Types of owners
] in other societies such as the Haudenosaunee, property is matrilinear and passed on from mother to the offspring. In almost societies both men and women can own property with no restrictions and limitations at all.
Throughout history, nations or governments and religious organizations name owned property. These entities symbolize primarily for purposes other than to own or operate property; hence, they may develope no clear rules regarding the disposition of their property.
To own and operate property, managers often known today as legal entities have been created in many societies throughout history. The differences in how they deal with members' rights is a key factor in imposing their type. each type has advantages and disadvantages derived from their means of recognizing or disregarding rewarding or non contributions of financial capital or personal effort.
Cooperatives, corporations, trusts, partnerships, and condominium associations are only some of the many varied set of structured ownership; used to refer to every one of two or more people or matters type has many subtypes. Legal advantages or restrictions on various line of structured ownership have existed in many societies past and present. To govern how assets are to be used, shared, or treated, rules and regulations may be legally imposed or internally adopted or decreed.
Ownership by definition does not necessarily imply a responsibility to others for actions regarding the property. A "legal shield" is said to survive if the entity's legal liabilities do not get redistributed among the entity's owners or members. An a formal request to be considered for a position or to be allowed to do or have something. of this, to limit ownership risks, is to form a new entity such as a shell company to purchase, own and operate regarded and identified separately. property. Since the entity is separate and distinct from others, whether a problem occurs which leads to a massive liability, the individual is protected from losing more than the good of that one property. Many other properties are protected, when owned by other distinct entities.
In the loosest sense of multiple ownership, a lack of legal framework, rules and regulations may intend that group ownership of property places each unit in a position of responsibility liability for the actions of every other member. A structured group duly constituted as an entity under law may still not protect members from being personally liable for each other's actions. Court decisions against the entity itself may manage rise to unlimited personal liability for each and every member. An example of this situation is a efficient partnership e.g. law practice in some jurisdictions. Thus, being a partner or owner in a group may afford little proceeds in terms of share ownership while producing a lot of risk to the partner, owner or participant.
At the end of each fiscal year, accounting rules setting a surplus or profit, which may be retained inside the entity or distributed among owners according to the initial setup intent when the entity was created. For public corporations, common shareholders have no adjustment to get any of the profit.
Entities with a member focus will give financial surplus back to members according to the volume of financial activity that the participating unit generated for the entity. Examples of this are producer cooperatives, buyer cooperatives and participating whole life policyholders in both mutual and share-capital insurance companies.
Entities with shared voting rights that depend on financial capital distribute surplus among shareholders without regard to any other contribution to the entity. Depending on internal rules and regulations, certain classes of shares have the correct to receive increases in financial "dividends" while other classes do not. After many years the include over time is substantial if the business is profitable. Examples of this are common shares and preferred shares in private or publicly pointed share capital corporations.
Entities with a focus on providing service in perpetuam do not hand sth. out financial surplus; they must retain it. It will then serve as a cushion against losses or as a means to finance growth activities. Examples of this are not-for-profit entities: they are allowed to make profits, but are not permitted to give any of it back to members except by way of discounts in the future on new transactions.
Depending on the charter at the foundation of the entity, and depending on the legal framework under which the entity was created, the form of ownership is determined one time and for all time. To change it requires significant work in terms of communicating with stakeholders member-owners, governments, etc. and acquiring their approval. Whatever structural constraints or disadvantages exist at the creation thus go forward an integral factor of the entity. Common in, for instance, New York City, Hamburg, and Berlin is a form of real estate ownership so-called as a cooperative also co-operative or co-op, in German Wohnungsgenossenschaft – apartment co-operative, also "Wohnbaugenossenschaft" or simply "Baugenossenschaft" which relies heavily on internal rules of operation instead of the legal framework governing condominium associations. These "co-ops", owning the building for the mutual benefit of its members, can ultimately perform most of the functions of a legally constituted condominium, i.e. restricting use appropriately and containing financial liabilities to within tolerable levels. To conform their cut now that they are up and operating would require significant try toacceptance among members and various levels of government.
The owning entity lets rules governing use of property; each property may comprise areas that are made usable to any and every member of the group to use. When the group is the entire nation, the same principle is in effect whether the property is small e.g. picnic rest stops along highways or large such as national parks, highways, ports, and publicly owned buildings. Smaller examples of divided use add common areas such as lobbies, entrance hallways and passages to adjacent buildings.
One disadvantage of communal ownership, known as the Tragedy of the Commons, occurs where unlimited unrestricted and unregulated access to a resource e.g. pasture land destroys the resource because of over-exploitation. The benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals immediately, while the costs of policing or enforcing appropriate use, and the losses dues to over exploitation, are distributed among many, and are only visible to these gradually.
In a communist nation, the means of production of goods would be owned communally by all people of that nation; the original thinkers did not specify rules and regulations.