jhrothjr wrote:
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Amir Kolsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>Two questions.
>>
>>1. Why does it say: 'Non-Profit'?
>
>
> It needs to be some form of employee-ownership
> with no ownership rights for anyone who is not
> making a ground level contribution. Othewise
> you simply have another consultancy and
> contracting firm.
>
> Common stock represents an ownership
> right that is severable from the original
> holder. In other words, it can be bought
> out, traded, is subject to hostile takeovers
> and too many other things that have nothing
> to do with making a living by providing
> a service.
>
> I'm not at all interested in that.
[clip]
There are provisions that could be applied to stock
owned by employees such that the stock may not be sold
during tenure, and that leaving the firm results
in a buy-back. In my imaginary firm, the buyback
might be in the form of equivalently-valued non-voting
stock, which indeed could be traded (assuming the firm
had achieved the maturity for its stock to be presented
on an appropriate exchange).
That's just my naive take. But a law firm's model
(whatever that is) could be applied. Clearly those guys
are not non-profits, and clearly they know how to
apportion ownership and control to suit themselves.
And to limit liability. They'd probably even set up
something entirely suitable, for a fee. :-)
LB
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
