as property and other immoveable assets. Some companies actively increase liquidity by trading in their own shares.[40][41]History has shown that the price of stocks and other assets is an important part of the dynamics of economic activity, and can influence or be an indicator of social mood. An economy where the stock market is on the rise is considered to be an up-and-coming economy. The stock market is often considered the primary indicator of a country's economic strength and development.[42]Rising share prices, for instance, tend to be associated with increased business investment and vice versa. Share prices also affect the wealth of households and their consumption. Therefore, central banks tend to keep an eye on the control and behavior of the stock market and, in general, on the smooth operation of financial system functions. Financial stability is the raison d'être of central banks.[43]Exchanges also act as the clearinghouse for each transaction, meaning that they collect and deliver the shares, and guarantee payment to the seller of a security. This eliminates the risk to an individual buyer or seller that the counterparty could default on the transaction.[44]