The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
IMHO conventional Equity is not "equitable" in terms of sharing risk and reward, and neither is a Debt contract. If you combine the two by using debt secured over assets owned by a company then you get two conflicting claims over the same asset
There's no conflict. Lenders are "senior secured", ie they get first dips on the security when it is invoked - until they get paid. In normal times, they are entitled to specific payments; if these payments cannot happen, then they can make a claim on security. This is all laid out in the financial documentation. The legal form is fundamentally irrelevant, what matters is the precise definition of the rights and obligations of each party.
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The legal form is fundamentally irrelevant, what matters is the precise definition of the rights and obligations of each party
The use of an LLP or LLC as a legal form allows those financiers "outside the box" - should they wish, and to the extent they desire to - to come within the LLP/LLC legal protocol/framework which defines "the rights and obligations of each party" and thereby to share risks and rewards as they may consensually agree.
If all you are doing is borrowing then the legal form of the borrower is irrelevant, I agree. But I am observing new alternatives to borrowing - Income Trusts being one, and "Capital Partnerships" being another .
"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed"
Am I right in thinking that the debt problem is basically too many people needing to make a profit as costs rise--inflation? Or that those with the most money demand over-the-possibilities payments for loaning out their money?
Jerome makes me think he'd say: "If banking is done correctly there cannot be an over-the-possibilities arrangement."
But...I think the key is right as Jerome says: Why should bankers try and be builders too? Each to their own area of expertise.
To which I imagine a reply: "It depends if the builders are more interested in building or making a profit."
If the latter, then back to the issue about over-the-possibilities...okay, I'm not expressing myself well.
Sviatoslav Richter - Moments
I'm thinking, okay, a company can't declare the future, there are unkowns, risks of all kinds, so we need a cushion--say 4-6%. How big the cushion should be--I suggest those numbers from what I've read.
So a manufacturer quotes at 4-6% above costs (where costs include paying staff well, including all the way back to raw materials, so costs may be higher than average)--(but the profit is at 4-6% max as it's laid in stone more or less--it's the price of the risk--where risk has to avoid "rip off"--maybe impossible in some cases, but with wind farms there is already plenty of legislation for all parts of the process.)
So--I build wind turbines, or know people who do (I'm thinking of Crazy Horse); they are the people who like building wind turbines and 4-6% (or tell me a number--I'm interested!) is fine--it oils the wheels without covering everything in sticky gloop.
So as long as a financier can raise enough cash--lock in! Guarantee business against production. Note that buying longer brings stability (order ten years production of steel up front--I think this is part of Chris's idea--that everyone can buy in, lock in to an equitable (no one is taking more than 4-6% and that's understood to be fair liquidity)--and if costs drop, then 4-6% on top is still 4-6%.
A money hound--a person after profit--will shop elsewhere while there are businesses generating higher profits.
Okay. Start with products that rely less on money hounds. Energy! Communities need it (I think the CO2 kicker--hey, I get my electricity from the wind, mate! will allow wind prices to stay above other forms--stability!)
(cough cough! I mean, if I saw wind turbines on the hills surrounding our town, and I knew I was a partner in those wind turbines, and I knew everyone down the line was playing 4 to 6 and not "rip your pockets", then as long as it was affordable....)
So: if financiers and manufacturers (builders) could come together at four to six, would prices be higher or lower, assuming all other variables are the same whether they do or don't? (Maybe a big if!)
Because if that works, I'll buy in. I understand the energy credit as being ownership of production much as Jerome said with bread. If I have rights to my potential X percent of grain, I have my access to my bread. I can give those rights (in the form of money of some kind) to the baker, but the total of credits in the system add up to the production. We all lose if no grain grows, so we're all that bit more involved in making sure grain grows = I (we!) can continue to eat bread.
Moving out of the comfortable countries, there are going to be food riots across the globe soon (I'm happy if I'm wrong)--prices are rising and populations are high--a crash that would be completely avoided if (I suggest!) the farmers and communities were linked in as Chris (I'm suggesting!) suggests. And the energy suppliers (food production needs energy--melo's electric tractors!), and the suppliers of chemicals (of the non-toxic to life kind)--that could be those who collect guano--it could be a link in with the refuse collectors--organic waste becomes fertiliser in realtime.
But why would a banker want to worry about all that?
Why would anybody?
Because separate-but-equal doesn't work?
I was thinking of Rupert Murdoch's brain today, wondering if he thinks just like the average thickhead. How else would he know how to push all their buttons, and why else would he want to? The average thickhead wants control, sex, money, more sex, wine, wo/men, just everything that Murdoch sells, with CONTROL number one and FEAR just above it (but given, not asked for--); and I think: "Why aren't there any newspapers I can read without tut-tutting my way quickly from front to back?"
Somehow that's connected.
I'm wondering "How far are we going to go with this intelligence we all have? Where there are walls there is fear. Where there aren't walls there are things to be afraid of, maybe. But how do we know if we never go outside the walls and how do we get safe if we have no protection? By getting symbiotic--by living as far as we can within a culture of win-win relationships--
Importantly: with nature. Chris mentioned finite resources. How does any banking that suggests we can live above 4-6% percent--how does that work? Because the profits end up as consumption somehow (more use of finite resources) or else there's no need for them (above 4-6%)
Shostakovich plays Piano Concerto No 2 III. Allegro (1958)
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by IdiotSavant - Sep 28 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 18 63 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 13 33 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 7 79 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 8 82 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 4 18 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 28
by IdiotSavant - Sep 286 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1863 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 1333 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 882 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 779 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 418 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 3014 comments