All Russian citizens were issued shares of all the state-owned means of production. What ensued was a mass sell-off of these shares for absurdly low prices (think: bottles of vodka).
Did a median person who didn’t sell get a significantly better outcome (e.g. at least 10× more vodka)?
One big problem was that after years without market economy, there were no traditional mechanisms to protect shareholders even against obvious theft. (I have observed what happened in Czechoslovakia, but I assume the situation was similar in most post-communist countries.) So for example the management of the previously state-owned company started their own private company, moved all assets from the old company to the new one, and then let the old one collapse. The shareholders then remained empty-handed.
Did a median person who didn’t sell get a significantly better outcome (e.g. at least 10× more vodka)?
One big problem was that after years without market economy, there were no traditional mechanisms to protect shareholders even against obvious theft. (I have observed what happened in Czechoslovakia, but I assume the situation was similar in most post-communist countries.) So for example the management of the previously state-owned company started their own private company, moved all assets from the old company to the new one, and then let the old one collapse. The shareholders then remained empty-handed.