3 ms·

I find it strange that details of the owners of a private company isn't publicly available information in the first place (speaking as someone from a country –

I find it strange that details of the owners of a private company isn't publicly available information in the first place (speaking as someone from a country – the UK – where this is publicly available information). In the UK (and I'd assume many other countries), you can see the owners of private companies on the Companies House website[0], along with those with 'significant control' and financial statements. It's pretty interesting and useful to look at sometimes. [0] https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-a-company https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-a-company

HL33tibCe7 2y ago
Companies House is the exception rather than the rule. The UK is actually very good at this.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  Without taking from your point, I believe you can have a UK limited company owned by an entity in a different jurisdiction that's less good than the UK.
askonomm 2y ago
Same in Estonia. You can see the owners / shareholders of every private company and also all the financial / tax information per financial quarter (and year).
SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
It’s very state dependent in the USA. Some states, like Texas, require the owner be public and the actual owner of the LLC.
smsm42 2y ago
Why is it strange? I do not see why there would be an expectation that details of company's investor relationships would be known to people that have nothing to do with company's business. "Pretty interesting" doesn't sound like a good justification.
- jononor 2y ago
  Companies run the world. Many are as large as entire countries, and have huge influence over large aspects of peoples lives - from media, to food, to medicine, etc. That makes it in the publics interest to have insights into how they are controlled. Follow the money.
  - smsm42 2y ago
    Controlling and investing are completely different things. Control is exercised by the board and the management, and these are pretty much universally public for a large company. However, investment does not have to come with a seat on the board - a large one can, and then, again, it would be public, but it doesn't have to. You seem to confuse entirely different things.
- johneth 2y ago
  It's useful to know who owns a company or know a company's financial state for anyone who wants to do business with that company. It adds a level of transparency that makes it easier if you're at the beginning of a relationship with a company (i.e. there may not be a large amount of trust at the start of the relationship; knowing who owns a company and its financial state can be good signals).
  - smsm42 2y ago
    It may be "useful" for me to inspect your private bank accounts (maybe you are a good investor and I can learn something!) but it's no justification for me to violate your privacy. It may be very "useful" for me to know the business plans of my competitor, but gaining access to them is usually qualified as criminal. "Useful" is not something that authomatically gives access to private information just because somebody wants to. > knowing who owns a company and its financial state can be good signals That makes no sense. Public companies are owned by hundreds of individuals and entities, and the company has zero control over it, making any conclusions based on that is nonsense. Moreover, even private company can't really block an investor from selling their share to another investor, why would anyone take it as a "signal" to anything, except the signal that the buying investor considers it to be a good deal? This looks very much like an instance of motivated reasoning.

HL33tibCe7 2y ago

Companies House is the exception rather than the rule. The UK is actually very good at this.

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
Without taking from your point, I believe you can have a UK limited company owned by an entity in a different jurisdiction that's less good than the UK.

askonomm 2y ago

Same in Estonia. You can see the owners / shareholders of every private company and also all the financial / tax information per financial quarter (and year).

SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago

It’s very state dependent in the USA. Some states, like Texas, require the owner be public and the actual owner of the LLC.

smsm42 2y ago

Why is it strange? I do not see why there would be an expectation that details of company's investor relationships would be known to people that have nothing to do with company's business. "Pretty interesting" doesn't sound like a good justification.

jononor 2y ago
Companies run the world. Many are as large as entire countries, and have huge influence over large aspects of peoples lives - from media, to food, to medicine, etc. That makes it in the publics interest to have insights into how they are controlled. Follow the money.
- smsm42 2y ago
  Controlling and investing are completely different things. Control is exercised by the board and the management, and these are pretty much universally public for a large company. However, investment does not have to come with a seat on the board - a large one can, and then, again, it would be public, but it doesn't have to. You seem to confuse entirely different things.
johneth 2y ago
It's useful to know who owns a company or know a company's financial state for anyone who wants to do business with that company. It adds a level of transparency that makes it easier if you're at the beginning of a relationship with a company (i.e. there may not be a large amount of trust at the start of the relationship; knowing who owns a company and its financial state can be good signals).
- smsm42 2y ago
  It may be "useful" for me to inspect your private bank accounts (maybe you are a good investor and I can learn something!) but it's no justification for me to violate your privacy. It may be very "useful" for me to know the business plans of my competitor, but gaining access to them is usually qualified as criminal. "Useful" is not something that authomatically gives access to private information just because somebody wants to. > knowing who owns a company and its financial state can be good signals That makes no sense. Public companies are owned by hundreds of individuals and entities, and the company has zero control over it, making any conclusions based on that is nonsense. Moreover, even private company can't really block an investor from selling their share to another investor, why would anyone take it as a "signal" to anything, except the signal that the buying investor considers it to be a good deal? This looks very much like an instance of motivated reasoning.