preferences as a doubtful concession. Sound as this doctrine undoubtedly is, since the first and second charges on income are evidently safer than the third and last, it is possible to doubt whether comparative safety with fixed rate is necessarily and always preferable to comparative risk with possibility of expansion of income. If we could know that a company is going to be highly successful, we should certainly take its ordinary shares rather than the prior charge securities. If we have good reason to expect, from its past performances, that it is likely to be so, the question arises whether the chance of expanding success cannot fairly be weighed against the limitation imposed on the income of the debenture and preference holder.
For safety, such as is given by the best industrial debenture, is only relative. If misfortune does happen, debenture holders will be affected, directly by loss of interest and capital, or remotely by anxiety and a lower price for the security if it has to be sold. This relative safety is accompanied by an absolute limit on the income. The owner or ordinary shareholder, on the other hand, is relatively less certain to get any income, but no limit is imposed, by the terms of his holding, on the possibility of its expansion, and this possibility,
