Limited liability can be broadly defined as the legal protection that limits the maximum amount a shareholder or company participating in a business can lose or be charged in case there are claims against the company or its bankruptcy. Liabilities may be personal or corporate and can result from damages caused to third parties or from debts.
The liabilities that need to be limited in a capitalist system are those of firms in relation to their creditors. This type of protection may vary depending on the nature of the legal form used by the company. For instance, a limited partner can only lose his/her investment, but a general partner may be responsible for all the debts of the partnership. Or, parties to a contract may limit the amount each might owe the other, but cannot contract away the rights of a third party to make a claim.
Why is limited liability so important under capitalism? Because it allows the combination of the entrepreneurship indispensable under a capitalist system with the prudence necessary to protect the savings of investors and the development of joint private ownership. Moreover, it facilitates smoother and faster bankruptcies. So, why it took so long to be legally accepted?
The concept of limited liability can be traced back to the Romans, but it was rarely used. In the beginning there were many who considered the idea of limited liability a bad idea, because it was traditionally seen as a sign of weakness and lack of commitment among the part owners.
So, the first modern limited liability law was only enacted by the state of New York in 1811. In England, under the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1844 investors still carried unlimited liability but it was later abolished by the Limited Liability Act of 1855. Nevertheless, the extension of limited liability protection to partnerships only took place in the 1990s. Today, in the rest of the world, there are still many countries where the concept is either ignored or misunderstood.
Within the common law legal systems there were also some who did not oppose limited liability per se but condemned the fact that such privilege was granted by the government. For them, if limited liability was really needed a market for credit insurance and guarantees should be left to develop instead of a legal protection. Such markets did in fact developed but mostly only for international issues and trade where enforcing collections would be more difficult.
Indeed, under the principle of the freedom of contract the parties should be able to choose whether to ask for personal guarantees or to buy protection against the risk of default rather than be forced by law to accept limited liability. However, this would undermine the objective of fostering prudent entrepreneurship and the pooling of capital through joint stock companies which are fundamental under capitalism. This rationale applies only to joint responsibility under the various forms of incorporation, but not necessarily to personal or professional liabilities.
Professionals like lawyers, doctors, accountants and others are prevented by law and ethics from limiting their liability. The argument is that the accreditation of such professionals is not enough to assess the liability risk of their acts and therefore they must be personally responsible for their decisions so that they always make the decisions carefully. In such cases they may opt instead for buying an insurance policy.
Unfortunately, in some countries the definition of professional liability has been abused to make the protection afforded to firms by limited liability void. For instance, Portugal, in a clear violation of the principles of the rule of law, has introduced legislation allowing the tax authorities to seize the personal assets of corporate directors to offset unpaid corporate taxes.
Limited liability provides a strong discipline for both creditors and debtors. Since credits are secured only by the limited assets of the company, lenders must be more scrupulous when assessing the creditworthiness of the borrowers. In turn, this greater scrutiny forces borrowers to be more careful in the assessment and selection of investment projects. The reverse side of this process is that by not relying on personal collateral the volume of debt financing is lower which in turn may limit investment and capital accumulation. Moreover, as long as lenders rely on the future rather than the past value of collateral, the amount of leverage used may be counter-cyclical as they facilitate lending when prices are high and restrict it when they are low.
Yet, overall, these offsetting effects are not enough to reverse the tremendous rise in the role of equity and credit necessary to finance the level of sustainable capital accumulation experienced under capitalism with a rise in small and big firms alike. For instance, between 1860 and 1914, the share of British government bonds of the total market capitalisation of securities in London declined from 50 to 5%, thanks mainly to the rise of equities
Although active markets for risk sharing through derivatives and guarantees have been a positive development in modern capitalism they cannot be a substitute for the limited liability protection. Likewise, the bankers’ desire to protect secured lending by asking for additional personal guarantees should be resisted not only by borrowers but also by regulators to keep the benefits of limited liability.
In conclusion, while liability insurance markets can ease the risk of unlimited liability, the financing of private enterprise and the rise of shareholding ownership is not possible without limited liability. Therefore, limited liability constitutes the sixth pillar of capitalism. And, not surprisingly, some have argued that its unnamed inventor should rank as high as the other inventors credited with the industrial revolution.
Showing posts with label company law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label company law. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Capitalism and joint ownership
One of the fundamental freedoms under capitalism is the freedom of association to form business organizations. Joint private ownership is different from joint public ownership in the sense that the first is voluntary and the second is compulsory. Various types of organizations have been developed throughout history, ranging from the Assyrian partnership, the Roman societates and the medieval guilds to the compagnia e banchi of the Italian renaissance. However, the modern from of incorporation as a joint stock company, that we identify with capitalism, had its origins in the XVI century with the creation of the so-called charter companies.
Chartered companies were established by private promoters that were granted some concession or monopoly by the state. For example, in London the Muscovy Company was first established in 1555 with a monopoly over the trade of goods to Russia. Indeed, since the first boom in the establishment of joint stock companies around 1719 more than 140 years passed before this form of company settled with the new British Company Law of 1862, which introduced the main features of a modern joint stock company.
This is an organization engaged in business, recognized as a distinct legal entity from its members, with certain rights and responsibilities and acting as a mechanism to share risks and rewards. Most importantly, it replaced the personal liability of its shareholders by various forms of limited liability which would allow a larger number of shareholders to be organized and therefore able to undertake much bigger projects.
The law permitted companies to be established indefinitely (without any time limit) and not, as before, only for a limited number of years. So, big corporations could now be established by private investors under the new form of a Joint Stock Company.
This facilitated the public offering and negotiability of ordinary shares, essential for pooling funds and sharing the risk and rewards of investment. The issue of tradable shares had existed ever since the early Roman times when the Societates issued their shares or particulae. Even the chartered companies, such as the East India Company, were established by pooling together the capital of about 250 merchants. Yet, as they were typically placed among a limited group of people, mostly family or business acquaintances, they were not widely held by the public and were not actively traded in the early years of the Stock Exchange.
This was due to the basic distrust of issuers about disclosing their profits and sharing them with unknown people and risking the loss of control of the business to other people. Investors were also suspicious about any hidden reasons as to why a business owner should want to share their business. This was stimulated further by the recent memory of the occasional speculative bubble and other flotation scams such as the infamous South Sea and Mississippi companies in 1719-1720.
Only after the first slave-trade mania between 1827 and 1836 were shares widely held and tradable in the Stock Exchange. Still, most of these shares were preference shares, a class of shares that dominated the issue of equity instruments until the early years of the 20th Century. Preference shares were clearly preferred by company managers as a way of keeping control of their companies.
The process to recognize by statute the existence of incorporated companies was also a long journey. Initially incorporation was seen as a very cumbersome process, which was only worthwhile if it involved the granting of some Government monopoly, as was the case with most chartered companies. For most businessmen the partnership form had the major advantage of avoiding interference of the state. Also, public opinion associated incorporation with promotions of speculative companies such as the South Sea and the Mississippi Companies.
Similarly, the process of raising capital by instalments also gave rise to scams and many investors were easy prey for unscrupulous issuers. The most common scam was to make big issues requiring little paid-in capital to attract less sophisticated investors and then run away with their money.
For many of the same reasons, the separation of ownership and control was also a long process. The overriding idea or obstacle was summarized in Carnagie’s motto that “what is anybody’s business is nobody’s business” and it is much more so when there is a large dispersion of institutional ownership.
Not surprisingly, the separation of ownership and control only reached a significant level between 1900 and 1920, with a clear separation of responsibilities into three distinct levels: the company, the shareholders and its directors. To these, one should now add a new layer made up of professional fund managers. This was partly due to the rise of investment trusts, holding companies and the result of better accounting (despite the standards of modern accounting having been developed only from the 1940s onwards).
The separation between shareholders and the company was instrumental to reach the widespread use of equity and the impressive growth in share dealing. Other factors highlighted in modern theories of the firm such as reduced transaction costs and information technology also played an important part. But, bearing in mind that the growth of big firms also implies the growth in non-market transactions, one must question if its trade destruction effects are smaller than the trade creation effects resulting from more investment and more activities being carried out by profit-driven organizations.
Marxists and other anti-capitalist thinkers in the late 19th century pointed out that capitalism had a self-destroying mechanism, since the untamed rise of big firms would cause so much trade destruction that competitive markets would account only for a residual share of total transactions, unless the growth and size of such firms was capped. This led to the introduction of antitrust laws in most countries, inspired in the US Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. These laws were aimed at curbing anti-competive practices by prohibiting cartels, dumping and other collusion practices as well as laws to regulate corporate consolidations ending up in the creation of monopolies or oligopolies that would limit competition.
As usual, left and right wing interventionists (e.g. socialists and corporatists) wanted as much regulation as possible while right and left wing laissez-faire supporters (e.g. classical liberals and anarchists) wanted no regulation at all. So, the role of antitrust laws has been permanently questioned and changed. Yet, after more than a century we still do not have enough empirical evidence to define a "good degree of regulation". Nevertheless, a middle-of-the-road solution is to have tough anti-competition laws and flexible anti-concentration regulations.
In relation to the various forms of joint private property one needs to remember that many of the alternatives to joint stock companies like partnerships, mutuals, friendly societies, credit unions and so on, although still in operation, have been increasingly opting for corporate structures, in particular in the mortgage-banking sector.
Finally, it must be noted that joint private ownership could not develop without limited liability. Indeed, the size of large business operations needed a large number of shareholders which could be reached only if the partnership was not entirely dependent on the life of its main owner-shareholder or heirs and if the transfer of shares was possible. Moreover, this liberated the poor from their dependency on the state to invest their meagre savings. And, as a consequence, most large firms today are owned by institutional investors whose end-owners may be big or small investors. For instance, pension funds in the OECD countries accounted in 20111 for about 10% of the US$D 32 trillion invested by institutional investors in listed equities.
In conclusion, joint private ownership is an essential right under capitalism since it is one of the main drivers of its success as a wealth production machine. Nevertheless, it must be exercised mostly through regulated corporations financed by small and big capitalists alike so that capital accumulation can benefit from the pooling of resources without unnecessary damage to competitive markets.
Chartered companies were established by private promoters that were granted some concession or monopoly by the state. For example, in London the Muscovy Company was first established in 1555 with a monopoly over the trade of goods to Russia. Indeed, since the first boom in the establishment of joint stock companies around 1719 more than 140 years passed before this form of company settled with the new British Company Law of 1862, which introduced the main features of a modern joint stock company.
This is an organization engaged in business, recognized as a distinct legal entity from its members, with certain rights and responsibilities and acting as a mechanism to share risks and rewards. Most importantly, it replaced the personal liability of its shareholders by various forms of limited liability which would allow a larger number of shareholders to be organized and therefore able to undertake much bigger projects.
The law permitted companies to be established indefinitely (without any time limit) and not, as before, only for a limited number of years. So, big corporations could now be established by private investors under the new form of a Joint Stock Company.
This facilitated the public offering and negotiability of ordinary shares, essential for pooling funds and sharing the risk and rewards of investment. The issue of tradable shares had existed ever since the early Roman times when the Societates issued their shares or particulae. Even the chartered companies, such as the East India Company, were established by pooling together the capital of about 250 merchants. Yet, as they were typically placed among a limited group of people, mostly family or business acquaintances, they were not widely held by the public and were not actively traded in the early years of the Stock Exchange.
This was due to the basic distrust of issuers about disclosing their profits and sharing them with unknown people and risking the loss of control of the business to other people. Investors were also suspicious about any hidden reasons as to why a business owner should want to share their business. This was stimulated further by the recent memory of the occasional speculative bubble and other flotation scams such as the infamous South Sea and Mississippi companies in 1719-1720.
Only after the first slave-trade mania between 1827 and 1836 were shares widely held and tradable in the Stock Exchange. Still, most of these shares were preference shares, a class of shares that dominated the issue of equity instruments until the early years of the 20th Century. Preference shares were clearly preferred by company managers as a way of keeping control of their companies.
The process to recognize by statute the existence of incorporated companies was also a long journey. Initially incorporation was seen as a very cumbersome process, which was only worthwhile if it involved the granting of some Government monopoly, as was the case with most chartered companies. For most businessmen the partnership form had the major advantage of avoiding interference of the state. Also, public opinion associated incorporation with promotions of speculative companies such as the South Sea and the Mississippi Companies.
Similarly, the process of raising capital by instalments also gave rise to scams and many investors were easy prey for unscrupulous issuers. The most common scam was to make big issues requiring little paid-in capital to attract less sophisticated investors and then run away with their money.
For many of the same reasons, the separation of ownership and control was also a long process. The overriding idea or obstacle was summarized in Carnagie’s motto that “what is anybody’s business is nobody’s business” and it is much more so when there is a large dispersion of institutional ownership.
Not surprisingly, the separation of ownership and control only reached a significant level between 1900 and 1920, with a clear separation of responsibilities into three distinct levels: the company, the shareholders and its directors. To these, one should now add a new layer made up of professional fund managers. This was partly due to the rise of investment trusts, holding companies and the result of better accounting (despite the standards of modern accounting having been developed only from the 1940s onwards).
The separation between shareholders and the company was instrumental to reach the widespread use of equity and the impressive growth in share dealing. Other factors highlighted in modern theories of the firm such as reduced transaction costs and information technology also played an important part. But, bearing in mind that the growth of big firms also implies the growth in non-market transactions, one must question if its trade destruction effects are smaller than the trade creation effects resulting from more investment and more activities being carried out by profit-driven organizations.
Marxists and other anti-capitalist thinkers in the late 19th century pointed out that capitalism had a self-destroying mechanism, since the untamed rise of big firms would cause so much trade destruction that competitive markets would account only for a residual share of total transactions, unless the growth and size of such firms was capped. This led to the introduction of antitrust laws in most countries, inspired in the US Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. These laws were aimed at curbing anti-competive practices by prohibiting cartels, dumping and other collusion practices as well as laws to regulate corporate consolidations ending up in the creation of monopolies or oligopolies that would limit competition.
As usual, left and right wing interventionists (e.g. socialists and corporatists) wanted as much regulation as possible while right and left wing laissez-faire supporters (e.g. classical liberals and anarchists) wanted no regulation at all. So, the role of antitrust laws has been permanently questioned and changed. Yet, after more than a century we still do not have enough empirical evidence to define a "good degree of regulation". Nevertheless, a middle-of-the-road solution is to have tough anti-competition laws and flexible anti-concentration regulations.
In relation to the various forms of joint private property one needs to remember that many of the alternatives to joint stock companies like partnerships, mutuals, friendly societies, credit unions and so on, although still in operation, have been increasingly opting for corporate structures, in particular in the mortgage-banking sector.
Finally, it must be noted that joint private ownership could not develop without limited liability. Indeed, the size of large business operations needed a large number of shareholders which could be reached only if the partnership was not entirely dependent on the life of its main owner-shareholder or heirs and if the transfer of shares was possible. Moreover, this liberated the poor from their dependency on the state to invest their meagre savings. And, as a consequence, most large firms today are owned by institutional investors whose end-owners may be big or small investors. For instance, pension funds in the OECD countries accounted in 20111 for about 10% of the US$D 32 trillion invested by institutional investors in listed equities.
In conclusion, joint private ownership is an essential right under capitalism since it is one of the main drivers of its success as a wealth production machine. Nevertheless, it must be exercised mostly through regulated corporations financed by small and big capitalists alike so that capital accumulation can benefit from the pooling of resources without unnecessary damage to competitive markets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
