Wouldn't fining more accomplish the same goal? If it was big enough, it would cause major drawdowns in the stock price, which would cause financial losses for the shareholders.
There exist other classes with actual post-buy liabilities, e.g. stock options, as one particularly unlucky poor sod discovered at the start of the 2020 plaguefest [1], but normally these are (supposed to be) heavily gated for actually qualified investors for precisely that reason.
Personally, I'd keep it that way... and nationalize companies that can't pay their fees, without paying out the shareholders. That way, the shareholders get punished, the jobs created by the company aren't lost, and the government gains something of value.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/06/17/20-y...
You're talking about situations where people are borrowing shares and selling them, with the hope of buying the share back later to pay back the borrowed share. Obviously that's a bad scene if you borrow / sell the share and then it goes from $20 to $20,000,000,000.... Your liability in these scenarios is infinite, but it is also part of the trading system to manage those exploding liabilities.
If you buy a property, and it turns out that property is a former toxic waste dump, you own that liability from that asset. What you thought would make a wonderful daycare is now going to cost you millions to remediate.
If you buy into a partnership, and one of the other partners does a silly thing and now the partnership owes someone millions, you're on the hook for that.
If you buy a stock, your liability is the money you've invested in the stock, which is why stocks are such a wonderful innovation (as seen from a 1400's perspective where debts are paid back by all owners).
Shareholders are even further detached from this process, often having very little knowledge of what happens within organisations. Often having no influence on what happens within organisations. You likely own stock yourself through your pension funds, and if you made these laws your pension would be fined for what the index fonds it invest in does.
I guess from some political points of views all of this would be a good thing based on our current inequality in society, but the way to solve this isn’t through collective punishment. It’s through taxation. Right now, the entire economy is very much geared in favour of increasing the inequality by transferring more and more wealth to those who already have it. It hasn’t always been like this, 50 years ago, before the age of new public management, the taxation on things like wealth, stock and so on were high and the wealthy in our society paid most 80% of their total (not income tax) wealth generation. Today it’s often less than 10-20% through various tax law loop holes, and that’s if you keep your wealth generation absolutely legal.
Af far as organisation fines go, the situation is sort of similar to the general economy, in that major organisations and wealth owners have “rigged” the system in ways where it’s very hard to punish major corporations on a global scale. In Denmark we might find Facebook or Google guilty of something and fine them up to 10% of their income, but its income in Denmark, which is frankly so small on the global scale that they often don’t even bother fighting it in our courts like they do with the larger EU rulings. This could change, but it’s hard to do so, as the US isn’t interested in forcing US non-token companies fines to foreign countries. Similarly it would seem that even within the US there is competition between the various states to be the most company friendly.
So fine is applied at end of some day. Now all shares are marked. And when they are sold next time this fine is paid.
Also, you are aware of the idea of having limited liability companies?
You could participate in electing a board. That elects CEO and other C-level that spend all their waking hours ensuring that no one in company breaks rules. I think that is absolutely reasonable thing to ask, specially with pay they are getting.
One corner stone of free societies is private ownership of enterprises. And that comes with the idea of shielding investors and owners from certain decisions of the comoany, which is a legal person apart from the legal person of the investor / owner...
Their liability is limited to that 100. Just that next time they transact on the share they entirely justly lose most of it. As they did horrific job in controlling their property.
And by the way, if I am a memeber of the board and my management and I engange in anti-trust violations together, I am legally and criminally liable already under existing law. If I am a member of the board, and my management does something illegal without my knowledge, I am off the hook as well (again rightly so). If I engage in a cover up, well, then things change again (and again rightly so).
Some people have weird ideas about the rule of law is supposed to work in a democracy.