| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MailDeadDrop
Globaltech Industries
   |
Posted - 2009.06.26 16:49:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Titans 4U
1 - LaVista "1 Share" Vista
I'll take 9 to make up for it.
Originally by: Packtu'sa
Reserve 9 shares for me so LVV's 1 doesn't screw you up. 
D'oh! Breaker77 got it already. Err... reserve me 7.
You crazy cheap bastards...
Reserve 183 shares to even them out to a round 200.
MDD |
MailDeadDrop
Globaltech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 17:56:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Packtu'sa
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Titans 4U
1 - LaVista "1 Share" Vista
I'll take 9 to make up for it.
Originally by: Packtu'sa
Reserve 9 shares for me so LVV's 1 doesn't screw you up.
D'oh! Breaker77 got it already. Err... reserve me 7.
You crazy cheap bastards...
Reserve 183 shares to even them out to a round 200.
Oh no! I was counterbalancing the 3 shares that someone else already reserved, but you just re-reserved them!
Well, if true, I hearby grant Bad Bobby (or designee) the authority to reduce my reservation by up to 3 shares if they wish.
MDD |
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 06:42:00 -
[3]
Not as long as it took me to look.
Shares received.
MDD
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.07.04 12:27:00 -
[4]
Can I purchase an odd-lot quantity to round my total position to a multiple of 500?
MDD
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 15:00:00 -
[5]
Originally by: cosmoray
Director Update
I kind of forgot about T4U and the fact I had a director in the corp.
I have deleted all my admin characters and closed all but 1 of my accounts (my main one).
I no longer have a director in T4U or have any BOD shares in T4U.
I can no longer perform any lockdown/unlock votes for T4U. My understanding is that there are currently 5 directors (one was Kazzac who barely plays). I would advise finding another director to replace me.
Due to my limited time in game I won't be able to put a character in T4U or have any dealings with T4U if issues arise. I have also removed some roles in other corporations and declined a few directorships/BOD requests recently.
Bobby, are you looking for a replacement director?
MDD
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 15:13:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Estel Arador
Here's an idea I just had and haven't thought through fully yet: doing expansions as an auction and let people bid on shares. Instead of fixing the amount of shares, fix the total amount raised - so the higher the bids go, the less new shares will be issued. This way anyone can get in on the expansion at a price they deem fair. The benefit for existing shareholders would be that less new shares are needed and dividends per share will be higher.
Not a bad idea. Only hitch is that Bobby currently uses the share issuance vote as a yes/no vote on the expansion reason. Using your suggestion he won't know beforehand how many shares he will need. The obvious solution is to have 2 share votes: one for a yes/no vote on the expansion reason (called for issuing 1 new share), and a later one when the public auction is completed (called for issuing N-1 new shares).
MDD
|
MailDeadDrop
The Collective
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 16:01:00 -
[7]
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
Not a bad idea (Estel's). Only hitch is that Bobby currently uses the share issuance vote as a yes/no vote on the expansion reason. Using your suggestion he won't know beforehand how many shares he will need. The obvious solution is to have 2 share votes: one for a yes/no vote on the expansion reason (called for issuing 1 new share), and a later one when the public auction is completed (called for issuing N-1 new shares).
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Could be awkward if the results of the two votes come out differently.
Well, presumably you don't call a vote on the second batch if the first vote fails (duh). So the case to address is vote1=yes, vote2=no. I'm under the impression (perhaps misinformed) that you do not vote your large block of shares for the votes. You could change, and vote your block "yes" on the second vote. This would presumably reduce the odds of a "no" result. That coupled with a short vote duration should pretty much sew it up.
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Still a bit overcomplicated unless there is a really good reason for doing it this way. What are the real benefits compared to issuing a fixed number of shares at a variable price? Indeed is issuing non-fixed shares or at a non-fixed price a good idea given that it will likely put an end to profitable flipping and remove one of the incentives to buy the shares in the first place?
The advantage is that it reduces the dilutive effect on future dividends. For example, compare the cases of issuing X shares at 1M versus Y shares at 1.25M. Presumably Y = X/1.25 then (for the same capital raised). So that is 25% fewer new shares issued, which means that their dilutive effect on all future dividends is reduced by 25%.
As for removing the incentive for flipping, I don't think that it completely removes it. Estel's scheme does make flipping more speculative though (the bidder has to believe that the shares could be sold immediately after they're in-hand at a value more than the auction price). Because the interest in the issue is likely still high immediately after the auction closes, and since there is a small delay between the auction closing and the receipt of shares, I suspect that there would still be some flipping occurring. It wouldn't be the ISK printing machine it currently is though.
MDD
|
| |
|