Patrick, of course they do have a 'system' - but for one stock - in which the issuer is also the underwriter, sole broker and exchange. Now, if other stocks were listed, a 'trading system' would need to be established. While the current set-up does appear to allow for that in future, DBourse ensured me by private mail that that was not planned for at least two years, together with a snide remark that nobody else qualified anyway. Which makes me wonder by which double standards they would evaluate qualifications anyway. And that in turn, brings me back to the original question of listing rules ;o)
A 'clearing facility' would be an independent party that accounts and audits the funds DBourse holds for investors and operators of listed companies during the trading day. After all, to be permitted to play, you need to fork over your gold first. For a one-stock show that is perfectly acceptable. For multiple listings it would become questionable. I mean, just imagine they did liberally accept anyone with proven positive cash flow and good reputation to list on the exchange. Then let's say a couple of years down the track there are thousands of investors 'playing the market' and millions of gramms in DBourse's holdings and the only record there is of everything is proprietary electronic system without overseeing body, no clear rules, no accountability... It could be a glitch, it could be human error or a number of other things, but suddenly funds are missing, in the wrong account, shares have been manipulated, anything out of the ordinary and you risk mayhem without a clearing facility. Also, and maybe more importantly so, from a certain point onwards you'd have smaller players - lots of them - and a few funds wanting to trade. Tens of thousands of users at the same time. That is when the system would need brokers. But nobody would want the brokers to handle funds; again, a clearing facility would help. We could spin this ad infinitum, but let's just say, if DBourse was laid out to become a facilitator for the enhancement of the gold community the they'd be planning for explosive growth and a clearing facility right there from the beginning. Of copurse, as mentioned, they seem to want to only promote their own stock and not trade any others - or so they said. JMR, I believe that the point James is trying to make is mainly that 'somebody' other than the issuer of the shares should determine the amount of shares the issuer can issue. What are shares in the legal sense? A partial ownership of the assets of the issuer which entitle the holder to participate in the profits generated by the issuer using those assets. At the same time, owning shares gives share holders certain rights and claims on those assets if the issuer defaults. In the current set-up, it is obvious that those rights are either not granted [ie. shares are non-voting] or not enforcable as the issuer can set dividends as he sees fit. Indeed, as the actual legal status is not clear at all, the issuer might opt to see itself as a common law association and might lay charges on shareholders. Hold your breath. Legally the issuer can demand additional investments for expansions of the business "in the best interest" of the common members of the unregisterd association. In case of default - ie. share holders not forking over - the association would have the right to suspend dividend to the non-payer, indefinitely, block the sale of shares for non-performance and do all sorts of weird and nasty stuff - including confiscation and selling off of share holder's assets. And, even outside Sealand, nobody could do anything about it. Of course, the good people at TGC would never do something like that. In fact, I'm certain they never even thought about it and are now on the phone to their lawyer to see if I'm right, which the lawyer will either belatedly confirm or alternatively try to avoid answering because he isn't sure and has to look up case law and decission precedents [hint British and German Common Law Associations] The funny thing about 'no rules' is, that there are still rules applicable - common law rules - unless the jurisdiction in question specifically excludes common law rules in it's constitution, which nobody has ever done. I rest my case. Cheers, Robert. budget & privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net budget & privacy domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
