? Then, how did these enterprises develop from the early Nordic trading companies, take root in the European economy, and finally embed the dreams and ambitions of European civilization?
? These companies are very different from the glory Badzak mentioned earlier. Investors in the latter can check their assets every day. Shareholders in Toulouse are of course aware of the risks of floods and fires, but the probability of these risks can at least be assessed. However, the risks of trading on the other side of the world are almost completely unknown. For this reason, the organizational form of joint-stock companies meets the needs of both parties through the circulation of shares and the separation of ownership and control.
? During Queen Elizabeth's time in Britain, due to the lack of domestic capital market, Queen Elizabeth was forced to borrow from international and basic markets. Due to the channel borrowing but unable to repay in time, Britain's credit rating became very bad, and the loan interest rate reached 14%. Unlike other cities in continental Europe, Britain did not issue bonds in the past. At that time, the government had only a few choices: it could tax, borrow money, sell or transfer its rights. But most marketable rights have been sold in the past.
? 1553, Elizabeth accepted a plan to find an alternative route to India, which came from Moskville Company. The purpose of its establishment is to open up a northeast route, so as to bypass Siberia and reach China, and at the same time, they will gain the monopoly right of the unknown mainland in the north. Moskvay Company is generally regarded as the first modern joint-stock company. Wealthy investors put their capital into the company and share the risks and rewards. The joint-stock company will always exist as an investor team.
? The shares held by the company's investors represent ownership, but different from modern equity, the investors at that time were also obliged to provide extra capital when the company needed it, and this extra capital brought unequal burden to the investors. Some investors can't invest more capital to meet the needs of the company, so they can only sell their shares to the original investors or new investors who can provide additional capital, so the secondary market of the company's shares naturally appears. Today, a modern company can continue to raise funds by issuing and selling new shares. Therefore, Moskville Company has some characteristics of modern companies, but it also lacks some other characteristics, such as limited liability.
? Many scholars, including Dari Martini, attribute the successful transformation of the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company to the limited liability system, which enables enterprises to meet short-term capital needs by issuing bonds.
? 16 12 After the articles of association were revised, the Dutch East India Company began to change to the permanent capital system. On the one hand, the government has a strong will to continue to operate the company, because the East India Company represents the tough guy of the country's overseas interests, and the overseas assets of the East India Company are also difficult to price and flow.
? Is corporate system the best model for overseas trade and eventual colonial expansion? This is still controversial. A more reasonable view is that the relative success of Britain and the Netherlands stems from advanced financial technology. Compared with the royal family, which needs to consider many other goals and lacks sufficient funds to achieve these goals, the economic strategic policies formulated by the entities controlled by businessmen can better ensure economic growth.
? It seems that in some cases, private enterprises can also be used as national tools to achieve their strategic goals. Opening more fields and industries to private enterprises may be worth considering.
Today's bibliography, Millennium Financial History, chapter 18.438+09.