Crazy Idea

Cont.

These bonds would allow her security because it is not always guaranteed how much she is going to make per tour, and they offer an overall interest payment of 1.25m. That amount is easily serviceable for her.

Corporations are considered people by law and they have stock issuance abilities. These “People” stocks would have to go through an entirely new exchange, ex. IIIB (International Individual Investment Board.) The requirements for listing would be evaluated later, it would probably revolve around line of work, and credit score.

These are just some ideas, don't take them too seriously. I would like to hear what you guys think about making these ideas more plausible and realistic. If any of you want to go through with implementing this contact me at [email protected] (not my real name). I have a sizable amount of money I would be willing to contribute to start this.

File: CYel59BUMAA3ICB.jpg (37KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x300px

Dave already done it m8

the first idea will fail because of laws regarding issuing shares, tax, personhood etc


the second idea is just a simple debt instrument/contract that should work fine of course you'd probably want to do it through a company anyway

>>1101390
But those failed because they were based on royalties instead of planned tours and merchandise, and this stock idea is completely different.

Because you can't buy and sell humans (slavery). Stock = equity = ownership

>>1101393

I can’t find any laws regulating people selling a share of their net worth on a financial exchange such as a stock market. I asked my friend in business law and he has no clue about the regulations of such an idea. If you created an exchange and had it approved by the SEC, why couldn’t people exchange stock of themselves as if they were a corporation.

>>1101383
Just start a hedge fund, it's pretty much the same shit minus the slavery implications.

>>1101399
It would be more equitable to equity in your net worth. Loans are debt correct? not a slavery obligation. It would be like when a company offers equity in the form of a claim of the corporation’s assets.

>>1101400
i missed the first few lines I thought you created 1m shares of nothing and took 200k from people

the problem is a lot of tax legislation (at least in my country) overrides accounting and contracts custom and laws

so you might find your self getting stuff deemed income or treated on a cash basis

i think youre coming at it from the wrong direction anyway, most countries let you set up a full liability company that transfers profits straight to you personally, so what advantage would this have?

>>1101404
You are talking about bonds or debt. You can do this is called taking out a loan. That loan can be bought and sold, priced according to your credit worthiness, and in certain cases claims can be made against your assets in court.

What you're talking about isn't stocks at all. Its just a personal loan

>>1101409
>>1101410
I understand the differences between personal loans, bonds, and other debt obligations. But what I am talking about is not a debt obligation at all. I am talking about an individual behaving as a corporation in the sense that they would issue “stock” or equity that represents a fraction, or the entirety of their net worth. The share price would rise as the person issuing the stock made more money or became more famous. With personal debt you need to pay it back, with this you would never have to because it is a claim of equity at your net worth. This system would not only benefit investors, it would also be able to make the original issuer wealthier as well because they would hold a substantial share and they would be able to issue a dividend to themselves and their investors. The dividend would affect net worth because it would add to equity and assets. The whole bond idea could just be considered a debt obligation; I realize that now; but the stock idea is still unique.

>>1101435
and when you go to issue stock your country probably has laws about it forcing it to be in a company structure otherwise it will be treated as debt

Someone hasn't read the Unincorporated man.

>>1101435
The person selling their net worth stocks would most likely end up killing them self in the unfortunate event of going bankrupt

Because without incorporation you can't issue stock. There is zero perpetuity with human life. A corporation will live forever in theory and has the potential to generate revenue long past your eventual death. Because excessive personal use of corporate assets is called "piercing the corporate veil" and essentially nullifies the inc. The list goes on.

>>1101435
So whats to stop you from issuing a bunch of shares and then filing bankruptcy or just spending all your money? Without any ownership stake in the underlying entity (you) I dont see how this investment would be attractive at all.

Your posts are tl;dr, but I think this is relevant: http://www.wired.com/2013/03/ipo-man/

If this is the same article I read a year or so ago, it's a great read

>>1101453
I can't find any laws explicitly saying that you must formalize a corporate structure in order to issue stock. But in the off case that is true; why not have the person become their own corporation? If your networth is 100m plus, the tax write offs and other benefits outweigh the law fees and accountant fees.
>>1101459
That person would only be liable for their share of their net worth... They would never owe excess monies unless they made debt obligations externally. Also that's why regulations would have to be somewhat strict.

>>1101464
Thanks for that article, the idea is really similar to what I was thinking.

>>1101482
The part where he breaks up with his gf due to stockholder decision is hilarious

>>1101461
>>1101462
Ok if you don't think the stock idea is doable, how is the bond idea doable?
How would you even go about creating such an instrument? Should I contact the celebrities first and then an investment bank? Also, could the bonds ultimately make up a "Celebrity tour hedge fund"? Thanks for all your input everybody.

>>1101482
The key difference is shareholder ownership. Without shareholders owning a piece of you (slavery) and being able to step in and make sure you are maximizing profitability, this idea doesn't work

>>1101487
The bond idea is interesting. If you mean an exchange where you could trade personal debt like securities. That sounds cool

>>1101487
Just write it up as a contract

>>1101487
You would need a bank to underwrite the securities and then SEC approval to open an exchange. The scope of the whole thing is pretty ridiculous, though, and will never happen

How about making a papertrading site where you could turn the whole thing into a game of sorts

>Pension funds buy up a majority of Anon, Inc
>board of directors decide Anon isn't maximizing profits
>vote to make Anon into a gay porn star

You're going to make a lot of retirees very rich Anon!

>>1101491
>>1101494
Alright, I see now that the equity idea is impractical and convoltued.

The exchange where you could trade personal debt securities is a very good idea; if I were to get groups of people to combine their debt into a fund that investors could buy bonds, common stock, and preferred stock; could it be listed on an exchange if it follows all other regulatory requirements?

>>1101515
I like this idea a lot too, it is a lot less regulatory and arduous compared to actually starting up what I described earlier.

>>1101534
The only probelm I could foresee is some celebrities becoming upset about the whole thing and trying to sue the website for some stupid reason.

>>1101383
Well think about it from the investors point of view, they wouldn't want their stock (person) to run off with all that cash and not re invest it in their education or music or whatever

Interesting idea, and it would help alot of A grade kids get their college/uni paid for. But then, even though I think it is ethical, the question of it being slavery/unethical would arise and it would be a very slow process.

Cool idea though

>>1101464
That's fucking scary. Giving that many people that much control over your life for just money?

>>1101383
>Why can't we issue stock in ourselves?

We can. I read about it in thomas sowell's basic economics. But I totally forgot the name of it.

The reason people don't do it is because you have to pay out so much god damn money.

>>1102773
Thanks I'll check that book out and see what he says about it!

>>1101383
Milton Friedman wrote about this in capitalism and freedom. Basically he says people issue debt to finance college, why not equity? Maybe you sell a, 5%stake in yourself to raise capital for school ,then give 5% of your future earnings to the investor. Also a science fiction book called The Unincorporated Man was about this topic, pretty good read about some of the implications.

Friedman noted that there's nothing stopping us from issuing equity in ourselves. Write up a contract.

>>1102982
I'm glad I'm not the only one who ever thought of it, I want to know the legality behind these "human capital contract". I would be interested in starting up a firm connecting investors and borrowers.

>>1101383
We decided that people aren't allowed to be owned because slavery is bad, mmkay?

Seriously if anyone is interested in starting a human capital contract firm contact me [email protected]
(Not real name)

>>1101383

It's funny how people who have never gone to college always make these dumbass posts to make sure we all know who the retards are

In a business, whoever controls the board can issue stock as they wish. If I convince OP to buy 20% of my equity, do you know what I would do the next minute? I'd issue myself 200 billion more stocks, and dilute OP's stake to pennies. This literally happened in the Facebook movie, I didn't even watch it and I know of it.

Also, it's just fucking stupid, you really think someone will be like "well I want to move to California...but this random guy has a 51% stake in my life, so I think I ought to listen to what he tells me to do".

>>1103289
Rude post man, but I can see why people would think it was stupid, hence the crazy idea title... I really didn't mean that you would become the slave of the equity holders. What I meant is you can only issue "stock" equal to your net worth, the value would fluctuate as your net worth fluctuated. A similar idea to this is a human capital contract. I'm throwing around some ideas, better than shilling some stock or crypto coin. I do respect your input nonetheless.

>>1103289
Plus you could technically just enact regulations preventing diluting the original amount if that was not implied by my original post. I've been a victim of stock dilution and it is a very crappy thing to be a victim of.

>>1103289
Chill out bro. College isnt a requirement for being on this board. Even if it sucks, this thread is about 10x more interesting than all the shitcoin and socialist threads.

The problem with the idea is there is no shareholder ownership. Stocks are useless without ownership in the company

>>1103405
Here check this link out;

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa462.pdf

It's a long read but it explains an equity like instrument that can be used to finance student loans. I was thinking what if you took the concept and applied it to any type of loan. The human capital contract is a more realistic approach to what I was thinking of earlier.

>>1103415
Ive heard this idea floated a few times, but never read that paper. I'll check it out. I really like the idea of exchange traded personal debt, but heres three problems off the top of my head to opening it to the public:
1. Do credit reports become publicly available to everyone and does this aid in identity theft?
2. Would banks underwrite securities for relatively tiny personal loans?
3. How do personal bankruptcy laws change to become more like Chapter 11?