Ritchie\’s quite wondrous really

So Ritchie sees a discussion paper from the OECD which says the following:

Investor confidence in financial markets depends in large part on the existence of an accurate disclosure regime that provides transparency in the beneficial ownership and control structures of publicly listed companies.

Pretty uncontroversial I would have thought. The various stock exchanges of various countries have just such reporting requirements in place already. Anything approaching even within a hint of a soupcon of a stake that could give management power must be reported and publicly disclosed.

Ritchie takes this to mean:

So let’s have beneficial ownership on public record, now

Ritchie wants all all corporations, trusts, LLPs and all the rest, every single structure, to have to provide publicly available details of beneficial ownership.

The OECD says this is terribly important for publicly listed corporations.

Ritchie takes the OECD as agreeing with his campaign. Apparently having missed the \”public\” bit there.

7 thoughts on “Ritchie\’s quite wondrous really”

  1. Unit Trusts, Investment Trusts and OEICs hold significant stakes in a majority of listed companies. So every time some individual bought or sold a £1000-worth of units in one of these funds, every single company in their portfolio would have to report a change in beneficial ownership.
    Is Murphy incapable of thinking through the consequences of his plans or just unwilling to make the effort?

  2. Tim – you only have to disclose significant share-holdings – holdings that might allow you to influence policy decisions. To disclose all beneficial share interests would be a colossal additional expense.

  3. @ Diogenes
    For LSE rules, yes; for Murphy no!
    “Finally, regulators and supervisory agencies have a strong interest in knowing beneficial owners – in order to determine the origin of investment flows, to prevent money laundering and tax evasion and to settle issues of corporate accountability.”
    You can launder $15bn without reaching the trigger of 3% of Apple’s market capitalisation.
    And the investment flow starts with Joe Soap buying $1000 of units in a Fidelity or Vantage fund.
    When I tried to tell Murphy his FTT would involve thousands of charges of less than 10p each every month (quoting published data on LSE AIM dealing) he claimed it would be costless.

  4. John77 (#4) – I assume you were also called a troll. Tim has pointed out the lunacy of an FTT on numerous occasions, and I see nothing from the TRUK site that suggests Murphy gives a toss about what Diogenes (#3) rightly says would be ‘a colossal additional expense’ – I’d need to consult my copy of Murphy’s book but I think the odds are that under the Courageous State, Stock Exchanges would eventually be removed, as they were in Russia between 1918 and 1989…

  5. @ Van _Patten
    Murphy was frequently less polite on that and other occasions when I pointed out that he was wrong, to the extent that on a final insult I demanded an apology or he would get a libel suit. He promised to delete the offensive comment at the same time as declaring I was banned for life from his blog. A day or two later I pointed out that he had deleted my (true) post but not his lie in reply: he claimed a technical glitch and removed it.
    Murphy never responded to my suggestion that if he claimed to be a Christian he should not only tithe, as I do, but encourage his readers to do so as well. Not long after he accused me of “hating the human race” because I disagreed with one of his stupidities.

  6. John77 (#6)

    He comes across as one of the most intemperate people I’ve seen on any forum – By any reckoning he would be construed as a dangerous fanatic – I once labelled him ‘The Most Dangerous man in Britain’ on Twitter which with his outsized ego he took as a compliment, until I, like you, started pointing out his errors. A cast iron way of getting a verbal sledgehammer or other insult was to imply his vision has anything in common with the USSR – although only the most purblind zealot (Arnald? ) would fail to realize that that type of system is the only way his theories could become reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *