I'm willing to be convinced different, but I think it would be better if companies had to be owned by a person or people ie that companies can't own companies.

It seems a layer of indirection that is more harmful than useful.

▲

epistasis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

As somebody who really appreciates being able to own a ton of different companies in small amounts in my retirement account, I'm not sure if this is the right way to solve the problem.

Requiring full disclosure of all ownership stakes, traceable back to individuals, is probably a better route for this.

And it seems that there's a trend towards that, last company I registered had a new process for listing beneficial ownership of all significant amounts. Just need to push that legislation further.

	▲	onraglanroad 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure what you see as a difficulty here. You own a bit of those companies. You're a person. What do you see as the problem?

▲

fooker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s harmful until you are the one getting personally sued by random grifters.

We limit liability for risky ventures for a reason.

	▲	dragonwriter an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> We limit liability for risky ventures for a reason. Because the investor class had the political powers to get that protection written into law for themselves, so as to externalize risks while privatizing rewards.
	▲	piker 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes but there’s nothing stopping the shareholders of company A from forming company B rather than company A dropping it as a subsidiary.

▲

piker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Honestly as a corporate lawyer I have never heard this view expressed, but it’s super interesting.

▲

onraglanroad an hour ago | parent [-]

What are some obvious objections that would spring to your mind?

Edit: sorry, that was very abrupt! Nice to have your input. I would be interested to hear what you think would be problematic about the Idea.

▲

piker an hour ago | parent [-]

It's inefficient in the case of a wholly-owned subsidiary to require company A's shareholders to hire lawyers, setup bank accounts, books, etc. for a separate company B which ultimately provides the same limited liability vis-a-vis third parties. Joint-ventures become tricky between corporations. Corporations can't hold potentially toxic assets. There are quite a few good ones. Interesting nonetheless.

Also as with all corporate law questions, <other jurisdiction> allows it, so we'll just go there instead.

	▲	onraglanroad 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure I understand your first point. If a company can't own another company there's no such thing as a "wholly-owned subsidiary". If you buy a company they become the same company. I'll try to stick to one thought at a time.