3 ms·

When we hear the word "owner" we associate that with full ownership, as if you own a car, house or whatever and take care of it and use it. This kind of owners

When we hear the word "owner" we associate that with full ownership, as if you own a car, house or whatever and take care of it and use it. This kind of ownership is much closer to lending money to someone. While they are technically owners, emotionally speaking the arrangement is much more as if Elon Musk owns the company and the "owners" lent him money. Elon Musk is the person who has built the company and spent a considerable amount of time working in it, putting his heart and soul into the company. An investor can jump in at any time and become an "owner". Does not mean an investor has the same emotional attachment to the company. Say you build a house with lots of efforts over many years and live there for decades. To pay the bills you sell ownership shared in the house to investors. What happens to that house is going to matter a lot more to you than the investor. It is not without reason that family run companies often outperform stock owned companies. When you have an attachment to a company beyond mere short term profit, that is a stronger bond.

jacquesm 8y ago
> This kind of ownership is much closer to lending money to someone. No it isn't. It's 'fractional ownership', a mechanism designed to defray the risks of a single venture across multiple people because the risks were larger than any single individual could bear. The case that created it was the India runs with ships that could carry more valuable cargo than any individual could afford to buy or insure. Spreading that risk through fractional ownership eventually led to the stockmarket. So it absolutely not at all like lending someone money.
- walshemj 8y ago
  And also to the railroads a lot of the capital that built Americas railroads was from UK Investment Trusts (some of which still exist) with mainly middle class shareholders
- jernfrost 8y ago
  I thought it was abundantly clear that I know that. In context it should have been clear that I was referring to the psychological aspects of it. To the person starting a company, it will not "feel" very different from borrowing money from someone. What you are talking about are the concrete technical differences. We have no disagreement on those. From the perspective of a person starting a company, he has to decide how to obtain money for building the company. He can borrow or he can issue stocks. Both methods give him money. The difference is in how the risk is spread and how the benefits are spread. The person starting a stock company can't pay profits to himself without also doing so in equal measure to other stock owners. With the bank he only has to pay the interest on the loan.
txsh 8y ago
We’re not talking about emotions. We’re talking about laws and contracts. Investor = owner

jacquesm 8y ago

> This kind of ownership is much closer to lending money to someone. No it isn't. It's 'fractional ownership', a mechanism designed to defray the risks of a single venture across multiple people because the risks were larger than any single individual could bear. The case that created it was the India runs with ships that could carry more valuable cargo than any individual could afford to buy or insure. Spreading that risk through fractional ownership eventually led to the stockmarket. So it absolutely not at all like lending someone money.

walshemj 8y ago
And also to the railroads a lot of the capital that built Americas railroads was from UK Investment Trusts (some of which still exist) with mainly middle class shareholders
jernfrost 8y ago
I thought it was abundantly clear that I know that. In context it should have been clear that I was referring to the psychological aspects of it. To the person starting a company, it will not "feel" very different from borrowing money from someone. What you are talking about are the concrete technical differences. We have no disagreement on those. From the perspective of a person starting a company, he has to decide how to obtain money for building the company. He can borrow or he can issue stocks. Both methods give him money. The difference is in how the risk is spread and how the benefits are spread. The person starting a stock company can't pay profits to himself without also doing so in equal measure to other stock owners. With the bank he only has to pay the interest on the loan.

txsh 8y ago

We’re not talking about emotions. We’re talking about laws and contracts. Investor = owner