Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Navarre Fuego
Gaston Mining and INdustrial War and Pestilence
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 13:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
In my view there are a number of things in the Corporate space which are being completely overlooked. How many of us issue and use shares properly? I have a few shareholders (some of which are on inactive accounts) and because there is no way of transferring shares short of "giving" them, I have found it difficult to ask for the shares to be returned, whether for a fee or not. I understand that there is little mechanic for establishing the value of a corporation and therefore the value of the shares, but to be able to say to people who have left the corp "I'll offer you {amount} ISK per share" I would need to have a way of honouring that trade without one party taking it as an element of faith that the cash will follow once the shares have been transferred. At present the shares can't be contracted or sold on the market. Perhaps if there were more ways of transferring shares, they would be used more by people to issue dividends, enforce votes, and raise capital, in the same way that the current shares market works IRL. Perhaps this would give rise to a mini-profession related to the trader, that of share trading. Why can't alliances make bills for corporations? it's VERY common practice among alliances (especially in Losec) to bill corporations for membership of an alliance. Often this is on the basis of how much resource they are consuming (e.g. how many towers they have up), which is subject to change. What would be REALLY useful is a way of setting up bills through the existing billing mechanism for Offices, providing Alliances with a way of automatically issuing bills to corporations for use of their services. The alternate mechanism is a time-consuming one where people have to chase other people by email for payment of these bills. This could also be extended to setting up fixed-time bills to corp members in return for products (e.g. I will give you this Hulk, but I will set up 10 monthly bills of 10mil each in return) - I don't propose that the "title" issues similar to those in place for the UK Consumer Credit act (1974) (which would mean that upon default the traded product returns to the owner) be enforced, merely that the billing structure would be able to be set up through the interface by a person of appropriate role (e.g. Director). Why doesn't the same mechanism for voting in Corporations exist for Alliances? If Alliances had shares as well, it would be possible for voting to occur in Alliances in the same way as it works in Corporations. This would allow for a more democratic mechanism for decision-making in Alliances, should that be required. It would also allow for share trading and dividend, perhaps as a result of profit from the alliances billing. I suspect that this might have to be accompanied by the creation of wallets for alliances which might be a step too far. Executor Corporations, however, could act as the holding wallet for the alliance share dividend and billing functions instead of extending wallet functions to alliances, if this is not practical for implementation. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 13:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
not sure if i agree |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
67
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 14:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ask CCP |
Navarre Fuego
Gaston Mining and INdustrial War and Pestilence
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 14:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:not sure if i agree some actual contribution would be nice, regarding what you do or don't agree with
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Ask CCP I live in hope that CCP occasionally harvest ideas from these fora when they items of interest. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 17:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
not sure if I care |
Plyn
Three 6 MaFiA KRYSIS.
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 18:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'd really love to see a trading mechanism for shares, where they can be traded via contract (x shares for y isk or even barter if people want.) Putting them in the regular market would be nice looking, but then has the problem of being region restricted. Alternatively, an entirely different trade mechanic could be created specifically for it.
Contracts would provide a way to make private share trades, for privately traded corporations.
I don't agree about being able to recall shares. Once the person has paid for the shares they belong to them, and technically it's their right to hold onto them if they want. The primary reason I feel this way is that otherwise it'd be easy to con people into paying X million per share, then immediately recall them, basically providing an easy way to scam.
The need to recall because of inactive players can easily be worked around. Just make sure the share pool is always growing.
Example: This is a system that works for pilots to participate in a share buying program for their corp * 10 ranks in the corp, rank 10 is CEO, rank 1 is new recruit * Beginning of the month everyone in the corp has the option to buy as many shares as their rank (ie. CEO can buy 10 shares) for x isk per share * End of the month, X% of the wallet is paid out in dividends to share holders, out of a dedicated wallet division. * Since plenty of the shares are held by the corp at any time, keep pushing the dividends until that wallet division has properly emptied. * Increase number of shares in existence as needed. * Inactive pilots will quickly have their percentage of ownership diminished, so eventually it won't matter that they have 100 shares, because the average pilot might have 1000 Come2Nullsec |
Navarre Fuego
Gaston Mining and INdustrial War and Pestilence
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 19:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
Plyn wrote:... I don't agree about being able to recall shares. Once the person has paid for the shares they belong to them, and technically it's their right to hold onto them if they want. The primary reason I feel this way is that otherwise it'd be easy to con people into paying X million per share, then immediately recall them, basically providing an easy way to scam. --- I don't think that it should be possible to recall shares from paying accounts, for that very reason. However, it would be nice to be able to extend an offer to the owner of some shares as I indicated in my OP, to say "I'd like to buy back the shares now you've left my corp, and I will offer you {x} for them".
Your suggestion :-
Plyn wrote: The need to recall because of inactive players can easily be worked around. Just make sure the share pool is always growing.
isn't really satisfactory in my view as dividend would still be paid to those accounts and they would still technically have voting rights. the assumption that "since plenty of the shares are held by the corp at any time" is fundamentally flawed, in my view. it forces the corp into an endless cycle of share issue which can only be done by a vote, and all other shareholders would block this as they would effectively lose the value in their shares.
My shares were often given out as a reward for attracting more pilots, and API checks to ensure that they aren't direct alts of existing characters.
I'd generally favour Contracts as one mechanism for share dealing, but equally a share exchange system could be implemented. A universal communication environment would probably be a key aspect of making a success of the Share dealing concept. |
Botleten
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.09.17 20:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
The enter button is your friend.
It separates thoughts in an organized fashion.
Also prevents them from appearing to be one giant wall of text. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Limitless Inc.
49
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 01:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Useful tools take 5year+ to be added into the game, and then often come with a broken mechanic, breaks the game, or have to be completely revamped (which usually takes 2-3 years to take place) anyway.
* The shares has been discussed since.. well forever, and never had any reasonable look at. * Bills would be a handy tool, but havn't been much talk on the forums so at best you could see it in 10years time from now. * See point #2. |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
265
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 03:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
Not sure if I agree. |
|
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
265
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 03:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
But we can discuss it! |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
265
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 03:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
And also post about it. |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
265
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 03:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
This sentence contains five words. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Limitless Inc.
56
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 03:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:But we can discuss it!
If you're married, then that can be read two ways: Male: Let's have sex about it. Female: Whatever you say, we'll do the opposite or I'll be cranky for months. |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
266
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 03:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Lyris Nairn wrote:But we can discuss it! If you're married, then that can be read two ways: Male: Let's have sex about it. Female: Whatever you say, we'll do the opposite or I'll be cranky for months. Be cranky about the sex, because it wasn't my way. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Limitless Inc.
60
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 03:50:00 -
[16] - Quote
Best to go gay, I always say. Xbox and beer, as foreplay. |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
266
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 03:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
I am attracted to shemales, seriously man, I'm not joking. |
Kurth Ren
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 13:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
i diddn't read the whole thing because it's an awful wall of text but i did see the part about alliances billing corps, just fyi any alliance which demands "dues" from member corps is a pyramid scheme, awful, or both. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 13:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:I am attracted to shemales, seriously man, I'm not joking.
I think it's something to do with the mix of masculinity and feminity. |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 13:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
Kurth Ren wrote:i diddn't read the whole thing because it's an awful wall of text but i did see the part about alliances billing corps, just fyi any alliance which demands "dues" from member corps is a pyramid scheme, awful, or both. I can confirm that GoonSwarm Federation is both awful and a pyramid scheme. |
|
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
402
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 13:55:00 -
[21] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:Lyris Nairn wrote:I am attracted to shemales, seriously man, I'm not joking. I think it's something to do with the mix of masculinity and feminity. Yeah, probably; I wonder if I have some sort of natural affinity for that or if my views, developed since adolescence, that the "gender roles" of modern society are stupid, have influenced it. I mean, I think sensitive men with more feminine features and reserved demeanours are more attractive than burly blockheads; similarly, I find independent women with strength of character and of body to be more attractive than ditsy flops. |
Kurth Ren
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 13:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
to be fair calling any current "major" alliance terrible is sort of like saying that the average person does at least one monumentally ******** thing when they're a teenager |
Navarre Fuego
Gaston Mining and INdustrial War and Pestilence
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 16:12:00 -
[23] - Quote
Kurth Ren wrote:i diddn't read the whole thing because it's an awful wall of text but i did see the part about alliances billing corps, just fyi any alliance which demands "dues" from member corps is a pyramid scheme, awful, or both.
I think this shows that you've never been involved in an alliance where there is a mix of industrial and PvP corps, where a Ship Replacement Programme is necessary to help the PvP people defend the space which all of the corps use. I don't see it as a pyramid scheme (although it could be) merely a way of allowing an alliance to fund it's defence in a sensible way. So long as the charges are reasonable and accepted by member corps, there isn't a problem. it's essentially no different to Corporate Taxes. If you don't like the charges (or the tax) leave the alliance (/corp).
There is a charge levied by Concord on alliances, and perhaps one of the most sensible uses for Alliances billing Corporations for membership is to recoup that cost in a fair and automated way.
Also, FYI, if you can't be bothered reading the whole of a proposal, don't comment on it. There really isn't that much too it to tax you. |
Navarre Fuego
Gaston Mining and INdustrial War and Pestilence
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.19 16:13:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:This sentence contains five words.
Tw@tter - so much to answer for. |
Plyn
Three 6 MaFiA KRYSIS.
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 19:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
Navarre Fuego wrote:isn't really satisfactory in my view as dividend would still be paid to those accounts and they would still technically have voting rights. the assumption that "since plenty of the shares are held by the corp at any time" is fundamentally flawed, in my view. it forces the corp into an endless cycle of share issue which can only be done by a vote, and all other shareholders would block this as they would effectively lose the value in their shares.
My shares were often given out as a reward for attracting more pilots, and API checks to ensure that they aren't direct alts of existing characters.
It all depends on how you use it, and what rights you consider share holders to have.
If you don't want share holders to be able to vote you out or anything, use an altcorp for the shares/dividends. If diluting the share pool is part of the overall plan, and shareholders knew this when they signed up, they shouldn't be a problem for that either. If they DO cause a problem, you can always just start another altcorp, transfer funds, divy up shares so that the people who had them to begin with have the same amount again, and then explain to everyone who stirred up trouble how their effort meant nothing, and in truth they are silent partners.
As for inactive people... Don't have to worry about them being able to vote if they are inactive. If they continue to receive a small part of the dividend (gets smaller and smaller over time, eventually becoming negligable) I don't really see how this is a problem. Whatever they did to earn those shares (effort or investment) they performed the function, they got the shares. Their right to sit on them and not play for a year if they want. When they get back they might do something useful with them, you never know. If you are uncomfortable with that as an option, I would advise you to track these sorts of things through a different method, like a spreadsheet.
Another workaround for the many-shares, dilution, voting issue is to have an alt hold the unsold shares... Though this will add a lot of effort onto your side when it comes time for dividends. Come2Nullsec |
Khadmos
Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.20 20:36:00 -
[26] - Quote
Navarre Fuego wrote:Kurth Ren wrote:i diddn't read the whole thing because it's an awful wall of text but i did see the part about alliances billing corps, just fyi any alliance which demands "dues" from member corps is a pyramid scheme, awful, or both. I think this shows that you've never been involved in an alliance where there is a mix of industrial and PvP corps, where a Ship Replacement Programme is necessary to help the PvP people defend the space which all of the corps use.
I think this shows that you've never been involved in an alliance where there is a mix of industrial and PvP corps, where a Ship Replacement Programme is necessary to help the PvP people defend the moons that pay for the Ship Replacement Programme. |
Navarre Fuego
Gaston Mining and INdustrial War and Pestilence
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.21 23:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
Plyn wrote: It all depends on how you use it, and what rights you consider share holders to have.
They have voting rights that can't be waived.
Plyn wrote: If you don't want share holders to be able to vote you out or anything, use an altcorp for the shares/dividends. If diluting the share pool is part of the overall plan, and shareholders knew this when they signed up, they shouldn't be a problem for that either. If they DO cause a problem, you can always just start another altcorp, transfer funds, divy up shares so that the people who had them to begin with have the same amount again, and then explain to everyone who stirred up trouble how their effort meant nothing, and in truth they are silent partners.
Issuing shares requires a vote, I believe. I don't see why anyone would deliberately buy shares in a corp when they know that their shares will devalue as a matter of course, without a really good reason to do so. The dividends would have to be really significant, and I don't see how it would make money. Using an alt corp makes it seem like a scam, when the purpose of issuing shares would be to sell them to raise capital for the corp.
|
PyroTech03
Legion of Darkwind Order of the Void
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 08:00:00 -
[28] - Quote
Dilution occurs in RL corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_dilution
Dilution of shares occurs when the corp needs to bring in more investor's, so they make more shares, thus making the shares you own worth less....to maintain current ownership percentage, you buy more shares.
The difference in RL, is that you can choose how much each member's share's are diluted based on a contract....can't do that in Eve.
The reason someone would CHOOSE to dilute their shares, is that by doing so....the corp is bringing in more money....so even if he doesn't buy any more, his shares will be worth more (usually having the intent to buy some more of the newly created shares).
As a corp owner (when starting) you can have the choice to sell only a percentage of your corp....as a CEO that wants to maintain control, you would usually only sell 49% of your corp (thus 49% of shares) and make them part of your IPO.
You can then continue to dilute the shares accordingly, ensuring that it's understood that only 49% of the corp will be public at any time and therefore maintaining majority share. The only hicup you may get here, is that I think alot of players will throw a fit that your getting 51% payout in shares, so either you'd have to deal with it, put the shares back in the corp (so that the corp gets paid back, but risk a director screwing you....generally bad idea).
Generally, if your doing a long term corp, you as CEO should keep majority shares so that you can protect assets.
As for alliance billing and other stuff mentioned....i would love to have an alliance level wallet to eliminate the need for holding corps and alliance billing to help manage bills to the corps to take care of the maint bill.
NOTE: To make it clear, i'm not an accountant or a trader. The comments above are only on my understanding, however limited it may actually be/not be, on businesses. If I'm wrong on how something works in the actual business/corporate world, I appologize. |
Plyn
Three 6 MaFiA
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.30 16:25:00 -
[29] - Quote
Navarre Fuego wrote: They have voting rights that can't be waived.
Issuing shares requires a vote, I believe. I don't see why anyone would deliberately buy shares in a corp when they know that their shares will devalue as a matter of course, without a really good reason to do so. The dividends would have to be really significant, and I don't see how it would make money. Using an alt corp makes it seem like a scam, when the purpose of issuing shares would be to sell them to raise capital for the corp.
Like I said, it all depends on how you use it. My example is something I do in my corp. Pilots gain rank by performing services for the corp. Pilots are allowed to acquire an amount of shares in an alt corp based on their rank in the corp, for an extremely paltry sum of 100 ISK/share.
- By using an alt corp, we bypass the issue of voting rights. Sure, they can vote in that alt corp, but they can never really cause any damage. Worst case scenario is I have to remake the alt corp, for the unthinkable sum of ~1.5million isk.
- By constantly diluting the total shares, and requiring that they send the meager 100 isk/share each month to get them, we insure that inactive pilots will soon find their stake in the corp largely devalued. Since active pilots will continue to acquire their shares each month, the total value of their dividends isn't affected, only the isk/share.
- At the end of each month, 10% of the corp wallet is transferred to the alt corp, and paid out as dividends. Everyone is happy.
Selling shares can almost always seem like a scam, because there is absolutely no guarantee that dividends will EVER be paid out. Since most corp CEOs always keep at least 51% of the shares for the reasons stated above, you will never have a guarantee that your shares won't be diluted, either.
You don't have to use the shares/dividends system to do this. You could very easily accomplish the same goal with a spreadsheet. Come2Nullsec |
Navarre Fuego
Gaston Mining and INdustrial War and Pestilence
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.30 17:57:00 -
[30] - Quote
Plyn wrote: Stuff about his scheme
well that is an interesting mechanic for rewarding players for cooperation in your scheme, but it seems like it's more about making people buy shares than it is about using shares in the way that they are used IRL. people who buy the shares are forced into buying more shares (the value of the shares is an interesting question) to maintain their cut , which is something I would think would be less than desirable in a parent corp.
What I would like to see is more of that kind of use of shares, where share issue is used to raise capital, and share trading is enabled by the system , rather than being prevented except on the basis of Giving and trusting in the remuneration. Trading shares through contracts would make a lot of sense, would raise the possibility of scamming for sure but would be more real-life in the sense of allowing shares to actually be useful to the parent corp, rather than forcing you into using an alt corp which again feels like it's very open to scamming (as you say, you could at any time fold the corp and create a new one, leaving the players (not necessarily members of your corp) with useless shares or no shares
I would have thought that as long as it's understood that 50% of all new share issues will be retained by the CEO (or Corp if there are no non-CEO directors), corps and shareholders would be happy to issue shares to raise money by allowing them to be bought on the shares market. I take your point on dividends, though, because there's no stimulus to create the dividends except to reward investors (i.e. there's nothing forcing you to pay dividends). Perhaps a way to prevent corps from being folded prematurely is to set up a "peppercorn" payment of 1isk / month to all shareholders, and preventing the dissolution of a corp when there are outstanding bills being paid or payable (you can have an HQ without having an office, I believe), although this would prevent people from winding up corps in the way you suggest you would do in your Worst Case Scenario.
I guess the real difficulty is in establishing the net worth of a corporation, since this information would be required for a proper valuation of the shares. I guess a new environment for selling shares (complete with share tracker information) would be able to assess net worth by looking at Wallets and Assets in hangars or in space. This in itself would be useful intelligence, not only for share buyers but also competitors and enemies, so would perhaps not be particularly desirable as public, readily--accessible information; it would, however, make an interesting way of ranking Corps and perhaps Alliances to produce a "Fortune 500" style list. That data would, I think, have to be a monthly snapshot rather than real-time analysis as otherwise it would be too demanding on the database.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |