Don't worry, they promise to only do it when it is in your best interests. I thought you agreed that consent was not a good factor by which to judge an outcome?
...consent isn't necessarily the best factor, or even a good factor, by which to judge an outcome.
I added emphasis. Investors may have consented to a company printing new shares when they bought its stock. That doesn't mean that it won't harm them if it does so.
Splitting stock creates more units for the current owners. Not for the company to give away.
Isn't a company typically a current owner? Does it not have the authority to sell the new shares created after a split?
I'm not sure if it really makes sense for the company to own shares of itself, it's the same thing as if those shares didn't exist.
If you split the shares, everyone gets the split, the value of each share is half of what it was. Dilution occurs by wanting to give out new shares and *dilute* the value of everyone else. You are creating something from nothing in that case.
It is counterfeiting in a way, although it's allowed and expected. Companies that dilute too much will have low valued shares since no one will want to buy any (if their value gets diluted away). So you might be able to get away with it once or twice, but Wall Street doesn't tolerate that kind of behavior, and no one will touch your stock after that. So the entire benefit to the person who gets the diluted share turns to nothing since he can't sell it since no everyone is scared it would be diluted again. But even so, they could take all the dividends and be fine. I'm not sure who needs to approve of dilution, it may be the board. So the board really is the voices of the shareholders. If the board says no dilution, then it doesn't happen. So really there is some level of consent, although a few powerful people can control the board, and then get all the benefits of dilution.