Firm. Respect the people. A free-market world ("except" as regulated
against monopolies and other wrongdoings). Let people prefer, with
Firmer. The firm-people work. The (financer) free-people risk money. For profit.
Firmaze. A free-market, where any firm or people, may found a new firm, for a function/project, (and offer its finance as a well-isolated firm, to any people), is a firmaze (a firm-maze). Any firm is for a revenue, with the function it was found-for.
I prefer to facilitate mooduhrabeh, a favorite of Islam (for an investment, or commerce). This is a little different than the currently widely implemented corporate-and-shareholders system, of a a century, or older.
This page is the firm-finance framework - about the structure of business. To find specific ideas for investment, within my world-view, the reader should again read those strategies I present. There are a lot of (deriveable) ideas, e.g: in food.
I think of two types of firmaze-people (with-respect-to a firm): The (resident) firmer-people, and the (financer) free-people. The former work, the latter risk their money
The firmer-people do not take any risk of any function-firm offer - except their reputation. If something is risky, if it may lead to losing money, then it should be an offer, or a few, for the free-people to finance it/them.
The firmer-people may found a firmer-firm, for offering the finance of any function-firm to the free-people. An offer (or, arz) is with its own resources and/or time-limits.
A firmer, may invest only in those tools and facilities the firmer-firm may use for multiple function-firms. Even not-earning money is such a risk, if some sizeable initial investment is necessary. Therefore, a function-firm, or a few, to rent anything, is/are preferrable. e.g: A function (the function-firm offer, to do): (1) Buy tool-A, (2) Rent it, 3) After it is returned, either (3.a) Re-rent it, or (3.b) sell it.
A freeperson (or, ferd), is not bound by any long-term relationships, with the (firmer-)firm. A freeperson invests in specific offers, and is only responsible for the finance, and the risks, for that offer.
The firmers frame (negotiate: formulate, and/or accept) the offers, and perform them. The firmers are the able labor, who have the last word, about what the firm is, and what it does, as reflected in the contracts they offer. They may have some long-term relationships among themselves that transcend individual projects. i.e: The firmers resemble the companies that exist everywhere, today.
Although a firmer-firm may also let shareholders-for-money-only, as with corporations, that may not really make sense. It is suggestive of a confusion. Instead, they should frame function-firms, for freepeople to finance them. The firmer-people should not extend their internal circle, in return for money.
The world-view I offer, is an act of confronting the more involved problems, that seemingly require long-term investment, too, by framing them as the internal (little or no risk, low-cost, long-term), versus the external contracts.
The investment risk should reside, where it should, at each step, both for firms, and for personal development. Here, the modularity of re*education is fine, too.
If freepeople are not financing an investment, that signals an undesirability with it. In such a case, why would the "company owners" insist with it? Is it really well-thought? Reflect about it: Is it company-owners groupthink that attracts those who can envision themselves as the company-owners, whether they already hold shares, or not? i.e: It may involve personal-ego, rather than finance.
e.g: At Panam, they invested in planes, because "that fits the company name better," rather than their more profitable hotels. Next, they went bankrupt. Freepeople would rather prefer the more profitable alternatives. This is an easy, example news item.
e.g: the "Internet-boom" (boom-in, then boom-out). People bought company-shares, instead of profitable anything.
Investing in extra-risky, not-obviously-profitable, projects, is not forbidden here, for freepeople, either, and sometimes may pay, but it should not take any sizeable share of an investor's portfolio, I think. And, when it is not about "owning the company," the investors would look at other points, when evaluating the offers - whether finance, or public concerns heed them (environmental, religious, etc.)
Beware the charlatans, though, in such extra-concern cases, too. e.g: If environmentally-minded, think about it with its own terms: Does it really help, to the environment, when you invest in that project? Similarly, in religious cases. Take your concerns serious, and evaluate the offers, thoroughly. Otherwise, you finance the abusers, by definition.
It does not need extra-telling, but let me state it, any way. I do not favor any borrowing, at all. This is implicit in mudarebe, where the firmers cannot borrow, and cannot lend, without explicit consent of the freepeople (this depends on the content of the offer, too). I further constrain it, when I devise ideas, the relief, I offer. I avoid any idea that may involve borrowing. i.e: It is not necessary to earn, and develop, here. The question is the same: If it is profitable, why do not any freepeople finance your ideas?
This resembles the software projects, too, in that case. If the coding people, also test it, that is probably riskier (as it is sometimes discussed). It may involve both their egos, and their very false assumptions, that they had employed when coding it. An adversarial-organization, or fine-sizing of returns/evaluations may help.
I may discuss many ideas, and case studies, later.
For some examples of concrete, transactions-based solutions, contrasted against financial-engineering, you may read the pages Without Financial Enginering as they are posted.
Obviously this page is not finished, yet. This site is going on with its start-up/construction phase. You may ask questions, or tell your preference for some content to be posted sooner. Keep asking content, or submit your non-secret case, to read a few relevant ideas, maybe.
See the pages linked from this page (in the general finance and commerce category), and issue-based pages like food chains (farm to table) to find free investment advice, with case studies, which you may find useful. Asking generalized, issue-relevant questions is also for free. As a result, you may consider any consultants that agree with my system, with the solutions I suggest for the issues, and in particular those who appear to be succesful in applying them. I promote no person, in particular.
I only define and detail the issues so that you can apply them on your own. In time, when the Public Records I call for get established around the world, choosing partners (or, consultants) from around the world may become easier. For the time-being, stick with those I have described features of.
If you, anyway, ask my service, or profit-partnership, please keep in mind that: In such a case, the point when the payment is earned would also be by explicit agreements. And most likely, the earning would be after the success becomes tangible (probably, after the profit being made). Not in advance, in any case. Beware the charlatans, on behalf of my name, as well as your money. Please report me if you ever encounter such abuses of my name.