Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ignatius Nilsson
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 11:55:00 -
[1]
I wold like to know if is possible to know the names of a corp shareholders. In RL, every listed corp has to inform who are their shareholders over a number of shares (2.5%-5% depending on the country)and communicate all market movements over this % to the market authorities. I know there is no market authorities here, but I really think that with this information the market could be more clear for those who want to invest but are worried about what can happen with their money. Knowing what market "gurus" do with their money can encourage small investor to put their money in one or another corp.
What do you think? And, if you like the idea, how can be done?
|
LaVista Vista
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 11:58:00 -
[2]
I wouldnt ever give my shareholders name away, unless they think its a good idea.
|
Marie deMedici
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 12:52:00 -
[3]
corpmembers can check the shareholders at corp wallet shares section.
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 13:05:00 -
[4]
Originally by: LaVista Vista I wouldnt ever give my shareholders name away
disregarding the second part of your statement, which i didn't quote, i will ask a question -- why not?
|
LaVista Vista
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 14:02:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: LaVista Vista I wouldnt ever give my shareholders name away
disregarding the second part of your statement, which i didn't quote, i will ask a question -- why not?
Merely a question about privacy really. I wouldnt want anybody to know if i had shares in company X or Y
|
Ignatius Nilsson
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 14:06:00 -
[6]
Yes Marie, corpmembers can, but we surely own shares out of the corps we are members.
I dont see any problem making public the names of the most important shareholders of a corporation. It can be good for the corp reputation to know that there are people or another corps who trust in the business plan or the current managers.
For the shareholders, to know who are other shareholders would be very important in order to propose actions. Today, when we put our money in a corp we are doing a faith act becouse we have no chance to change things in the corp. With the shareholders name public, we could discuss with another shareholders and propose votes in order to modify the policy of the corp.
I want a market where shareholders decide the most important actions of a corp. I dont want a market where you put your money in a corp and wait praying for some results. The perfect market for scammers.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 15:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ignatius Nilsson Yes Marie, corpmembers can, but we surely own shares out of the corps we are members.
I dont see any problem making public the names of the most important shareholders of a corporation. It can be good for the corp reputation to know that there are people or another corps who trust in the business plan or the current managers.
For the shareholders, to know who are other shareholders would be very important in order to propose actions. Today, when we put our money in a corp we are doing a faith act becouse we have no chance to change things in the corp. With the shareholders name public, we could discuss with another shareholders and propose votes in order to modify the policy of the corp.
I want a market where shareholders decide the most important actions of a corp. I dont want a market where you put your money in a corp and wait praying for some results. The perfect market for scammers.
I would agree that I'd be much more likely to invest in a corp that lists all of its shareholders.
I personally can't understand why it would be bad if people knew I invested in a corp. I wouldn't be against it at all, as long as everyone else was going to be listed as well. In fact, it would prob make me more likely to invest larger sums if I saw other respected players had a lot of money invested as well.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 16:38:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Dr Slurm on 04/08/2007 16:39:17 Its possible to view your shareholders by opening your corp wallet, go to the shares tab, then the shareholders tab. Think it was new with rev II.
//disregard, didn't catch marie's post
|
Ignatius Nilsson
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 17:27:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Dr Slurm Edited by: Dr Slurm on 04/08/2007 16:39:17 Its possible to view your shareholders by opening your corp wallet, go to the shares tab, then the shareholders tab. Think it was new with rev II.
//disregard, didn't catch marie's post
When I started this post, I thought in the listed corps. Corps where I have shares but I¦m not a member.
Thinking in more information, reports are another lack in listed corporations. Only a few ones have a web where you can read about their activities and have a look to their account. (And those who have web dont refresh the information in time.)
Have a look to the two stock markets... there is no avaliable information for the majority of the listed corps. As a shareholder of a corp, I have rights, and this kind of dark market is not good for our rights.
I proposse a new "certificate" for the listed corporation. A kind of "ISO" which certificate that this corp has their shareholder names public and make monthly financial reports for the shareholders. This kind of corporation, will be more atractive for investors.
|
SonOfAGhost
Minmatar Munitions and Tactical Assets Repository Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 18:15:00 -
[10]
Why not release names and share amounts? Been to an ISS outpost lately?
Releasing names only might be OK, but would also be a major PITA for widely held and traded corps with pages of shareholders names. So while releasing such a list I would view as a good thing, it's also not something I'd lose sleep over as I'd prefer the CEO & staff make more isk.
The reason RL corps are obligated to ID major shareholders is so other investors can make informed choices knowing who has what influence on corporate direction or may be positioning for a takeover. So for the purposes of Eve markets I think it would be good if corps listed how many shares are held by corp members.
Lag? GTFOOJ! |
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 21:13:00 -
[11]
Originally by: SonOfAGhost Why not release names and share amounts? Been to an ISS outpost lately?
Releasing names only might be OK, but would also be a major PITA for widely held and traded corps with pages of shareholders names. So while releasing such a list I would view as a good thing, it's also not something I'd lose sleep over as I'd prefer the CEO & staff make more isk.
The reason RL corps are obligated to ID major shareholders is so other investors can make informed choices knowing who has what influence on corporate direction or may be positioning for a takeover. So for the purposes of Eve markets I think it would be good if corps listed how many shares are held by corp members.
Every single investor is not important. But all investors that hold more than 5 or 10% of the total outstanding shares would be nice.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2007.08.04 22:21:00 -
[12]
Originally by: SonOfAGhost Why not release names and share amounts? Been to an ISS outpost lately?
Releasing names only might be OK, but would also be a major PITA for widely held and traded corps with pages of shareholders names. So while releasing such a list I would view as a good thing, it's also not something I'd lose sleep over as I'd prefer the CEO & staff make more isk.
The reason RL corps are obligated to ID major shareholders is so other investors can make informed choices knowing who has what influence on corporate direction or may be positioning for a takeover. So for the purposes of Eve markets I think it would be good if corps listed how many shares are held by corp members.
ehhh... if we had any influence at all or if there would be such a thing as a the chance of takeovers, sure, why not. until then i'd really like my wealth to be private. i doubt i kick ass but a public display of my "wealth" would surely kill my position when i need to re-negotiate my next 0.0 rent. the list of shareholders was bad enough ("look, mum, 80% of our shares are owned by BoB pets *paying off the other 20% and byebye*")
and btw: the list of shareholders made me spread some of my portfolio over 2 accs anyway, plus a few sell orders on the EGSE - there's still lots of room to stay under the radar - putting the gist back into logistics |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 00:50:00 -
[13]
now that corps have the ABILITY to know who has what shares, i know that releasing the names of major shareholders will be something i take into account as to how open/transparent i consider corporations to/not to be. i, for one, will definitely factor in said transparency when considering the scam/not scam factor, and just on the overall impression i have of a corp.
but that's just me, i'm silly that way. i also don't think i have anything to hide. |
Ignatius Nilsson
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 16:20:00 -
[14]
Well... reading your posts I see you are mostly agree with my idea of making public the names and ammount of shares of most important shareholders of evey listed corp. I know, of course, that anybody can force corps to make this public (only CCP), but If we are agree we can propose this to all listed corps.
We would need EGSE and RESX help, but I think there would be some corps interested in get a "trust seal" given from EGSE and RESX. This "trust seal" would be given to all corps who make public their major shareholders and promise a monthly report of their account. Accepting this proposition, corps would show they have nothing to hide and would be more atractive for investors.
Corps can do a good or a bad job and we can earn or loose our money... this is the risk for investors, but what we have to be sure about, is that the corp in wich we invest is a "legal" one, not a scam.
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 16:42:00 -
[15]
i agree with limiting it to "major" shareholders, i.e. 5%+
and, for those corps who have trustees and people involved (to guarantee trustworthiness/honesty); if, adding the 5%+ shareholders to a list would be too timeconsuming for the people running the corp, perhaps the trustees could help in making a list of names which, by definition, wouldn't exceed 20 names.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 17:40:00 -
[16]
If a corp is too busy to list anyone with >5% shares then is that a corp that you want to invest in? Honestly... it would take 5 minutes or less.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Disposeble Alt
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 18:32:00 -
[17]
So I set up a corp and post some of the major names to own stiock in it and then sell the shares to some nice marks..
the public has no means of checking the statement effetively, so it is worthless. Also I agree that having your wealth public can be detrimental.
Posts by alts hide political affiliation and history. No political statement by any alt should be taken seriously. |
Ignatius Nilsson
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 18:53:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Disposeble Alt So I set up a corp and post some of the major names to own stiock in it and then sell the shares to some nice marks..
the public has no means of checking the statement effetively, so it is worthless.
Why not?? If you say X has 10% of the shares, I can ask X if it is true.
What do you prefer? I prefer security in my investment more than privacy of my wealth.
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 20:21:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ignatius Nilsson
Originally by: Disposeble Alt So I set up a corp and post some of the major names to own stiock in it and then sell the shares to some nice marks..
the public has no means of checking the statement effetively, so it is worthless.
Why not?? If you say X has 10% of the shares, I can ask X if it is true.
What do you prefer? I prefer security in my investment more than privacy of my wealth.
"Posts by alts hide political affiliation and history. No political statement by any alt should be taken seriously."
should probably be changed to say something about market/stocks. |
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 21:02:00 -
[20]
hummm i still fail to see what good it does...? basically the OP was about letting "freshmen" know what the veterans do? apart from that, it'll just be a public display of who has how many shares (ergo how rich one is)
if those top5 investors (just an example) were on some kind of supervisory board and they had a few tools here and there (lockdown of BPOs, setting a day's maximum for any kind of isk transfer, etc) that'd be a whole different story. checks&balances is lacking and fro such a major improvement, i'd gladly give up my privacy.
but then again, this can be undermined by handing out large chunks to 5 alts - very much like i will spread my shares among my alts if this suggestion makes it into the game... - putting the gist back into logistics |
|
Disposeble Alt
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 21:31:00 -
[21]
Ezoran DuBlaidd,
The statement below (My sig) merely shows that alt-posts defenition are biased, they just (try to) hide something.
In this case it could be how poor I am.
Posts by alts hide political affiliation and history. No political statement by any alt should be taken seriously. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 21:42:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Roemy Schneider hummm i still fail to see what good it does...? basically the OP was about letting "freshmen" know what the veterans do? apart from that, it'll just be a public display of who has how many shares (ergo how rich one is)
if those top5 investors (just an example) were on some kind of supervisory board and they had a few tools here and there (lockdown of BPOs, setting a day's maximum for any kind of isk transfer, etc) that'd be a whole different story. checks&balances is lacking and fro such a major improvement, i'd gladly give up my privacy.
but then again, this can be undermined by handing out large chunks to 5 alts - very much like i will spread my shares among my alts if this suggestion makes it into the game...
which would make it even more of an interesting event. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 21:43:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Disposeble Alt Ezoran DuBlaidd,
The statement below (My sig) merely shows that alt-posts defenition are biased, they just (try to) hide something.
In this case it could be how poor I am.
or it could be to hide that someone in Goonswarm owns half of the ISSO shares, or something similarly strange. |
David H'Levi
Sniggerdly
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 22:14:00 -
[24]
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of disclosing large shareholders (the ISS/Goonswarm example is a good reason why). It would be swell for rooting out corruption and letting shareholders know about potential conflicts of interest. However, since people can make anonymous alts, it would be sort of a pointless endeavor. As much as you may love me, your signature must pertain to your in-game persona, and thus I must remove it. -Conuion Meow |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.08.06 20:43:00 -
[25]
Originally by: David H'Levi I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of disclosing large shareholders (the ISS/Goonswarm example is a good reason why). It would be swell for rooting out corruption and letting shareholders know about potential conflicts of interest. However, since people can make anonymous alts, it would be sort of a pointless endeavor.
i like pointless. |
Treelox
Amarr Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.08.06 21:25:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
i like pointless.
Well that explains just about 99% of all your post in "Market Discussion", i am glad you finally cleared it up for all of us who had been wondering if you were aware of your pointlessness. -- http://www./sigs/Treelox/sig.png [orange]signature removed (change the zombie gagging sig) - please email us (with the signature URL) if you want to know why - Pirlouit([email protected] |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.08.06 21:26:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
i like pointless.
Well that explains just about 99% of all your post in "Market Discussion", i am glad you finally cleared it up for all of us who had been wondering if you were aware of your pointlessness.
i said i like pointless, not posts by mindless sycophants. there is a very distinct difference.
|
Treelox
Amarr Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.08.06 21:32:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
i like pointless.
Well that explains just about 99% of all your post in "Market Discussion", i am glad you finally cleared it up for all of us who had been wondering if you were aware of your pointlessness.
i said i like pointless, not posts by mindless sycophants. there is a very distinct difference.
so does this mean your refering to yourself as a "mindless sycophant"? Cause I really dont see you trying very hard to brown nose your way to the top. -- http://www./sigs/Treelox/sig.png [orange]signature removed (change the zombie gagging sig) - please email us (with the signature URL) if you want to know why - Pirlouit([email protected] |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.08.06 21:50:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Treelox words.
i'm unsure, does this mean you're for or against the publishing of major stockholder names; because i'd hate to think that you're threadjacking out of jealousy. again.
As I stated in the last thread of the same subject, Personally I dont care one way or the other, but for others sake it should remain private.
for other's sakes, howso?
they stole the iskies? they're on the run? people have bought heavily into corps that their alliance is at war against?
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2007.08.06 23:02:00 -
[30]
I'd suggest that alts make it kinda pointless. The ISS couldn't even see how many shares I owned because I held them on an unknown alt. Now they know I'm in the top 10 investors.
Personally I couldn't care less if people saw my holdings in that alliance, but I wouldn't be willing to disclose all my investments.
Were a new IPO to come along that listed the investors, it would be possible to verify at initial buy of the shares, by using the wallet API to see who's buying. This could be independently checked, since they key can be safely given in public.
The transparency issue could be further continued by keeping the key open, and letting anyone audit the results of ongoing transactions. It would take discipline for the person running the corp to label and transfers correctly, but that's good practice for any serious corp anyway.
Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |