Talk:Joint-stock company

Wasn't the Muscovy Company founded prior to Dutch East India Company?

Hi,

This page as well as this one allege that the english joint-stock Muscovy company was founded in 1555, which would place its foundation prior to the one of the Dutch East India. Thus, unless the Dutch have founded yet another joint stock company prior to 1555, the statement at the beginning of the 3rd section(History) is incorrect.Even had the Dutch founded a joint stock company prior to 1555, the statement "The Dutch started joint stock companies." followed by "In 1602, the Dutch East India Company issued the first shares on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange." is effectively misleading in that it implies that the Dutch East India was the first joint stock company. The restriction that the shares issued by the Dutch East India Company were the first only on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange is fully diluted by the earlier claim that "the Dutch started joint stock companies.". So, regardless, the beginning of the History section needs some rewriting (assuming the information about the Muscovy company is correct, be it not, the pages above need some editing).

Best, Mircea 80.97.90.39 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the Joint-Stock Company in early England? Who and why wer the people there? or was ther people?

joint stock company

• Dutch East India Company - founded 1602
• British East India Company - founded 1600
  • Our article says - "the [British East India] Company was founded as The Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies by a coterie of enterprising and influential businessmen, who obtained the Crown's charter for exclusive permission to trade in the East Indies for a period of fifteen years. The Company had 125 shareholders, and a capital of £72,000."
    • How does that make the Dutch East India Company the first joint stock company? Jooler 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What we have here is a mixture of Anglocentric chauvinism and a definitional mix-up. Of course, the English were the first to found joint-stock companies, and long before either the Muscovy Company or the Dutch and English East India Companies. But that is because it is by definition a typically English legal form. The Dutch and other Continental Europeans had types of business organization (rederijen in the case of the Dutch) that are comparable to the joint-stock company, but not exactly the same. All these partnership forms have in common that they are predecessors to the modern public companies that sell shares on the open market. The Dutch East India Company was the first to do that, hence its claim to primacy. What is needed is an article about the joint-stock company that makes clear the distinctions and would be blissfully devoid of chauvinism. I recommend the following article, that is already given as an external link in the article [1] to help make the appropriate distinctions.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How does this differ from a corporation?

How does this differ from a corporation? I think that should be right up front. Otherwise, I think this should be merged into Corporation which covers much the same material. Smallbones 15:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Corporations are legal entities which are treated seperate and distinct from its constitutent members. This gives the corporation limited liability and perpetual succession. Joint stock companies, however, are partnerships with transferrable ownership interest. The modern for profit corporation combines these two aspects, making it, in essence, an incorporated joint stock company. Corporations that are not joint stock companies (for example, universities, towns, cities, hospitals, etc.) exist, as do joint stock companies that are not incorporated and thus do not possess limited liability (see the link at the bottom of article regarding the Texas asset protection scams w/ unincorporated joint stock companies). Pmadrid 07:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently quite muddled. The lead section explains that modern a modern public company and private company are usually types of joint stock company. Meanwhile the 'joint stock company today' section implies that joint stock companies were merely a forerunner for something else. Pmadrid's comment above is probably easier to understand than the article as it currently stands. Any takers to fix it up?--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've restored the missing "Advantages" section.

--Train guard 15:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up

I have made an attempt to improve the layout and formatting. But an expert is required to correct the facts which I suspect have subtle errors. Also, why is there an emphasis on the Russian system ? I have decided not to remove it because I am not an expert. 165.145.220.32 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NJSC

National Joint-Stock Company in Ukriane (Russian: Государственное акционерное общество) should be mentioned. Matthew_hk tc 09:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

History

History is not correct. As Virginia Company was founded in 1606, is couldn't be "the first" because the afterwards named Netherlands company was founded earlier in 1602!!!! Bahnemann (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

according to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Song_Dynasty the chinese community started joint stock companies too. these are entities where partners put money together and then hire professionals to run the business daily on their behalf. this occured around year 1100. although i am not sure if they are the first in the world to do this. 65.95.113.237 (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the section should be clearer about what the problems of definition actually are. If there are multiple firsts, they should all be mentioned along with the definition they are firsts under (c.f. University). The article currently asserts that the Virginia Company was first, but the cited material doesn't mention the Virginia Company as far as I can tell, and indeed seems to suggest that the Muscovy Company preceded it. Daf (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems.

"The shares are usually only held by the directors and Company Secretary. Debt for which they agree to be liable." Does this refer to private company or open market companies?

Also this section makes little sense: "The company is managed Of course, individual shareholders can sometimes stand for directorships within the company, should a vacancy occur, but this is unusual."

I usually don't go on talk pages, but I felt the need to bring this to your respective attentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.193.241 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the first true Joint stock company was founded in Toulouse, France in 1250.

Around 1250, the various owners of 12 mills on the river Garonne, in Toulouse, France, decide to unite and create a "joint stock company" named "Société des moulins du Bazacle".

Each partner receives in exchange for its stake in the company a notarized paper called "Uchan" or "Uchau". The company was composed of 96 Uchaux (from octavum = eight). Each Uchan was one eighth of a mill.

In the 13th century, the "société des moulins du Bazacle" accepts the coexistence of individual property rights on the shares of the mills, and the principle of collective society, ensuring the management of common interest of the shareholders. Each shareholder can use and enjoy his Uchan like any other property. The company's shares can then be transmitted freely by sale, gift or inheritance.

The price of an Uchan is determined based on the performance of the mill and its operation, as well as the economic environment. The shares can be sold or bought freely, without the consent of the other partners.

In 1372, the company evolves. From then, the shareholders do not own the shares of the mills, but the shares of the company owning the mills. The right of each shareholder therefore addresses the entire enterprise.

This very first "joint stock company" lasted from 1250 to 1946, when it is nationalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.154.131.75 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging Aktieselskab and Joint-Stock Company pages

What is the common consensus on merging the Aktieselskab page with the Joint-Stock page? As seeing that they are in essence the same thing, I think we could simply create a new section on the JSC page refering to the Dutch aktieselskab. Thoughts?

Mike.sease (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Please merge them if you can. --Dima1 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. 2 reasons: 1. This article although better remains a bit confused and lopsided. 2. It's about the general principle (or should be), rather than individual countries' specific implementations of the principle. Might as well argue to merge Limited Liability Company, Limited Company, Societe Anonyme and the rest. Mcewan (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As there is clearly no consensus to merge the pages, I have removed the merge tags on both pages. --Hegvald (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent overhaul

Hi

I just spent the last couple hours redoing the JSC page. I added some references, cut down the Russian stuff (providing a more worldwide view), added several sections, and cleaned up some other things (rewording, spelling, etc.). Any thoughts on the page now?

Replying to my previous message (above) I think someone could add a subsection under "Joint Stock companies globally" about the Dutch Aktieselskab. Thoughts?

Mike.sease (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more impressed if you got the country right! It's Denmark, not the Netherlands. Therefore Danish, not Dutch. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolving the confusion

This article seems somewhat confused. I think much of this is the result of quite radically definitions of what constitutes a joint-stock company on different sides of the Atlantic. (I'll place Russia in brackets for a moment.)

A In Britain the phrase "joint-stock company" is really just an old name of a public limited company.

B It appears that in the US a "joint-stock company" is a private unlimited company.

Polar opposites in other words

Much of the history section concerns meaning A and not B. This is particularly true in the last paragraph:

"Consequently, registration and incorporation of companies without specific legislation was introduced by the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 and further popularised by the subsequent Act of 1862. The landmark case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd established that a limited liability company had a distinct legal personality, separate from that of its individual shareholders."

In contrast the advantages and the curiously Russia focused disadvantages sections concerns B.

The first paragraph of the "Joint-stock companies globally" section deals with meaning A, and list company forms which are limited liability corporations.

Russia appears to follows the B (you'll have to forgive my reference to the Atlantic), while I'm guessing the Ukraine follows A.

I can only suggest a de-merger and replacing this article with a disambiguation page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 02:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, having done a little reading on the topic I think I get it now. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 01:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

FEATURES: ARTIFICIAL PERSON:A company is a creation of law and exists independent of its members.Like natural persons,a company can own property,incur debts,borrow money,enter into contracts,sue and be sued but unlike them it cannot breathe,eat,run,talk,and so on.It is,therefore,called an artificial person SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY:From the day of its incorporation, a company acquires an identity,distinct from its members.Its assets and liabilities are separate from those of its owners. The law does not recognise the business and owners to be one and the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.147.157 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)