The investment school covered investment slang. It’s a good topic in itself, but it’s also something that tends to evolve with time. In ten years, there will probably be a whole new bunch of investment-related words, as they are constantly being created in forums etc. If a word in a discussion doesn’t mean anything to you, I don’t see a problem in asking what it means.
My wish for the investment school would be a short lesson on the significance of major owners. I dare say that for many brand-new investors, the major owners and their significance in the companies they own are completely irrelevant, or at least not the first thing that comes to mind. Even for me, this topic is still a bit obscure. Of course, I understand the basics now, e.g., Sampo as an owner of Nordea or Herlin in Kone, or that the more the company’s management owns shares, the better, etc. But this could be discussed a bit more deeply; what kind of ownership structure is truly undesirable (for a small investor)? What kind of ownership structure is very desirable, what owners would an investor like to see on the list? What kind of ownership structure is alarming/suspicious? What should one think if a private individual is a clear majority shareholder - and even someone outside the company? Or individuals from the same family? What is the significance of an anchor owner? What kind of anchor owner is desirable for owners? What is the significance of the increased number of nominee-registered shares? What should one think if an anchor owner sells/buys, or some big shot, even from abroad, sells/buys the company’s shares? Institutions as owners? State-owned company - is it bad or just has a bad reputation?
@Antti_Jarvenpaa: is he currently in charge of the investment school? Note: If anyone wants to discuss this topic/give their own view, please do so here 
Significance of major owners