4 ms·

Oh I thought stock implied ownership. Maybe it doesn’t mean that in this case.

by meric 8y ago

BinaryIdiot 8y ago
Not sure. I mean it might but that would be individual Federal Reserve Banks and not the Federal Reserve itself. I find it a bit confusing, heh.
stephen_g 8y ago
The shares that the commercial banks own are pretty much entirely symbolic. I believe they have no voting rights, for instance. The US Government considers the federal bank “independent within the Government”. The Fed derives all its authority from the Federal Reserve Act, legislated by Congress, and it’s run by a board appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
- dd36 8y ago
  It’s like owning stock in the Green Bay Packers.
  - erichurkman 8y ago
    The Packers are the only publicly owned, non-profit team in the league [0]. They are effectively privately held shares: you can't sell them (you can gift them to family members only), you get no dividends, you get no rights except the ability to vote. It's the only reason the Packers are still in Green Bay: to move or sell, you'd have to convince 350,000 die hard Packers fans to vote in favor of a move/sale. It's one of my favorite stocks: I never have to worry if the value is going up or down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.
    - makomk 8y ago
      It was so effective at stopping anyone from buying up and moving the team, that the NFL banned any other teams from structuring their ownership this way. Which says something about who the game's really for I guess.
    - dalbasal 8y ago
      Fantasic example, exactly the type of alternative structures that could make sense in artificial markets. I didn't know about this. One bit I'd nitpick is restricting the mission to non profit. Profits could still be good, if shareholders have the right to decide what to do with them. Non profit structures force you into spending "above the line" which muddles things by design. Having a profit is a useful health check, and profits can be spent in a more transparent way. Imagine such a structure owning street level retail real estate, a busy shopping street. Renting at market value to H&M produces more "profit" than renting at reduced prices (or free) to a community op shop. There's a trade-off that the "owners" might make, if they would like to buy more real estate or whatnot.
      - erichurkman 8y ago
        Any profits fund charities in the state of Wisconsin - and they have a rotating set of causes they work with each year. Last year I think it was senior citizen care, next year it's alcohol and drug rehabilitation.

Oh I thought stock implied ownership. Maybe it doesn’t mean that in this case.

by meric 8y ago

Oh I thought stock implied ownership. Maybe it doesn’t mean that in this case.

Not sure. I mean it might but that would be individual Federal Reserve Banks and not the Federal Reserve itself. I find it a bit confusing, heh.

stephen_g 8y ago

The shares that the commercial banks own are pretty much entirely symbolic. I believe they have no voting rights, for instance. The US Government considers the federal bank “independent within the Government”. The Fed derives all its authority from the Federal Reserve Act, legislated by Congress, and it’s run by a board appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

dd36 8y ago
It’s like owning stock in the Green Bay Packers.
- erichurkman 8y ago
  The Packers are the only publicly owned, non-profit team in the league [0]. They are effectively privately held shares: you can't sell them (you can gift them to family members only), you get no dividends, you get no rights except the ability to vote. It's the only reason the Packers are still in Green Bay: to move or sell, you'd have to convince 350,000 die hard Packers fans to vote in favor of a move/sale. It's one of my favorite stocks: I never have to worry if the value is going up or down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.
  - makomk 8y ago
    It was so effective at stopping anyone from buying up and moving the team, that the NFL banned any other teams from structuring their ownership this way. Which says something about who the game's really for I guess.
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    Fantasic example, exactly the type of alternative structures that could make sense in artificial markets. I didn't know about this. One bit I'd nitpick is restricting the mission to non profit. Profits could still be good, if shareholders have the right to decide what to do with them. Non profit structures force you into spending "above the line" which muddles things by design. Having a profit is a useful health check, and profits can be spent in a more transparent way. Imagine such a structure owning street level retail real estate, a busy shopping street. Renting at market value to H&M produces more "profit" than renting at reduced prices (or free) to a community op shop. There's a trade-off that the "owners" might make, if they would like to buy more real estate or whatnot.
    - erichurkman 8y ago
      Any profits fund charities in the state of Wisconsin - and they have a rotating set of causes they work with each year. Last year I think it was senior citizen care, next year it's alcohol and drug rehabilitation.