3 ms·

I agree, seize the company and take ownership of all its assets, including IP, at a minimum. Fines and punishments with no teeth are not any good for the public

I agree, seize the company and take ownership of all its assets, including IP, at a minimum. Fines and punishments with no teeth are not any good for the public interest.

olliej 3y ago
But what about the harm that does to the shareholders? I wish I were being facetious, but while a lot of scummy people and companies own shares, a lot more just move cash in various forms out of the company into independent entities. If the company has all its assets seized by some mechanism, presumably all the large shareholders: pension funds, 401ks, etc are subject to even more penalties and there are no assets or even potential future income to compensate them. Essentially you get the Great Recession or Enron effect where large numbers of retired or near retirement people suddenly no longer had pensions or retirement savings. Your only real option is to charge all the individuals involved and send them to jail, and fines for everyone and everything else - though the fines for the company have to be more than the potential profit by a large amount. Otherwise you run into a problem where say one person working for the company wants a bonus and realizes a fraudulent listing would get him that bonus? In your model that one person functionally bankrupts the company vs fining and jailing that person and fining the corporation for failing to ensure adequate controls on entries to the orange book.
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  You have to break some eggs to make omelettes. How many families have been broken up and sent into poverty because a white collar criminal was thrown in jail and their assets seized? Obviously I wish side effects didn't happen, but unless there are consequences it will continue to happen with impunity.
hedora 3y ago
It is easier than that. Issue nine shares of stock for every one outstanding, and split it evenly between victims (if applicable) and a new public offering. Make sure the victims have 90% control of the company after that, by giving them multiple non-transferrable votes per share. Also, make sure they are organized enough to vote as a block (to replace board members, etc).
- hakfoo 3y ago
  Let's go proactive. In exchange for the legal conveniences that being a limited-liability/stock company offers, you must issue to the state a class of shares that are nontradeable/zero-dividend (and thus do not dilute valuation) but voting, representing 49% of the voting power. A well-behaved company would see little difference there; the state-owned shares would typically abstain or vote with management. But if they get too brazen and abusive, the board is gonna have to figure out how to handle what is effectively the ultimate hostile investor: "line goes up" means nothing to them, but "the public's pissed they still can't afford their meds" does.

I agree, seize the company and take ownership of all its assets, including IP, at a minimum. Fines and punishments with no teeth are not any good for the public interest.

olliej 3y ago

But what about the harm that does to the shareholders? I wish I were being facetious, but while a lot of scummy people and companies own shares, a lot more just move cash in various forms out of the company into independent entities. If the company has all its assets seized by some mechanism, presumably all the large shareholders: pension funds, 401ks, etc are subject to even more penalties and there are no assets or even potential future income to compensate them. Essentially you get the Great Recession or Enron effect where large numbers of retired or near retirement people suddenly no longer had pensions or retirement savings. Your only real option is to charge all the individuals involved and send them to jail, and fines for everyone and everything else - though the fines for the company have to be more than the potential profit by a large amount. Otherwise you run into a problem where say one person working for the company wants a bonus and realizes a fraudulent listing would get him that bonus? In your model that one person functionally bankrupts the company vs fining and jailing that person and fining the corporation for failing to ensure adequate controls on entries to the orange book.

lost_tourist 3y ago
You have to break some eggs to make omelettes. How many families have been broken up and sent into poverty because a white collar criminal was thrown in jail and their assets seized? Obviously I wish side effects didn't happen, but unless there are consequences it will continue to happen with impunity.

hedora 3y ago

It is easier than that. Issue nine shares of stock for every one outstanding, and split it evenly between victims (if applicable) and a new public offering. Make sure the victims have 90% control of the company after that, by giving them multiple non-transferrable votes per share. Also, make sure they are organized enough to vote as a block (to replace board members, etc).

hakfoo 3y ago
Let's go proactive. In exchange for the legal conveniences that being a limited-liability/stock company offers, you must issue to the state a class of shares that are nontradeable/zero-dividend (and thus do not dilute valuation) but voting, representing 49% of the voting power. A well-behaved company would see little difference there; the state-owned shares would typically abstain or vote with management. But if they get too brazen and abusive, the board is gonna have to figure out how to handle what is effectively the ultimate hostile investor: "line goes up" means nothing to them, but "the public's pissed they still can't afford their meds" does.