- All these things can be coded as capital with the right legal coding. So a simple firm, if you just use that term, or you say a business organization, is just an economic undertaking. Two persons that can get together and just start a mom's and pop shop, trade something, create a new algorithm or use software to code a new platform and find some money maybe from a venture capitalist and bring this to the market. There are lots of economic ideas and power and ingenuity going into this. And yet I think we again have to unpack it and understand what is the legal form behind this to really see how the capitalist system works. The law, for example, already says, if there are two people who get together and do a business for profit, we consider them to be a partnership. Why do they do this? Because as a long tradition that people came to courts and said, you know, I did something with my friend, ex and somehow he then left and I was left with all the debt and what do I do now? And so, they started configuring out of the agreements formal or informal agreements that people have made a legal construct, which they call a partnership. So, you might not even know this, but if you get together with somebody else and you do something for profit, you are a partnership and that has certain consequences. One consequence is that you are in it together. And if people wanted to enforce against your little company, they can enforce not only against your company but also against your private asset. Because unlike a corporation, a partnership doesn't give its owners limited liability. So, you are in it together if you do something for profit. Worth recalling when you ever, if you ever do this because it might be helpful to go to a lawyer and set up a corporation if you want limited liability. The other implication is that, you are actually managing the firm together. And the third thing about a partnership is, if one of you pulls out, the thing collapses. No longer exists. You can get around this through contracts and designing sort of partnership agreements that allow for substitution, but for that you need probably a lawyer. But the really important innovation for the capitalist economy was the corporation. So, where does the corporation come from? You can go back to Roman times and find something like a legal entity. An entity that's not like you and me a natural person that can breathe and talk and watch and and write contracts. But it's just an abstract notion. But it's treated as a legal person in the sense that, that legal person can own assets, it can contract in its own name as a legal person and it can sue and be sued in its own name. These are the fundamental characteristics of a corporation. Roman law had legal persons, but Roman law did not use legal persons for business. Roman law used legal persons mostly for public purposes. So, he created a separate legal entity. You funded separately, you separated from other budgets and it delivers certain types of services. The origins of the modern business corporation really start with colonial companies. The two big companies, the English East India company and the Dutch East India company were the first modern business corporations if you like. They were created and chartered by the state, by the Crown in England, by the Journal Estates in the Netherlands. They were funded with merchant capital. So, it was a public private partnership. We might say today between the government, the state and private parties. Why did they need the government? Well, first of all, you have to have to create a legal person. You and I can't just create a legal person. We can do this today if we register, our company with the appropriate registry. But note, the register is kept by a government agency. Without that registration, you don't have a corporation. You might have a partnership, doesn't give you limited liability, doesn't give you legal entity status. If you want to have a corporation, you have always the state involved because it's a creature of the law. Again, like intellectual property rights, it's the creature of the law. So, the English East India company was chartered in 1600 by Queen Elizabeth and its purpose was to secure the trade routes to East Asia. And that of course means to monopolize trade routes. The Dutch East India company was chartered shortly thereafter and had the same purpose trying to monopolize trade with East Asia. And both companies also were told that if they encountered people along the way, they had the right to rule over them. And they also were given cannons and military equipment to fight if necessary. And the merchants of course put the money in there because they were hoping for profits by trading in foreign countries or maybe bringing stuff back home. While all the spices of course, from India that had become fashionable in Europe. So, the colonial enterprises were really important. Of course, there were other companies before, but they worked very differently. So, the original trading companies of the 16th century before we had these big corporations were joint ventures, joined stock companies, they were called, but they were not legal persons. A joint stock company is basically merchants getting together, pulling their assets, going on a journey, making a lot of money coming back, dividing up the stuff that they made amongst them according to the shares that they put in and to solving the entity. If they wanted to do another journey, they would do another company, right? So, it was basically a venture. And then, they created the organizational structure for a venture, but they didn't have an entity that would exist potentially forever because you can create a corporations for many, many decades. The original colonial companies were created only for several decades at a time. But over time, corporations got indefinite lifespans. So, they live much longer than the models that govern them that own them or that work at them. The East Indian companies were pretty successful. They made another of of important legal innovations, but it took another two centuries or so for the corporation to become a standard part of the legal systems of European nation states. So, corporate statutes were enacted in the French system, in the German system, in the English system. And at different times in the 19th century, they also decided that, they would no longer require parties who wanted to create such a corporation to come to the government and ask for specific permission for this venture and explain what they wanted to do. But they said, well you can actually now create corporations off the shelf. We're creating a statute that says if you fulfill certain kinds of conditions and you register afterwards, then you are a corporation then you have created a corporation, right? The original corporations still have some funny features. So, if you think about the state of New York and acted the first free incorporation statute in 1811. So, that's quite a while ago. And it had some features that we would recognize as rather strange. Today, for example, it said you live only for 20 years. And then, we might recharter you or may not, but you have a life spent only of 20 years. It also said that you can't accumulate more than a hundred thousand dollars in capital. So, maximum ceiling of capital. Also strange, many statutes today still have some minimum capital requirements for corporations, but not a maximum ceiling. So, these features on the law tell you that, the legislatures were a little bit unsure whether they did the right thing, but saying, let's have free incorporation. You can just, if you fulfill certain conditions, you can set up a corporation and that corporation has a life on its own. And of course, as we know today, they actually did have a life on its own. Because many of these funny provisions, many of the constraints that were put in place to ensure that, the corporations would not develop into these Frankenstein monsters were overturned very quickly. And what we have today is arguably something like a Frankenstein monster world of major corporations that govern our data or oil resources that are reluctant to change to the demands of climate change. That of course also have produced a lot of wealth along the way. Let's just ask a simple question, namely, who owns the corporation? So today, many people would argue the shareholders are the ultimate owners of the corporation. But what actually do shareholders get when they buy a share in a publicly corporation? A shareholder gets the right to vote for the board of directors once a year. A shareholder has the right to participate in the profits of the corporation, if there are any, and if the board of director decides to pay our dividends, if they don't, they don't. And the shareholder in a publicly traded corporation not necessarily in a closely held corporation has the right to freely sell his or her share. So, certainly they have a property, right? However, defined in that share, they can sell the share. But do they really own the corporation? Let me just tell you what a shareholder cannot do. Shareholder cannot manage the company itself unless you are the only shareholder or you're just a couple of shareholders, you decide to do this. In a publicly traded corporations, shareholders do not manage the company. Even a controlling shareholder in principle shall not dictate to management what to do because they're the management or the directors. Everybody's in it together. They're all sitting in the same boat in that corporation. So, if one just the heavyweight controlling shareholder says, I can call the shots, the others might suffer. So, the whole idea is that it's not a collective of shareholders that maybe jointly have something like an ownership interest, but not a single shareholder does. And not even a controlling shareholder. Neither can shareholders just go and grab the assets of the firm. Now, if they own the firm, they should be able to do this, but they don't because the firm owns its own assets. That's what a corporation does. That's what a legal entity does. It separates the corporation itself from the shareholders and the assets of the corporation belong to the corporation. If the shareholder went in and took them, it would commit theft. Of course you can liquidate the corporation. You can liquidate the corporation, but then it no longer exists and you can liquidate it with a super majority vote by the shareholders or because it goes into bankruptcy, then the assets out for grabs and then the assets will be dis distributed to either the shareholders or to the credit tax. So as I said earlier, in the 19th century, different countries, one after the other in Europe and then in other parts of the world as well allowed corporations to freely register and become corporations just by following the letter of the law without a special government permit. This was quite important and actually started the movement if you want the rise of the corporate form to the most dominant organizational form in the economy. Prior to that, there were many different types of organizations. There were cooperatives, there were some hybrids between partnerships and corporations. There were limited partnerships. A whole plethora of different organizations. But once the corporate form became available off the shelf, it became one of the most attractive organizations out there. In the 20th century, we also saw a lot of reconfiguration of corporate law and surprisingly enough, one of the most important jurisdictions is the little state of Delaware. So Delaware has most of the largest corporations that are traded on public markets in this country, registered as Delaware corporations. Now, they can do business all over the United States and potentially also elsewhere in the world because most other legal systems will recognize them as corporations. But remember that they're legal creatures. They exist under the laws of Delaware and it takes an extra act of recognition that can be standardized, but it's still an act of recognition that other jurisdictions will recognize these companies. How come did Delaware become such an important state for incorporating companies? It didn't have a big industrial base. That was actually in the 19th century was an agricultural state. But it realized that, chartering corporations are becoming the major hub for incorporation would be a great boon for its budget because it could charge companies for incorporating in Delaware. And given that, there was not so much other revenue coming in that made up an important chunk. How do you attract companies to come to Delaware while you write a corporate law that is of interest to those who make the incorporation decision? And that's typically a mix of shareholders and management, particularly management, these are the people who make the decision to reincorporate a small little company that they might have started out in a different state and say, let's just go to Delaware and then we make it public. And then, we live with it elsewhere. The fact that, Delaware was not an industrial state also meant that, there were no labor unions or other constituencies that would try to counter the interest of shareholders or managers in the design of the corporate form. So, New Jersey and New York were of course the first states that had most corporations and that enacted corporate statutes. And then Delaware came along and said, actually we can offer even more. And it was able to capture the market for incorporation. In the 21st century, we see a couple of additional developments and I just want to bring them out here because we very often think that, a corporation is just the same as the business entity, but that's not necessarily the case. The business entity, the undertaking the firm, if you want the enterprise is the business organization. But we can organize in law the business organization in many different ways. We can create a single entity, one corporation. And then, we have subdivisions that have nothing to do with the law, but we just organize them economically. Or we can start carving out different legal entities from this one unit and make sure that, then there's a parent company like a holding company. And then, we have lots of subsidiaries how we can use the legal system to turn the corporate form into just a form for business organization also into form fermenting capital for creating additional wealth. Let me show you how this works in practice. And here I'm offering little institutional autopsy of Lehman Brothers. Lehman Brothers was one of the big investment banks that participated in securitized mortgages and was big not only in originating mortgages, but also trading the kind of financial instruments that the trusts, the special purpose vehicles had issued and trading other securities, making a lot of money simply by being in the financial market, creating new assets and trading those of others. But how did they do this? So, they had a big holding structure, a parent company incorporated in Delaware. Interestingly enough, it also had 60 further units incorporated in Delaware and had about 34 units incorporated the United Kingdom, another 30 or so units incorporated in the Cayman Islands. And then, a couple of additional ones sprinted around the world. More than 200 registered subsidiaries, but many other special purpose vehicles trust in other types of entities. Why did they do this? So, you see a basically an economically integrated entity that uses the corporate form to create hundreds, not just dozens, hundreds of separate entities. One possible explanation could be is that, that Lehman Brothers was international. So, maybe you have to create a corporation in different jurisdictions and in fact some countries require you, if you're in the financial service business in particular, to set up an entity in your country if you want to operate it so that they can regulate that entity. But that wasn't the main driver for Lehman because as I mentioned before, it had 60 additional entities in Delaware. No reason to do that really for questions of international business. So, why did they set this up? So, what they actually did is for each new instrument or for each new financial strategy they set up a separate entity. That's of course, first of all, at risk diversification strategy. Once you set up a separate entity, that entity is legally separate from everybody else which means that, if it goes under, nobody else has to go under in principle because it's a separate entity. The shareholders, in this case, the holding company that owns the entity or maybe there's a sub-level in between. So, the owners of this entity are protected by limited liability. So, we have a shielding effect here as well that makes a lot of sense from risk diversification along. But that's not all what they did. To the contrary, they even violated the risk shielding a little bit. What Lehman did is basically setting up a subsidiary for almost every new business undertaking, financial assets, new financial strategies. Then, they needed money to fund these operations. That money typically came from borrowing on the markets. Why would the creditors give these little entities money? Well, they would say, actually we have a capital base which is the equity that our parent company put into it. And by the way, our parent company is also willing to guarantee that, we will be able to pay back our debt which basically means that the parent company which in principle is protected by a limited liability doesn't have to stand in for the debt of its subsidiary, says, in this case, we will stand in for the debt of our subsidiary that lowers the cost of credit finance or debt finance for that subsidiary and they can get the money from the market and the quotas don't think further because they think, well, Lehman holding companies won't go under will it. It's just such a viable entity has been with us since the early 19th century when three brothers from Bavaria set foot in Montgomery, Alabama and created a little cotton trading entity that, that went to New York and became a big investment bank. So you know, Lehman won't go under. And so, they would give a lot of money to these entities and Lehman Holding would say, we will back it. But when you unpack Lehman really before it collapsed, what we had was a situation where the parent company had assets, but these assets were mostly the shares it owned in all the subsidiaries that it had created and the sub subsidiaries. At the same time, it had assumed obligations for all the debt these subsidiaries had incurred. And when some of these subsidiaries could no longer service their debt and the quotas were knocking on the doors of Lehman Brothers. At some point Lehman Brothers had said, sorry, we have nothing left because our assets of the subsidiaries. the subsidiaries can't pay their debt. They're almost going under as the value of our assets are going under, we don't have the liquidity to pay you. And actually we might be on the verge of insolvency if the value of the assets further declines and we can't get a liquidity boost from somewhere else. That's a situation in September just before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. But what happened in between with all the money that was made along the way. While that money went to the shareholders of the Lehman Holding Company. So, whenever any of these entities were making money with these new financial assets that they created, the new intermediaries, they might have set up are typically assets created or assets that have traded. All the returns went right up to the top and were paid out to shareholders either through dividends or through share repurchase programs which many companies had started doing regularly first and excessively by basically allowing shareholders to recoup their investments all the time. Then maybe buy additional shares and the hope that they could recoup relatively quickly. So, we are in a situation where these financial intermediaries, large major investment banks such as Lehman Brothers become a center for creating new types of wealth by harnessing the power of the corporate form to divvy up different assets. Pools get lever up, getting outside funding in the form of credit, using any profits to pay back the shareholders, to keep the shareholders happy and then if need be closed down this or that subsidiary. The problem of course is when markets turn down in general, the asset value declines and you can no longer manage the amount of debt that you have incurred in the meantime. That was the end of Lehman Brothers. There is still debates about whether Lehman Brothers was just illiquid, just didn't have enough cash on time to service all the creditors or truly insolvent. I would say it's almost a mute question because when you look at the structure of Lehman Brothers, you can actually see that it was a bit of a house of carts. 'Cause its assets where the subsidiaries the subsidiaries were over levered. The company had committed to step in and back up the subsidiaries. And of course, when you just pulled out a couple of cards at the bottom, the whole thing had to collapse. What is more surprising is that, not more companies face the same fate. They did almost as you, as you might recall or from 2008, the central banks in the United States, the Federal Reserve system and the central banks in England and elsewhere stepped in and offered liquidity to companies and also allowed other investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, et cetera, to reorganize them very quickly into bank holding companies so that they would have access to the liquidity support that the central bank gives. That's again, a government entity. So, I've been talking a lot about how the law creates entities. You have a corporate form that's a creature of the state. You can mimic some of these features in contract of course, but having off the shelf this particular package of legal privileges, legal features that create these legal persons that are separate from everybody else. That's what the law does. Another phenomenal source, a social resource that helps create wealth is, of course, our public money system. That's where the central banks come in. And by combining the two, having sort of access to central banks and using the legal system to create wealth, that's one of the most powerful ways in which wealth is created today. But it's a social resource, not just a private resource.