International Investments

In Utopian societies why do we need a facility to invest in some other society? This question is answered in the section "The Need for International Investments". The short answer is: because it is good for investors.

Many of us consider many things as "investments". That is thanks to freedom of thought. For example, just because we can think of an item of antique furniture as an investment does not qualify it as worthy of being considered as an international investment. So, what can be considered as an international investment? This question is answered in the section "Characteristics of International Investments". The short answer is publicly owned organizations and some categories of real estate.

In earlier chapters, we have discussed two ways to pay across society boundaries. One is using physical gold for imports and the other is digital money transfer which does not involve gold. Which of these ways is to be used to pay for buying investments from other societies? This question has relevance for investing, divesting and receiving dividend payments. This question is answered in the section "Paying for International Investments". The short answer is: digitally.

The next section "International Investment Scenarios" will discuss and demonstrate several commonly occurring investment scenarios with focus on the international context. The discussion includes an outline of the changes to records in our account books.

Any investment involves an ownership record. For the things that we own, our account book contains an inventory of all those owned things. For international investments, considering that the thing owned is always located in some other society, how are these ownership records established? This question is answered for publicly owned organizations in the section titled "Ownership Transfer".

The last two sections deal with "Restrictions and Limits" and "Other Requirements".

The Need for International Investments

Investing is good in general and hence we would want to have the freedom to invest. In fact, even today we have the freedom to invest. Some of us choose a few organizations in which to invest and others choose a diversified portfolio of investments. In Utopian societies, these freedoms need to exist.

Investments are good for citizens. Diversification is good for investments. A simple way of diversifying one's portfolio is to invest in an index-based ETF of publicly owned organizations within our society. But that leaves our portfolio vulnerable to all the risks in our own society. It does not diversify away from the local risk.

The only way to diversify away from the local risk is diversify globally. For that we need to be able to invest in organizations in other societies. Most small investors may not have the time to choose to invest in specific organizations in other societies. Thus, they need to be able to invest in ETFs composed of publicly owned organizations in multiple societies. For that, the ETF managers need to be able to buy ownership shares of publicly owned organizations from other societies.

The above discussion indicates that international investments are desirable for its citizens. Since Utopian societies strive for the well-being of its citizens, in a Utopian society, international investments should be allowed. Though, there might be some restrictions and some limitations. But as a principle, it should be allowed. It should be a qualified freedom. Not just a qualified freedom, but the Utopian Financial Infrastructure should provide the appropriate infrastructure to make such investments possible.

Characteristics of International Investments

What differentiates "investments" from other things? It is primarily the immovability of investments. "Goods" can obviously be moved and "services" can be availed and consumed. Unlike goods and services, those things that most of us agree upon as "investments" can neither be moved nor be consumed.

For something to be classified as allowable for international investments, it must be such that it cannot be transported out of the society in which it is located. This section provides an explanation.

Let us start our discussion with real estate. Real estate can be considered an investment since it cannot be taken anywhere. It can only be used to derive some value in the place where it exists. One could rent it out and the rent can be used to buy physical goods and those goods can be taken somewhere. But the real estate stays put. The real estate could deteriorate with the passage of time, it could even become worthless, but even then it cannot be taken anywhere.

Ownership of a real estate is purely an opportunity to derive some benefit out of owning it. The benefit could be in the form of money (like rent, constructing a factory to manufacture something or some service based industry like farming) or it could be an opportunity to enjoy that particular real estate when on vacation in that society.

The point is that the real estate stays where it is located. Owners of real estate cannot take it somewhere else.

Next, let us discuss owning a part of an organization. Organizations typically own some means of production. Those means of production could be farming land, factories, retail stores, online stores, etc. When we own parts of such organizations, it is implicit that we cannot take these organizations anywhere.

An organization may own many things - some movable and some immovable. These things should be considered as "resources" of that organization and they stay with the organization. Taking up part ownership of an organization does not mean that we can take with us some of the things that the organization owns. Why? Because those things are owned by the organization and not us; taking them is stealing from the organization. We may own some part of the organization; we may even own the entire organization; but, if we were to take the things owned by an organization that we fully or partially own, we would be taking something that did not belong to us.

Our part ownership in an organization is purely an opportunity to produce something of value and make some money doing so. This opportunity is not accompanied with a permission to take the organization or anything that belongs to it.

An organization is very much like a piece of land; it is domiciled in some society and it stays there till its very end.

When a society allows individuals to own real estate or organizations, it still does not fully give up its control over the real estate or the organizations. Society creates rules and regulations that must be followed in order to continue to own them. A society also has "eminent domain" over real estate and publicly owned organizations. For the common good of the society, by invoking "eminent domain", the society can take ownership of the real estate or these organizations.

The examples of ownership of real estate and part ownership of organizations represents the idea of an investment. If one considers the real estate or the organization as some kind of resource, then the society in which the resource is situated is never in any danger of "someone taking the resource out of the society" and making it unavailable to the society. It is these kinds of things that are candidates for international investments.

Goods and services cannot be considered as international investments; primarily because they can be "taken out of the society".

When a society exports some goods, the society is giving up ownership of some physical resource to someone in some other society. Those exported goods (that is some physical resources) will ultimately leave the exporting society and reach the importing society.

When a society exports some services, it is giving up "effort" in providing those services. If the exporting society does not ask for something valuable (like gold) in return, then it is as if the exporting society has wasted or donated its "effort". If the exporting society cannot get anything valuable in return for its exported services, then instead of exporting those services the society could have utilized those same "efforts" within the society to make the society better.

Since goods can be taken out of the society, society also does not have any effective "eminent domain" over them. A service rendered is immune to the notion of "eminent domain". Thus for exported goods and services, a society cannot have any "eminent domain" claim. Generalizing, "eminent domain" applies only to those things that stay within the bounds of a society.

Once exported, those goods and services cannot be utilized for anything in the society. In exporting goods and services, a society loses some resources.

A proprietary organization is intended only for the citizens of the society. Foreigners can be proprietors in their own society. A proprietary organization being owned by some foreigner does not make sense.

A privately owned organization is intended when a small group of closely associated citizens want to own some organization together. These are also reserved for citizens of the society. Foreigners can be part owners of privately owned organizations in their own society - not in some other society.

Thus proprietary organizations and privately owned organizations are not candidates for international investments.

Real estate and publicly owned organizations are such that even when they are fully owned by foreigners, they still are of use within the society. Moreover, society always has "eminent domain" claim over them.

A finer point in relation to real estate is that a plain vanilla real estate comes with minimal rights about how it can be used; the remaining rights stay with the society (for example, the mining rights). It is also in the interest of the society that it does not give some rights on real estate to foreigners.

From a society's perspective, allowing foreigners to own real estate and publicly owned organizations is not a loss of that resource. From most individuals' perspective, the purpose of owning real estate or publicly owned organization in some other society is mostly to put one's money to some productive use and make some money doing that. That makes real estate and publicly owned organizations good candidates for international investments; both for the foreign society and for the individual.

Paying for International Investments

Intuitively, when a normal citizen invests some money in some organization, the citizen buys ownership shares of that organization using the money that the citizen possesses. In the process of investing, a citizen gives up some money in exchange for some ownership shares in some organization. When divesting, the citizen gives up the ownership shares and gets money.

There are two ways in which "investing" occurs. In the first and infrequent case, the money that the citizen pays is given to the organization in exchange for new ownership shares of that organization and the organization treats this money as capital. This is commonly termed as an Initial Public Offering (abbreviated as IPO). In the second and frequently occurring case, the citizen buys the ownership shares from someone else who already owns those shares. The money that the citizen pays is given to the seller of those ownership shares. In this case the citizen invests, but the organization does not get the money. In both these cases the citizen gives up ownership of some money in exchange for owning ownership shares.

When an investor invests locally, that is, buys ownership shares within the society, payments are straightforward. Both parties involved in the transaction are in the society and the Utopian Financial Infrastructure has access to the account books of both parties and can do the transfer of money and ownership shares between the account books of the two parties.

When the two parties to an investing transaction are in different societies, the money that needs to be paid needs to cross society boundaries. The only two choices for such payments are:

digital payment as outlined in the chapter on "Money Transfer"
payment using gold ETF as discussed in relation to imports.

Which one of these two should be used? This question is also relevant when divesting and when an organization issues dividends to its owners.

It is tempting to think that we can formulate the policies and mechanisms for foreign investments very similar to those of foreign trade. When designing the mechanism of foreign investments in the Utopian context, we might want to utilize the ideas, concepts and notions of "payment in gold" and "import duty to counter imbalance" and then apply these ideas to payments for international investments.

However, international investments are fundamentally different from foreign trade. We will explore these differences and conclude the following two statements:

Payments for international investments need not be in gold.
If payments for international investments are made in gold, bad things happen.

Those two conclusions imply that the payments for international investments must be made using the digital payment mechanism described when discussing "International Money Transfer".

When a society exports goods or services, it loses some resources permanently. Hence the exporting society would want something physical and valuable in return. Thus, gold is chosen as the medium of exchange for foreign trade. Thus, foreign trade is conducted in gold.

The logic that asserts gold as a medium of exchange for foreign trade, may lead us to believe that when buying foreign investments, we ought to pay for it in gold. That is not the case.

Contrast goods and services with ownership of real estate or ownership of organizations. In allowing foreigners ownership of real estate or part ownership of organizations, the society does not lose any resources.

When we take up ownership of some foreign real estate or part ownership of some foreign organization, the organization and all the resources that it owns (or the real estate) stay put in the society in which the organization (or real estate) is domiciled.

Some foreigner taking up part ownership of an organization (or real estate) does not mean some resources within the society leave the society; that only happens when some goods or services are exported.

Buying international investments is quite unlike importing goods or services. Thus, when we buy international investments, we do not need to pay for it in terms of gold.

If gold is to be used for international investing, then we should first consider its consequences.

When someone in Society-A purchases some investment from Society-B, and if the payment for this investment is made in gold, then all the following things happen:

This reduces gold in Society-A and increases gold in Society-B.
This increases the price of gold in Society-A and decreases the price of gold in Society-B.
This makes imports a little bit expensive in Society-A and a little bit cheaper in Society-B.
This makes exports from Society-A more lucrative and exports from Society-B become less lucrative.

If gold is to be used for international investing, an investment decision of even a single individual impacts the profitability of imports and exports of two societies. Similarly, the divestment decision of an individual has the reverse impact.

If gold is to be used for international investing, and if some society, by the action of many individuals, increases its international investments, then the society will lose its valuable physical gold resource and suffer all associated consequences.

If gold is to be used for international investing, and if some society, by the action of many foreign investors, experiences a sustained period of net divestment from its economy, then it too will lose its valuable physical gold resource and suffer all associated consequences.

If gold is to be used for international investing, and when we buy foreign investments, our society does not get any valuable physical resource but it loses the valuable physical resource of gold. This is an unbalanced exchange.

If gold is to be used for international investing, and when a society starts losing its gold resource, then such a society may easily get tempted to impose an import duty on such investments; this would be intended to nudge the gold-flow imbalance towards a balanced state. The presence of import duty on international investments, in even one of the two societies, will make all international investments across that society-pair boundary less profitable by the percentage of the combined import duty in the two societies. This applies to investment, divestment and receiving dividend payments. Here are the consequences to various term-bound investments:

Day-trading across society boundaries is most likely to make a loss.
Short-term to medium-term investments are likely to make a loss or at best to break-even.
Long-term investments may fetch some percentage profit over a sufficiently long term, but this profit will not be as high as it would have been in the absence of the import duty.

The main purpose of investing is to make a profit. The additional purpose of international investing is to diversify the risk. The presence of import duty on paying for international investments completely subverts the profit making motive and that renders such diversification useless.

One final point. If gold is to be used for international investing, then dividend payments also need to be paid in gold. This is a one-way transfer. If implemented by means of gold, this is a sure way for a society to get exploited by those outside the society.

Each one of these points considered individually is sufficient to conclude that "using gold as a means of payment for international investing is a bad idea".

All these points considered together are sufficient to conclude that "gold must not be chosen as a means of payment for international investing".

Thus all payments related to international investments should use the digital payment mechanism described when discussing "International Money Transfer".

International Investment Scenarios

Now that we have discussed what qualifies as international investments and how to pay for it, let us discuss the following three common investment scenarios:

A citizen wishes to invest some money in some organization.
A citizen wishes to divest from his ownership of some organization.
An organization issues a dividend to the owners of the organization.

When an investor buys some ownership shares of some organization, usually that investor is buying ownership shares of that organization from someone else who already owns those shares. To acquire the shares, the investor parts with his money and gains the shares. This is the "investing" transaction. This transaction does not change the total wealth of the citizen. The citizen has merely swapped one asset (money) for another asset (ownership shares).

When an investor divests from an organization, the investor sells all ownership shares of that organization that he owns. This transaction is the reverse of the investing transaction. Some other investor is the buyer. Even when divesting, the divesting transaction does not change the total wealth of the citizen. The citizen has merely swapped one asset (ownership shares) for another asset (money).

Thus, investing is buying ownership shares of some organization, and divesting is selling ownership shares of some organization.

When the buyer and seller of some shares are in the same society, only the financial infrastructure of that society is involved in completing this buy-sell transaction. The transaction has the following components (assuming 100 shares are being traded at 10 dollars for each share):

For the seller, the inventory of shares decreases by 100 shares.
For the buyer, the inventory of shares increases by 100 shares.
For the seller, the money account increases by 1000 dollars.
For the buyer, the money account decreases by 1000 dollars.

When the buyer and seller of some shares are in different societies, two financial infrastructures are involved in completing this buy-sell transaction. Moreover, the currency exchange rate between the two societies is also involved because the price is quoted in local currencies for the buyer and the seller and the quoted price for both should mean the same "value". So, if the currency exchange rate from Society-A to Society-B is 1.5 then what is quoted as 10 dollars in the first society will be 15 dollars in the second society. Thus, if the seller is in the first society and is selling 100 shares for 10 local dollars each, and if the buyer is in the second society, then the buyer is buying those 100 shares for 15 local dollars each. Such a transaction, even though it is across society boundaries looks as follows:

For the seller in Society-A, the inventory of shares decreases by 100 shares.
For the buyer in Society-B, the inventory of shares increases by 100 shares.
For the seller in Society-A, the money account increases by 1000 local dollars.
For the buyer in Society-B, the money account decreases by 1500 local dollars.

When an investor in Society-B buys some ownership shares of some organization in Society-A from someone in Society-A, it becomes an international investment transaction. The buyer invests and the seller divests. Even in this case, the actual transaction does not change the total wealth of the buyer or the seller. They both have merely swapped assets that are worth the same.

Moreover, this transaction does not alter the total wealth of either one of the societies. One of the societies gains some ownership shares and gives up some money (by "destroying" it). The other society gives up the ownership shares and gains some money (by "creating" it). The ownership shares are exactly the same and the money "gained" or "given up" is equivalent based on the currency exchange rate.

The "gained" and "given up" money is "created" and "destroyed" respectively. It is based on the mechanism of digital money transfer across society boundaries which itself is based on the monetary sovereignty of the two societies.

Now let us discuss a few aspects about dividends.

The first aspect is that dividends are the profits of an organization distributed to the owners of the organization. The dividend issuing organization is prepared to lose the dividend money so that the owners of that organization can have it. This is clearly a case of one-way money transfer. There is no physical good or service that is being transferred.

The second aspect is that dividends are a one way transfer of money from an organization to its owners; these owners could be citizens or other organizations. In the chapter on Money Transfer, we had said that organizations are not allowed to engage in one-way transfer of money across society boundaries. So, how can we allow dividends to be paid across society boundaries? The answer is that dividends are never directly given by an organization to the owners. The organization merely places the money in a separate account and instructs the local financial infrastructure to distribute those dividends to all owners of the organization. The reason for this is that, technically, an organization does not know about its owners. So, in the case of distributing the dividends, the financial infrastructure is distributing them on behalf of the organization. Because of this, this money transfer is not discretionary on part of the organization; it goes to all owners. Because societies want to facilitate foreign investments, these dividends are acceptable as one-way money transfers across society boundaries. That paves the way for making the cross-border dividends possible.

The third aspect is that when dividends are distributed and if some of the owners of the organization are in some other society, there will be a transfer of some money from one society to another. If 100 dollars worth of dividends are distributed to owners outside the society, then these 100 dollars can be considered as "money destroyed" by society in which the organization is located. The 100 dollars' equivalent (based on currency exchange rate) gained by the other society can be considered as "money created" by that society. Both these are possible because both societies are monetary sovereigns. The other reason why this is possible is that both societies consider the possibility of their citizens engaging in international investments as desirable and hence they cooperate and coordinate in facilitating these cross-border dividend transactions related to international investments.

For example, when Pub-Org, a publicly owned organization in Society-A issues a dividend at 1 dollar per share, then all the owners of Pub-Org receive this dividend at the rate of 1 Society-A dollar per ownership share. So, if an owner (let us say Citizen-B), owned 100 ownership shares, then that owner will receive 100 Society-A dollars. To actually issue the dividend, in Pub-Org's account book, Pub-Org moves the entire sum of money allocated for dividends from their Money account to their DividendPayable account. The financial infrastructure of Society-A will disburse the dividends from the DividendPayable account.

If Citizen-B is in Society-A, then this transaction will be within Society-A and only the financial infrastructure of Society-A will be involved. Here are the record changes corresponding to this transaction:

For Pub-Org in Society-A, the DividendPayable account decreases by 100 local dollars.
For Citizen-B in Society-A, the money account increases by 100 local dollars.

Notice that the total wealth of Society-A has not changed.

If Citizen-B is in Society-B, then this transaction will be across the two societies and the two financial infrastructures would be involved. In this case, if the exchange rate from Society-A to Society-B is 1.5, then, for each share, Citizen-B would get 1.5 Society-B dollars. Here are the record changes corresponding to this transaction:

For Pub-Org in Society-A, the DividendPayable account decreases by 100 local dollars.
For Citizen-B in Society-B, the money account increases by 150 local dollars.

Notice that total wealth of Society-A has decreased by 100 dollars and total wealth of Society-B has increased by 150 dollars. But, the combined total wealth of both societies has not changed (because 100 dollars in Society-A is equivalent to 150 dollars in Society-B).

When dividends are paid across society boundaries, societies will experience changes in their total wealth, but there will be no change in their physical resources. Paying dividends across society boundaries continues to serve the original purpose of investments, but paying dividends cannot be used to drain the physical resources of any society.

Now let us discuss real estate as an international investment.

Buying real estate in some other society has the same implications as that of an investor investing in an organization located in that other society.

Selling off a real estate that one owns in some other society has the same implications as that of an investor divesting his ownership stake in an organization located in that other society.

Can an investment like real estate pay dividends? Organizations can pay dividends; real estate is not an organization. So, real estate cannot pay dividends. If an individual or an organization owns some real estate and rents it out, then that "renting" is a service provided by that entity and the "rent" is the price of that service.

Ownership Transfer

When we engage in international investments, there are two financial infrastructures involved. We are in one society and the organization that we wish to invest in is in another society. One of these financial infrastructures has access to our account book and the other has access to the ownership data for the organization. Thus neither of the financial infrastructures alone is capable of completing the transaction. Note that the transaction includes a payment and a transfer of ownership of the ownership shares.

Accounting for investments is accounting for our ownership of organizations. Societies are monetary sovereigns and their financial infrastructures oversee the smooth functioning of their local capital market and one of the functions it performs is that of automatically implementing stock splits and reverse splits. That makes accounting for ownership of organizations across society boundaries not as straightforward as accounting for ownership of organizations within the same society.

Different societies could be in different time zones and the stock markets will be open at different times. This would cause inconvenience to the numerous small investors who want to invest or divest.

If every international investment transaction attempts to find buyers and sellers anywhere within the two societies, then many investment and divestment transactions will needlessly be cross-border because there would be buyers and sellers in the same society willing to transact at the same price or almost at the same price.

If every international investment transaction always needed the involvement of two financial infrastructures, then that complicates the implementation, increases the time of each transaction (as compared to a transaction involving only a single financial infrastructure), and increases the cost of conducting such transactions.

The previous paragraphs indicate difficulties that are solved by introducing the following concepts:

Proxy Ownership Certificate. Abbreviated as POC.
Original Ownership Certificate. Abbreviated as OOC.
Cross-Border Market Maker. Abbreviated as CBMM.

A POC represents the same amount of ownership as the OOC they proxy for. The idea of POC is based on the current idea of a Depository Receipt. The OOC is used in the society in which the organization is located, the POC is used in all other societies. A POC created in a society can be used for trading in that society only; with the advantage that all such transactions are local and hence only the local financial infrastructure is involved.

CBMMs are organizations. They perform a very specific function and are specifically authorized to perform that function. They are allowed to transfer OOCs across society boundaries to the financial infrastructure of some other society and to obtain equivalent POCs in that other society. That is, CBMMs deposit the OOC with the foreign financial infrastructure and in return get POC which they can sell in that foreign society as a valid form of ownership share certificate.

This means that CBMMs have presence in both societies. This is accomplished by having a wholly owned subsidiary of the same organization (the parent CBMM) in each of the societies. Being wholly owned subsidiaries of the same CBMM organization, the CBMM can transfer assets between the parent organization and a wholly owned subsidiary using the money transfer mechanism.

Using the money transfer mechanism between parent and a subsidiary, a CBMM can buy OOCs in any society. Once they own the OOCs in the original society, they can transfer the OOCs to some other society and get equivalent POCs in the other society and sell these POCs in the local stock exchange of the other society (perhaps for a small profit).

The actual transfer of the OOC to POC is initiated by the CBMM and is a coordinated effort between the two financial infrastructures. The financial infrastructure of the other society credits CBMMs account with POCs and not the original ownership certificate. The POCs represent exactly the same number of ownership shares represented by the original ownership certificates. These POCs are tradable on the other society's stock exchange as though they are the ownership certificate.

Upon receiving the POCs in the other society, CBMMs can sell these POCs in the other society's stock exchange. Typically these organizations become the market makers for that organization's POCs because there is a profit in such an activity. Other investors can buy and sell these POCs on the local stock exchange and all such transactions stay local to that society. In this local buying and selling of these POCs, the market maker may also be actively involved.

Thus CBMMs facilitate making available POCs in other societies and hence enable international investing while minimizing investing related transactions between financial infrastructures of societies.

If the demand for the POCs is higher than their supply in the other society, the price of these POCs will drift higher than the equivalent in the original society. This is an arbitrage opportunity for the market maker. They invariably take advantage of it, buy some more ownership shares in the original society and transfer them to the other society and receive POCs and these can be sold at a price higher than what they paid for. Eventually the arbitrage opportunity vanishes.

If the demand for the POCs is lower than their supply in the other society, the price of these POCs will drift lower than the equivalent in the original society. This also is an arbitrage opportunity for the market maker. They invariably take advantage of it, buy POCs in the other society and transfer them to the original society and sell them there at a price higher than what they paid for. Eventually the arbitrage opportunity vanishes.

To induce the cross-border market makers to consistently demonstrate ethically desirable market making behavior, it is a good idea to allow multiple independent organizations to function as cross-border market makers.

Restrictions and Limits

A citizen cannot buy a foreign investment when there is unpaid social credit. If we allow this then it means that the society is lending that citizen some money at zero percent interest rate for at least part of the international investment. Society should not be interested in doing such a thing.

One can invest one's money only for the following categories of investments in some other society:

Ownership shares of publicly owned organizations.
Real estate. There may be restrictions.
Non-leveraged ETFs that own only ownership shares of publicly owned organizations.

Everything else is not allowed.

Here are some examples of what is not allowed:

Ownership of proprietary organizations.
Ownership of privately owned organizations.
Ownership of any precious metals in physical form when these metals are located in some other society.
Ownership of units of precious metal ETFs. This includes the gold ETF.
Ownership of some kinds of real estate is disallowed. For example, real estate with mining rights cannot be owned across boundaries. But, one can be a part-owner of a publicly owned organization that owns real estate with mining rights.

Cross-Border Market Makers do not have voting rights For the Original Ownership Certificates that they own. They are merely facilitating cross-border ownership of organizations. They are not allowed to participate in the decision making of the organization.

Holders of Proxy Ownership Certificates have no voting rights in the owned organizations. Citizens have voting rights to the organizations in their own society as these organizations fall well within their own jurisdiction. Just like citizens cannot participate in the decisions of other societies, similarly they cannot participate in the decisions of the organizations in other societies.

Being able to invest in other societies is a privilege and that privilege is only accompanied with the right to partake in the dividends and price fluctuations of the ownership shares.

Societies may impose a percentage upper limit to foreign ownership of their local organizations. It could be a single upper limit for all organizations or the limits could be based on industry sectors or each organization could have a separate limit. Not having such upper limits and presence of Cross-Border Market Makers and ability to invest across society boundaries implies that there is a risk of price manipulation by parties outside the society.

These limits are enforced at the time a Cross-Border Market Maker is about to be a party to a buy transaction or the Cross-Border Market Maker requests conversion of Original Ownership Certificates to Proxy Ownership Certificates. In the first case, if the limits are breached, then it is a clear violation of the upper limit intent. In the second case, there could be a violation of limits if there are share buybacks done by the organization.

Other Requirements

When we discussed international investment scenarios, we conducted a conceptual discussion. We skipped the implementation logistics that are involved in placing orders, specifying stock, quantity and price, identification, authentication, confirmation, authorization, etc. These need to be implemented and they will use our phone for the identification, authentication, confirmation and authorization.

Unlike most transactions, the receiver of dividend payments is deemed to have previously authorized the receipt of dividends. Only the payer of the dividends needs to authorize.