3 ms·
I'm pretty sure the origin of shareholding was that it allowed the owners of corporations to avoid liability for the criminal actions of the corporation, and to
by photochemsyn 4y ago
I'm pretty sure the origin of shareholding was that it allowed the owners of corporations to avoid liability for the criminal actions of the corporation, and to limit possible losses to the value of the shares.
For example, imagine a corporation that specializes in Ponzi schemes and other methods of systematic defrauding of its customers. By becoming a shareholder in that corporation, one can profit from that criminal activity, and if any prosecution ever takes place, it will only be the employees and executives of the corporation who go to jail, not the shareholders. This is really what investment capitalism is all about: ownership without responsibility.
This is of course a simplified picture as shares are only one of a variety of securities, and understanding what securities are is the first step in financial education:
> "Securities appear in different forms such as bonds, stocks, bank notes, futures, options, forwards, swaps, etc. Depending on the distinguished characteristics that each of these securities holds, they are categorized into different types such as debt securities and equity securities. The securities that are used for the purpose of obtaining credit such as bank notes, debentures, bonds are known as debt securities. The securities that are being transacted as a result of the investors’ interest towards the assets of firms are known as equity securities such as stocks and shares. Further, the derivatives including options, futures and forwards formulate an agreement between two parties to buy or sell assets in the future date at a pre-agreed price."
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-shares-and-vs-securities/ https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-shares-...
- gruez 4y ago> I'm pretty sure the origin of shareholding was that it allowed the owners of corporations to avoid liability for the criminal actions of the corporation, and to limit possible losses to the value of the shares. This statement has so many issues. 1. According to wikipedia it was awarded to trade guilds and monasteries in the 15th century, way before the advent of corporations 2. it's a stretch to say a particular nefarious use of something (in this case limited liability to avoid criminal liability) is the "origin" of something. There are non-nefarious uses of limited liability, eg. in the case of a bad investment. Saying otherwise it's like saying "the origin of a defense lawyer is to allow criminals to avoid punishment". 3. being in a corporation doesn't magically make you immune to prosecution. You can't form a hitman LLC to murder people with impunity. Being in a corporation does make it harder to assign blame, and it's easier to prosecute corporations than people (they don't have 5th amendment rights for instance), which is the reason why you see cases of the corporation paying a fine or whatever but the directors getting off scot free. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability