Arguments Basic Comparison
<-- Next-->

Basic Non-comcom and Comcom comparison:

  1. The normal companies (being Non-ComCom) are those defined only in one point (when $d=0$) ,
    • whereas the ComCom are defined as one line in all other points including 1 (as $0<d<=1$), meaning
      • there are much more possibilities for structuring your businesses as ComCom then as Non-ComCom;
        .
  2. ComCom structuring of a business add a lot new things to the commercial world as we know it today:
    • Unlike between the p-holders, one c-holder can not earn from the other's lost and in the event of disagreement, the argumentation is better just because, unlike the case between p-holder or between them and their stuff etc,the position of the talker does not qualify her/his arguments. for more see here the green-sky-argument ;
    • the problem of the position of the talker (if high the must be excepted) as the one qualifying her/his argument, which can not appear between those who are equal as the c-holders are (also see the green-sky-argument)
    • between p-holders one can earn from the failure of the other, which is not the case between the c-holders
    • decentralisation, this means that big manipulation affecting the prise of share , as are normally done in stock market just for providing better exit for the one manipulating it, well such are harder to make if possible at all
    • no take over, if you care for your causes then you should care for the ownership of what you produce! When that would be ComCom, one thing you would know: There will be no one entity to hold ALL of it. Meaning - no take over for latter handing it over to the richer in higher price and in exclusivity. see also this personal thread (Are you using and/or developing under open-source/free-software/creative-common/ etc etc and believing in this cause, while knowing how google abuse mozila or drupal etc etc )
      .
  3. ComCom restructuring is useful in hard time as we are in,
    • since it spread the investment with ownership and since it allows more bottom-up structuring of companies and since it is peacefully bridging between the rich and poor, as each ComCom is mainly for what we would call small businesses and net of ComComs is like what we could see as big corporations. This adds to the value of ComCom vs Non-Comcom in 4 principal categories, namely
      • raising its capital,
      • cutting its expenses,
      • increasing until stabilizing its market (in other way to say it: each comcom could last longer while still be smaller),
      • having more loyalty with better (more constructive) activity (such as bringing more info or friend point-view arguments etc) of its clients (when are its c-holders);
        .
  4. The weakness of comcom vs Non-comcom are 2, namely
    • The redaction of shares per c-holder with entry of another, this is solved when reaching a specific threshold, and in correlation to $c/(c+1)$ (where $c$ is the current number of c-holders, e.g. if $c=5500$ then the redaction as the expected offset in raise of share price is of $0.018178513$% ), this also can be inspect by c-holders since they have authority for this diluting and can be designed with expectation for increase of share price offseting that decrease.
    • Yet there is no awareness to it in the public, no market yet, this we need to build. we need to build the market demanding ComComized coca-cola instead of the existing coca-cola ones. We have the mile-stone of 5500 holders in iswith ltd for to mark for ourselves establishing the base of that market;

back


<-- Next-->

By iswithiswith, on 09 Jul 2012 00:39 history Tags:

comcomized-logo.png

~~Page's End!~~ Ignore ads by installing adblockplus.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License