Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 16:36:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Depends, what problem do you think we're trying to solve?
I don't know if I'd describe it as a problem, but I'm under the impression you were trying to figure out what was the most efficient way to handle "idle isk."
And I wanted to know if your view is that non-active shareholders take on increased risk with withheld dividends but are fairly compensated for it, or if you think it is risk free?
Just trying to clarify the debate. It would make no sense to try and convince you of increased risks if you already agree, and it wouldn't make sense to argue the level of compensation when you see no need of it in the first place.
I realize there is not a lot of debate about this, but thats not surprising. Those that are paying attention are likely to benefit from this and so are not likely to argue, and those that could be negatively effected are those that are "in-active".
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 05:47:00 -
[62]
The additional risk they assume is negligible and the benefit received from growing the business with their idle dividends is compensation enough.
With regards to your statement about the volume of debate on the matter; I would encourage all past, present and future shareholders to assume the same process will apply to them sometime in the future and adopt a stance on the issue accordingly.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 09:43:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Ray McCormack The additional risk they assume is negligible and the benefit received from growing the business with their idle dividends is compensation enough.
Could you explain why the risk is negligible? An increase from zero risk to some risk sounds pretty substantial to me. Especially when the person holding the isk has a documented history of changing terms and conditions without consultation and of denying people access to their money when it is inconvenient for his vision of how a business should develop.
How have you quantified the adequacy of the compensation? I'm guessing that you haven't and are simply asserting whatever is most convenient to you but I would really like to see whether there is any substance behind your claim. Obviously, you haven't consulted the owners of the money on what compensation they think would be adequate but have you carried out any other exercise to determine the correct level of compensation? Or does it just happen to fall at the exact but as yet unknown point of additional future earnings? Do you think that your shareholders would find this to be sufficient compensation and do you care one way or another?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 14:30:00 -
[64]
Originally by: RAW23 An increase from zero risk
There is never zero risk.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 15:06:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Edited by: Ray McCormack on 13/05/2010 14:38:22
Originally by: RAW23 An increase from zero risk
There is never zero risk.
Edit: And just to allay your claims that I'm avoiding the issues you're raising, just look at the content and tone of your posts in this thread and ask yourself if you seriously expect me to address your concerns in any manner of civility. It's clear what your intention is in most of your engagements with me, I have no interest in entering into a long-winded debate with someone so one-sided in their opinion of me. I'm really not that stupid.
Having the isk sitting in their own wallets is what I would call zero risk (excepting the possibility of hacking).
As to the tone, you have never replied to any of my posts in any thread with even a modi****of civility, nor to those of any other poster who has offered any criticisms of your decisions, nor indeed to most posters who have asked for nothing more than clarification. Whilst I may not have remained as polite as I would like I can gladly say I have never stooped to the depths that you have, both in this thread and elsewhere (example). At least you having a whinge about tone shows you have a sense of humour (or a staggering lack of self awareness - take your pick).
So, those questions I asked that you didn't respond to (civilly or otherwise) ...
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 17:49:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Ray McCormack The additional risk they assume is negligible and the benefit received from growing the business with their idle dividends is compensation enough.
Obviously, opinions on levels of risk and compensation are subjective. Given that, I would disagree with the additional assumed being negligible. If in 12 months from now, something unfortunate were to happen, active investors lose 1 dividend payment while inactive investors lose ALL of it.
But personally, if I were an investor, I think I would agree that the compensation for this additional risk is adequate. What doesn't sit well with me however, is all the other investors receiving "something for nothing" from this arrangement. The risks are borne entirely upon the inactive investors, but the rewards are shared by all. I think some small additional compensation could still provide a win-win scenario for all.
If you were to pay a low interest rate on the funds "borrowed" from the inactive dividends, say 1%, your corporation still benefits from a cheap source of financing (I assume 1% is lower than you can receive elsewhere) which benefits ALL shareholders assuming you can earn more than 1% on those funds, and the inactive investors earn slightly more by taking on slightly more risk. The lower than market interest rate could be justified as a reinvestment management fee.
I'm not suggesting paying 1% on ALL withheld dividends, just the amount that is withdrawn and re-invested into the corp. You will be tracking these amounts anyways, so tracking interest wouldn't be that much additional work.
I realize this all may seem trivial, but as it stands it appears like "free money" for active investors. And "free money" arrangements are poor long-term business arrangements in my opinion.
I think your idea is a clever one and a very efficient use of funds, and really should be a standard clause for long-term IPOs going forward - your situation is a bit more prickly, however, since it is a change of terms, which can't be approved because of the very nature of the situation you are trying to tackle: inactive investors.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
With regards to your statement about the volume of debate on the matter; I would encourage all past, present and future shareholders to assume the same process will apply to them sometime in the future and adopt a stance on the issue accordingly.
I think this is good advice and hope that people give it some serious consideration.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 19:23:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Hippopotamus Rex I'm not suggesting paying 1% on ALL withheld dividends, just the amount that is withdrawn and re-invested into the corp. You will be tracking these amounts anyways, so tracking interest wouldn't be that much additional work.
I like this suggestion, I'll weigh its merits against some numbers and see what the options are.
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 23:40:00 -
[68]
If investors accept a free isk clause for inactive investors in ipos then there's nothing anyone can complain about. This is all about killing my entertainment.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 05:29:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Professor Leech If investors accept a free isk clause for inactive investors in ipos then there's nothing anyone can complain about. This is all about killing my entertainment.
Well, I'll give you some drama back then. Investors have no say in the matter, I alone decide what is best for the business.
Are you not entertained?
|
Roger Kiyosaki
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 10:47:00 -
[70]
Erm... I know I've missed this for a while (due to being out there in RL and stuff).
Is the share swap still active? Would like to swap my shares...
|
|
Athias
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 12:11:00 -
[71]
You should still be able to swap your shares to the new AATPH shares, and Ray has the missed dividends you havent gotten saved away for you also, if I remember correctly, all you need to do is throw him an evemail.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 14:59:00 -
[72]
Please convo me to do the exchange.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.08.06 15:04:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Hippopotamus Rex I'm not suggesting paying 1% on ALL withheld dividends, just the amount that is withdrawn and re-invested into the corp. You will be tracking these amounts anyways, so tracking interest wouldn't be that much additional work.
I like this suggestion, I'll weigh its merits against some numbers and see what the options are.
Did you come to any decision on this suggestion, out of interest?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |