Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:33:00 -
[1]
is the going div standard around 6-7% now? i'm noticing more and more ventures that are shooting for that, instead of the old 4-5%.
disclaimer tears |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:38:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd is the going div standard around 6-7% now? i'm noticing more and more ventures that are shooting for that, instead of the old 4-5%.
This isn't a serious post is it?
It's been standard for months now to offer a minimum of 6% if not 7-8% or more. You know this so why post this thread as if you do not? Not quite sure I see the point in proving the people you dislike correct.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:40:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd is the going div standard around 6-7% now? i'm noticing more and more ventures that are shooting for that, instead of the old 4-5%.
This isn't a serious post is it?
It's been standard for months now to offer a minimum of 6% if not 7-8% or more. You know this so why post this thread as if you do not? Not quite sure I see the point in proving the people you dislike correct.
not all big corps do this yet. if it's a standard, maybe they can be pimped to up their monthly divs.
i'm trying to instill some peer pressure to get more money from divs. disclaimer tears |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:47:00 -
[4]
Well, I doubt the old funds will want to increase their dividends unless one of several things happens:
1. They want to expand. 2. People start looking to reinvest and buyback offers become more widespread/popular.
My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:48:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd not all big corps do this yet. if it's a standard, maybe they can be pimped to up their monthly divs.
i'm trying to instill some peer pressure to get more money from divs.
Why?
Those older corps made a plan to meet a specific target, why should they be forced to give away more of their profits than they originally promised, or close completely so that they can meet the same level of returns being established by new start ups.
If you don't like the returns from those older corps, then sell your stocks so that you can move your captial to higher returning investments. If your sell off of those shares causes a price drop on those shares, the suprise suprise, the returns relative to those new lower share prices will be closer to that of the new start ups.
Is it possible that the new start ups appear to have higher returns because their shares are under valued, or that the older well established corps have lower returns because their shares are over valued?
************************** Datacore Harvesting IPO |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd not all big corps do this yet. if it's a standard, maybe they can be pimped to up their monthly divs.
i'm trying to instill some peer pressure to get more money from divs.
Why?
um, because of what i said - i want more money from divs. disclaimer tears |
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:51:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd not all big corps do this yet. if it's a standard, maybe they can be pimped to up their monthly divs.
i'm trying to instill some peer pressure to get more money from divs.
Why?
um, because of what i said - i want more money from divs.
Good luck with that.
************************** Datacore Harvesting IPO |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:52:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd not all big corps do this yet. if it's a standard, maybe they can be pimped to up their monthly divs.
i'm trying to instill some peer pressure to get more money from divs.
Why?
um, because of what i said - i want more money from divs.
Good luck with that.
thanks. that's where this post comes in. disclaimer tears |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 19:59:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd not all big corps do this yet. if it's a standard, maybe they can be pimped to up their monthly divs.
i'm trying to instill some peer pressure to get more money from divs.
Why?
um, because of what i said - i want more money from divs.
Then sell your shares and get more valuable ones.
There is no reason a corp should pay out more if people are willing to keep their money with them at a lower rate.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
northwesten
Amarr Trinity Corporate Services
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 20:00:00 -
[10]
answer to your question n is no! stop trolling like a child please
this post fails ---------------------- sig --------- dont flame My English I am dyslexic. |
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 20:34:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Shadarle
There is no reason a corp should pay out more if people are willing to keep their money with them at a lower rate.
NOW you see what i'm getting at. if people do start talking and get together and be like "hey what gives"... disclaimer tears |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 20:35:00 -
[12]
Originally by: northwesten answer to your question n is no! stop trolling like a child please
this post fails
spoken like a true wannabe goon. disclaimer tears |
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 20:38:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Shadarle
There is no reason a corp should pay out more if people are willing to keep their money with them at a lower rate.
NOW you see what i'm getting at. if people do start talking and get together and be like "hey what gives"...
No they won't. Unless they are trying to raise more money then they don't care what their stocks are valued at. If they have all the capital that they need then they really have very little reason to listen to what people are saying about their crappy returns.
If you don't like what their returns are, then sell the stocks and move on to something better.
************************** Datacore Harvesting IPO |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 20:40:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Shadarle
There is no reason a corp should pay out more if people are willing to keep their money with them at a lower rate.
NOW you see what i'm getting at. if people do start talking and get together and be like "hey what gives"...
People are clearly happy getting 4-5% returns tough as they continue to support IPO's that pay out so poorly. Just look at all the people in the ISSO thread and in other threads on this forum. They act like 5% is an awesome investment. A post by you is not going to change that. The only thing that will change it is more and more new IPO's in the 7-8% range.
Until people have new IPO's to put their money into the 5% ones will not be forced to charge more. I bet I could launch an IPO at 5% and get investors still... simply because there are not enough other IPO's out there right now and people want investment.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 20:40:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Shadarle
There is no reason a corp should pay out more if people are willing to keep their money with them at a lower rate.
NOW you see what i'm getting at. if people do start talking and get together and be like "hey what gives"...
No they won't. Unless they are trying to raise more money then they don't care what their stocks are valued at. If they have all the capital that they need then they really have very little reason to listen to what people are saying about their crappy returns.
If you don't like what their returns are, then sell the stocks and move on to something better.
think you already said that.
don't be skeered. change is coming.
disclaimer tears |
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 20:54:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd change is coming.
Yes, I am sure that because you have requested it all those corps will start piping billions of additional ISK out as dividends.
************************** Datacore Harvesting IPO |
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 21:04:00 -
[17]
Why are people debating "why should a corp give out more money if people are happy with 5%"?
Corporations should have had an initial prospectus that specified a profit distribution; they shouldn't be able to "choose" to give the shareholders a higher or lower percent without their consent.
If AATP earns 6%, I will pay out 5.4% and keep 0.6% as salary. If AATP earns 10%, I will pay out 9% and keep 1% as salary. If AATP earns 2%, I will pay out 1.8% and keep 0.2% as salary. "Choosing" to give out a higher or lower percent of profits as dividends doesn't make sense.
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! (updated) |
northwesten
Amarr Trinity Corporate Services
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 21:20:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: northwesten answer to your question n is no! stop trolling like a child please
this post fails
spoken like a true wannabe goon.
what? umm ok .............. school much? ---------------------- sig --------- dont flame My English I am dyslexic. |
Daeva Vios
PhaseShifter Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 21:29:00 -
[19]
I want more free money, too. No more investing until people promise to give me more free money.
I want my money to work harder for me than it already is. If it doesn't work harder, I'll spank it.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.03 21:45:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Dark Shikari Why are people debating "why should a corp give out more money if people are happy with 5%"?
Corporations should have had an initial prospectus that specified a profit distribution; they shouldn't be able to "choose" to give the shareholders a higher or lower percent without their consent.
If AATP earns 6%, I will pay out 5.4% and keep 0.6% as salary. If AATP earns 10%, I will pay out 9% and keep 1% as salary. If AATP earns 2%, I will pay out 1.8% and keep 0.2% as salary. "Choosing" to give out a higher or lower percent of profits as dividends doesn't make sense.
Well, I think this is referring more to corps that have a fixed rate of return or a min of 4-5% and tend to pay at this level often. Not corps that pay out a percent of profits per say... tho if a corp pays a percent of profits and only pays out 4-5% then the cut by the manager may be too high.
But if people are willing to invest still then that is their choice.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 01:01:00 -
[21]
lots of folks have stated they're happy with like 4 or 5% divs.
is it because they honestly believe that is all the profit one can expect? i think part of the problem is yes, they do believe that.
look at how much bunsen was giving in divs, until he realized that all the other ventures using as much isk as he was utilizing, were paying out like 1/4th of what he was paying out.
if someone can't make a high percentage of profit, once they hit X billion isk; then they shouldn't handle more than X billion isk, and they should work together with others so that the cutoff point of great-down-to-**** divs is never met, and the divs always stay stellar.
i know there's epeening about "oh i handle X billions". that's great, your epeen should be "i consistently give XY% divs".
you can invest 500 billion isk and make me a whopping 4-5%. big ******* deal. you can invest 5 billion and turn a 15% profit for investors AND take home a big chunk for yourself as well? swallow your epeen and make me some money. disclaimer tears |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 01:05:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd lots of folks have stated they're happy with like 4 or 5% divs.
is it because they honestly believe that is all the profit one can expect? i think part of the problem is yes, they do believe that.
look at how much bunsen was giving in divs, until he realized that all the other ventures using as much isk as he was utilizing, were paying out like 1/4th of what he was paying out.
if someone can't make a high percentage of profit, once they hit X billion isk; then they shouldn't handle more than X billion isk, and they should work together with others so that the cutoff point of great-down-to-**** divs is never met, and the divs always stay stellar.
i know there's epeening about "oh i handle X billions". that's great, your epeen should be "i consistently give XY% divs".
you can invest 500 billion isk and make me a whopping 4-5%. big ******* deal. you can invest 5 billion and turn a 15% profit for investors AND take home a big chunk for yourself as well? swallow your epeen and make me some money.
Why should they want to pay out high divs? If they can get away with paying 5% or even 7% why should they pay 10-15-20%? That's just stupid for anyone to do.
Do I complain when people offer high returns? No. But if someone can get 30 billion and only return 6-7% why shouldn't they do that instead of taking 3 billion and returning 25%? Nothing is in it for them.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 01:14:00 -
[23]
that's what i'm saying... WHY are we, as investors, settling for less? disclaimer tears |
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 01:30:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd that's what i'm saying... WHY are we, as investors, settling for less?
We aren't...
Any offering released today at 5% would have a rough time selling. Times change, and our expectations have changed.
Expecting the older investments to completely change their payout structure to remain competitive with the newer offerings is like buying a Ford, driving it for a year, then expecting a rebate when Chevy comes out with a cooler, more economical model the following year.
Either sell your Ford, or just accept the fact that you're getting exactly what you paid for when you bought it.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 01:32:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kitex
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd that's what i'm saying... WHY are we, as investors, settling for less?
We aren't...
Any offering released today at 5% would have a rough time selling. Times change, and our expectations have changed.
Expecting the older investments to completely change their payout structure to remain competitive with the newer offerings is like buying a Ford, driving it for a year, then expecting a rebate when Chevy comes out with a cooler, more economical model the following year.
Either sell your Ford, or just accept the fact that you're getting exactly what you paid for when you bought it.
good point, which has been made by others in this thread.
however, if it is not voiced that those divs are not the divs investors want to see; then new ventures will believe that 4, 6, 8 percent is what the investing public wants to see, not 10/15/20 percent. disclaimer tears |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 01:33:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd is the going div standard around 6-7% now? i'm noticing more and more ventures that are shooting for that, instead of the old 4-5%.
Here's my one post on this topic:
1.) Bonds should have lower returns, they should be fixed, and it shouldn't matter how much money the venture makes. A Bond pays a fixed rate, it's lower than a stock, and puppies are cute. I hold these truths to be self evident.
2.) Stocks should have a return based on a set percent of monthly profits. This should fluctuate on a month by month basis (the exact same return every month would honestly scare me, it would smack of "artificial" dividends), bearing an accurate reflection of profits generated by that organization. Reporting should be expected in order to show investors the reasons for fluctuations which provides for...wait for it....speculation! A very important driver for secondary markets! Stocks should have a relatively higher return than average bonds but should in no way be beholden to perform to a certain standard for any reason. Every stock is different and every business is different. Not all businesses are created equal, and neither are their stock returns. Some suck. Hopefully their stock is priced accordingly.
Should businesses be performing better? That seems to be the thrust of the thread, and perhaps that's true, but creating expectations in terms of returns could result in some well-meaning IPO manager to artificially inflate his returns (to meet expectations) and mask the declining profits of his business. Investors would be in the dark (thanks to his good intentions) which really wouldn't be good for anyone.
Small dividends are fine, so long as they're in line with the set percent of profits generated for that given month. Maybe that cut is small, maybe that cut is big, as long as it's accurate than everything is fine. Same goes for big dividends.
To sum it up:
It is what it is.
p.s. I love irish coffee!
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 01:40:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Ezoran DuBlaidd on 04/11/2007 01:40:27 1 sure
2 that's why i made the comment about people either joining forces (if they can't handle the billions they've asked for), or work with a smaller amount of isk and make better profits. alliances accomplish the real things in eve, such as conquering/controlling systems. why should there be no corporations which are publicly traded, which have a handful of people each working that isk to make lots of profits?
that WAS what isso sold. just doesn't seem like they ever followed thru with it. what if folks did follow thru with that idea? or, if folks just handled the amount of isk which their personal skills (player, not toon) would allow them to handle and make da uber profits?
edit: problems with da engrishes.
disclaimer tears |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 01:48:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd Edited by: Ezoran DuBlaidd on 04/11/2007 01:40:27 1 sure
2 that's why i made the comment about people either joining forces (if they can't handle the billions they've asked for), or work with a smaller amount of isk and make better profits. alliances accomplish the real things in eve, such as conquering/controlling systems. why should there be no corporations which are publicly traded, which have a handful of people each working that isk to make lots of profits?
that WAS what isso sold. just doesn't seem like they ever followed thru with it. what if folks did follow thru with that idea? or, if folks just handled the amount of isk which their personal skills (player, not toon) would allow them to handle and make da uber profits?
edit: problems with da engrishes.
They don't have to make uber profits relative to the amount of money they raised though. They SHOULD make uber profits relative to the amount they raised...but I don't believe it should be required. People tend to make this very mistake on their first IPO and I don't mind a business being run poorly (I'd rather they run it great of course) but I do mind that they report the performance of their business accurately.
I'm not saying your wrong here (far from it), I think some businesses should do what your saying, but I don't want all businesses to behave exactly the same in terms of operations and financing.
One thing I do want all businesses to do is report accurately and issue accurate dividends...be they good or bad or just pathetic.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 01:56:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd Edited by: Ezoran DuBlaidd on 04/11/2007 01:40:27 1 sure
2 that's why i made the comment about people either joining forces (if they can't handle the billions they've asked for), or work with a smaller amount of isk and make better profits. alliances accomplish the real things in eve, such as conquering/controlling systems. why should there be no corporations which are publicly traded, which have a handful of people each working that isk to make lots of profits?
that WAS what isso sold. just doesn't seem like they ever followed thru with it. what if folks did follow thru with that idea? or, if folks just handled the amount of isk which their personal skills (player, not toon) would allow them to handle and make da uber profits?
edit: problems with da engrishes.
I don't run an IPO, but my spur of the moment objections to joining forces with anyone to run a "For Profit" corporation are these:
1. The more hands in the pot, the greater the logistics headache of running things efficiently. Me and Partner A do most of the work, while partner B sits on his thumbs and collects an equal salary. That bastard. The more people involved, the more it begins to resemble running a real-world small business (work), than playing a game.
2. The more hands in the pot, the greater the chance of fraud. All my partners would have access to at least some assets, or what good would they be? Even if he doesn't rip off the entire investment, the aforementioned slacker "Partner B" may log for a month or two with a few bil of investment assets in his personal inventory. Establishing trust for a single IPO manager in these forums is a job in itself - I'd be loathe to even try it with a group.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 02:06:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Hexxx Here's my one post on this topic:
1.) Bonds should have lower returns, they should be fixed, and it shouldn't matter how much money the venture makes. A Bond pays a fixed rate, it's lower than a stock, and puppies are cute. I hold these truths to be self evident.
2.) Stocks should have a return based on a set percent of monthly profits. This should fluctuate on a month by month basis (the exact same return every month would honestly scare me, it would smack of "artificial" dividends), bearing an accurate reflection of profits generated by that organization. Reporting should be expected in order to show investors the reasons for fluctuations which provides for...wait for it....speculation! A very important driver for secondary markets! Stocks should have a relatively higher return than average bonds but should in no way be beholden to perform to a certain standard for any reason. Every stock is different and every business is different. Not all businesses are created equal, and neither are their stock returns. Some suck. Hopefully their stock is priced accordingly.
Should businesses be performing better? That seems to be the thrust of the thread, and perhaps that's true, but creating expectations in terms of returns could result in some well-meaning IPO manager to artificially inflate his returns (to meet expectations) and mask the declining profits of his business. Investors would be in the dark (thanks to his good intentions) which really wouldn't be good for anyone.
Small dividends are fine, so long as they're in line with the set percent of profits generated for that given month. Maybe that cut is small, maybe that cut is big, as long as it's accurate than everything is fine. Same goes for big dividends.
To sum it up:
It is what it is.
p.s. I love irish coffee!
I agree with you in theory. The problem is that the current Eve market isn't following those guidelines on two scores:
1. People are issuing "bonds" (with guaranteed returns) where they don't have the financial backing to pay those rates if things go wrong. i.e. unestablished companies are issuing "Bonds" where the payout relies on thte capital raised by the bonds performing well - when they should have (but don't) a backup mechaism to cover any losses. 2. People who don't know the difference between bonds and shares are confusing the two - and offering "fixed rate" shares - with the cap of a bond but not the independent backing to pay the guaranteed rate if their plan fails.
I personally run both types of offerings: Fury Holdings is a share (payment to shareholder is based entirely on how well FH performs) and Fury Bank is probably best viewed as a Bond (the return is a fixed rate - with FH underwrititing it - so in a bad month Fury Bank depositors get their fixed rate and FH shareholders get a redcued profit or even a loss). Unfortunately a lot of individuals seem to have a problem distinguishing between the two - and mislabel or misrepresent what they're offering.
The problem occurs largely because many "players" in the market have no idea of the distinction between the two - or even of why the two are different. Equally many don't appreciate the difference between a guaranteed return and a target return. EBank has been very careful to set it's promised (guaranteed) returns so low that they're easily achievable - which is commendable. Unfortunately plenty of other corporations aren't so careful with what they "guarantee".
Too many corporations think that issuing a share followed by paying an arbitrary amount each month is fine - it's not. When dividends are based on profits then there's a duty owed to shareholders to demonstrate what those profits actually are - and many corps fail miserably at that. The current market is a mix of people who don't know better and those who take advantage of the ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |