Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Interesting article
Sir Woke XR Re… 02 Nov 23 09:26
Reply |

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67276289

There’s no justification whatsoever, is there, for any type of legal entity existing where the directors shareholders and ultimate beneficial ownerships aren’t identifiable from a publicly searchable register.

Why are LPs exempt from this?

One reason is that they are often used by private equity; which seems addicted to the idea of secrecy as to its LP base. But for what reason? Do BigOil Pension Trustees or Megabank Private Investments or the Family Office of Horst P. Bumschlicker, LLC REALLY care if the public knows they hold X% of Negative Alpha Partners’ 2019 European Value Fund or whatnot? Why is it a secret?

The media is obsessed with this stuff, failing to distinguish between what’s publicly available info and how you stop people gaming cross border law to make fortunes. Because they believe obvs that publicity rules. The mad fools 

Get your details put on Companies House and see how much spam it produces let alone the exponential increase in scam e-mails.  As soon as I set up a company I was deluged with offers of loans and brochures for office furniture.

I think its more that Negative Alpha Partners’ 2019 European Value Fund cares deeply if Betacuck Growth Fund VII LP knows their LP base, so that they too can go off and pitch for more allocation from the Mississippi Substitute Creationist Teacher's pension fund LLC to say their returns will be at LEAST 0.5% higher(excluding fees).

maybe, although I’ve never heard of secrecy as a massive GP side concern

 but, like I say, tough shit cost of doing business openly and legitimately 

I think Laz is right to be concerned about the pernicious hold the Missisippi Substitute Creationist Teacher's pension fund LLC has over our critical infrastructure

Shareholder registers are no longer available.  If you simply put in legislation that it’s the effective control as for companies you’d just disclose the gp

Also, they would have to say who owns the GP and in what proportions. And you could probably figure out who has what carry in the fund. And what sweet side deal was offered to Herbert K. Arschewhistle on the latest investment.

 

Dan Neidle is looking for an intern, Laz. Or just launch your own venture based on his. A Jeremy Clarkson column of old aimed at corporate derring do and dog do. Might even fly. 

Bellingcat could be referring to 17000 orders of pencils by three entities. Same technique as science conspiracy theories.

 

No issue with trailing a big reveal but that tweet is rubbish. 

 

"There’s no justification whatsoever, is there, for any type of legal entity existing where the directors shareholders and ultimate beneficial ownerships aren’t identifiable from a publicly searchable register."

 

What about family trusts like in that case that French lady won? 

“Experts have long feared that UK Limited Partnerships (LPs)” say bellingcat.

Only they’re Scottish or English (and wales) limited partnerships .  UK limited partnerships don’t exist

Plus the controlling party for any English limited partnership is the GP and in that case the controlling party legislation applies as it does for any other company. 

I spend a worrying amount of my time trying to explain partnerships to “experts” at banks etc .  And they collectively don’t have a fccking clue about what the legislation means or how to apply it or indeed the first clue about partnerships.  

If it’s about control , then fine, make it clear that the GP is the controlling party as for any company.  If it’s about economic benefit then fine, make it the same as any company.  They’re not uniquely special or evil.  It’s just they’re a bit more complicated than a company and the hard of thinking struggle with them  

Join the discussion

Login Register