| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
   |
Posted - 2010.01.14 21:38:00 -
[31]
Why does it matters where the money goes? It is the IPO obligation to pay out dividends and not the shareholders obligation to be present.
Are we going to start taking dividends away from people because they are using thier profits unwisely?
If you dislike your shareholders, then close corp, pay shareholders, start a new one.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
herot
Fortunis - Redux
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 22:41:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Block Ukx
Why does it matters where the money goes? It is the IPO obligation to pay out dividends and not the shareholders obligation to be present.
Are we going to start taking dividends away from people because they are using thier profits unwisely?
If you dislike your shareholders, then close corp, pay shareholders, start a new one.
I must say that I fully agree with Block here, it's pretty straightforward in my eyes.
To be honest,I can't even see how this ever became a point of disscusssion.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 22:52:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Why does it matters where the money goes? It is the IPO obligation to pay out dividends and not the shareholders obligation to be present.
Are we going to start taking dividends away from people because they are using thier profits unwisely?
If you dislike your shareholders, then close corp, pay shareholders, start a new one.
This, absolutely.
Withholding dividends is no different in my eyes to withholding interest on deposits.
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 23:00:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Why does it matters where the money goes? It is the IPO obligation to pay out dividends and not the shareholders obligation to be present.
Are we going to start taking dividends away from people because they are using thier profits unwisely?
If you dislike your shareholders, then close corp, pay shareholders, start a new one.
Exactly, thanks for putting it so clear. I think that actions can be taken to protect other people from scammers too, but that includes making it for and with that people. If you are not doing it to counter a scam and avoid helping a scammer, you are outside of the law (that is if there were law in eve). If you want to go and do anything you want because you can, stepping on people's rights, there is a nice community at the other side of the fence called scammers that will welcome anyone who think like them.
EVEwatch Sidebar soon
"It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. " |
Diraus Trader
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 23:30:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Why does it matters where the money goes? It is the IPO obligation to pay out dividends and not the shareholders obligation to be present.
Are we going to start taking dividends away from people because they are using thier profits unwisely?
If you dislike your shareholders, then close corp, pay shareholders, start a new one.
thats how i should have posted earlier :P
but its 100% right the investors on md aren't looking to invest there time into a business just there capital. and the people looking for that investment know this when they come on here.
if you are requiring members to be active in order to get their dividend pay out then you should give them something for it a quarterly break down in business earnings.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 23:58:00 -
[36]
As much as I hate throwing ISK out the window, Venture owners have no right to withhold payments, unless payments are going to a scammer/defaulter!
|
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 00:17:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Why does it matters where the money goes? It is the IPO obligation to pay out dividends and not the shareholders obligation to be present.
Are we going to start taking dividends away from people because they are using thier profits unwisely?
If you dislike your shareholders, then close corp, pay shareholders, start a new one.
Agree completely, and what I meant in the EMFI(now AATP  ) thread, but got confused in typing it with paying scammers.
--
|
InUrJita CheckinUrPrice
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 00:58:00 -
[38]
I agree that requiring activity is not a reasonable requirement for investing. However, giving zombie corporations or players money for the rest of eternity simply because they hold shares is not a productive use of isk -- especially if one of the reasons you operate a public corporation is to interact with your shareholders!
My prior post on how it should be handled was pretty clear -- after a period of time sufficiently lengthy that a reasonable person would doubt return, a two month notice of intent to terminate investment should be sent, and following that the initial investment should be returned along with any early termination fees -- and a fair way of handling things.
Wind up procedures of this sort should also be flexible enough to deal with the obligations an independently operated partially or wholly owned entity might have to the shareholders of its now defunct owning company so that honest business people need not face the calumnies of the general public for taking a morally ambiguous route due to a lack of precedent suggesting the correct option. I'm not personally willing to be mired in that mud pit, or I'd have already worked it into my base framework, but gosh darn it someone should do it!
My main point isn't that it's necessarily a good thing to ditch inactive investors. It's that if a CEO wishes to do so, there should be a generally agreed upon framework for doing so that attempts to minimize the collateral damage of the choice. I'm sure some sort of analogy could be reached using abortion, but I'm not going to pull a Godwin.
|
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 03:54:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Grendell
So first of all, I'm a firm believer that if it is not in the original agreement it's not up for discussion. "A deal is a deal" as some would say. You would have to have a disclaimer during the initial offering that would handle sucha situation.
Agree 100% (I hope you didn't expect anything else  )
I realize I probably got carried away with a quick fix for existing corps (that would go against the above), as I hadn't considered existing corps at all in fact - I was more aiming at the future with my solution.
Sadly that oversight seems to have become a turning point in this discussion... (how to handle existing shares).
I wish we could drop that (I realize it has to be addressed of course) and instead focus on how a solution for future (new) shares should look.
This includes that any new IPO's up front declares if they will use the option, and if so the length of the activation.
So that shareholders can make up their mind if that's to their liking or not.
*My* motivation for bringing this up at all is :
Originally by: SetrakDark
there is something about putting ISK in accounts that will never be active again that just bugs me.
Irrational perhaps, as (as pointed out) it's not *my* ISK anyhow (it's the shareholders)
It just... bugs me
BIG Lottery |
Grendell
Technologies Unlimited
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 04:36:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Grendell on 15/01/2010 04:38:31
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Grendell
So first of all, I'm a firm believer that if it is not in the original agreement it's not up for discussion. "A deal is a deal" as some would say. You would have to have a disclaimer during the initial offering that would handle sucha situation.
Agree 100% (I hope you didn't expect anything else )
From you I of course didn't lol, you are the king as far as I am concerned when it come to fine print in an agreement.
Hit me up in game sometime, we should catch up.
|
Sugar Jugs
Juggalicious
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 07:59:00 -
[41]
Keep in mind, that while the dividend cap remains, lots of IPOs make multiple payments on the same day.
Also, if winding up an IPO and paying out via share dividends (eg. Atima would require 40ish dividends if it was disbanded), your method would be incredibly cumbersome and time consuming, plus lots of people who only login once a week would miss out.
Sorry, but this method is terrible. Nice idea, but terrible. :(
|
Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:00:00 -
[42]
Originally by: TornSoul
I wish we could drop that (I realize it has to be addressed of course) and instead focus on how a solution for future (new) shares should look.
This includes that any new IPO's up front declares if they will use the option, and if so the length of the activation.
So that shareholders can make up their mind if that's to their liking or not.
Personally I would never invest in an IPO or bond that had a clause like this. Investor confidence is already pretty shaky, giving them ultimatums about their own money is ridiculous.
-Jin Nib
Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since:
2009.03.02 03:53:00
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:03:00 -
[43]
TS, you having problems with liquid isk again?
Well, stop begging man, just scam!
Black Sun Empire |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 16:25:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Sugar Jugs
(eg. Atima would require 40ish dividends if it was disbanded)
Considering the minimum dividend bug has been fixed this is no longer an issue.
|
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 23:34:00 -
[45]
I must say that I'm surprised by the amount of people who would oppose (not invest in) a share that would require activation - Even if it was just every 6 months.
It *could* be a case of the disgruntled voicing their concern, and the satisfied masses not bothering - No way of telling really.
Be that is it may, the "Nay's" definitely have it in this thread over the "Aye's".
As such I will not personally pursue this any longer (go to the CSM etc), others are free to do so of course.
I still think it would be a good idea with some extra *options* for the secondary market - And this idea being one.
BIG Lottery |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 23:55:00 -
[46]
Quote:
I must say that I'm surprised by the amount of people who would oppose (not invest in) a share that would require activation - Even if it was just every 6 months.
I am not. People - EBANK teaches - want to park their money, do stuff like exams and then come back and find it plus interest so that they can play those 2 months of pause they got with a nice extra.
Quote:
I still think it would be a good idea with some extra *options* for the secondary market - And this idea being one.
Regular shares example: ETA dividend of 3%.
Privileged shares: ETA dividend of 3.5% but the investor accepts a timeout clause.
In finance as you teach me, money is the hook.
-
Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and
http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
ISK Six
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 05:02:00 -
[47]
Since these threads are fun, and people always cry about the shareholders being done wrong, there's one simple thing that is always forgotten:
A business can put whatever the hell they want in their terms, and if a customer buys into it, then they have to follow those terms. If those terms happen to include clauses for dealing with inactives, then so be it. I guarantee you that if TS or anyone here added that into their future business plans, it wouldn't hurt investment at all.
TS was just posting the possibility of a mechanic to make this easier.
|
AmarrVictor
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 06:31:00 -
[48]
my best suggestion would be to monthly create new shares and double them. Anyone that replys within a set time to state they are active gets the equivelant shares and so the equivelant percentage dividend. Those that dont reduce the dead end by 50% a month.
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 16:47:00 -
[49]
Originally by: AmarrVictor
my best suggestion would be to monthly create new shares and double them. Anyone that replys within a set time to state they are active gets the equivelant shares and so the equivelant percentage dividend. Those that dont reduce the dead end by 50% a month.
That's a pretty big penalty for taking a month off of eve.
Which everyone should do every so often...
|
Lord Arbalest
Amarr
Luck Yourself Into Isk
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 18:43:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Selene D'Celeste
A business can put whatever the hell they want in their terms, and if a customer buys into it, then they have to follow those terms. If those terms happen to include clauses for dealing with inactives, then so be it.
I agree with this 100%. It is up to the business to define the terms of their offer - and a customer choosing with their own free will to invest in that business are also agreeing to the terms and conditions that business has out-lined.
If someone here has read this and thinks that this would be a nice term to put into their 'new' IPO/Bond offering, then by all means, do it. This dose not have to be treated as a total MD re-adjustment but simply a possible new clause that certain people will be now using.
|
Poison
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 00:17:00 -
[51]
Anything like this should have been placed in print during the IPO otherwise it should not be done. Its unethical otherwise.... But I have seen lots of this in eve so its really how you want to be seen in the community.
|
Proton Power
Amarr
Luck Yourself Into Isk
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 03:20:00 -
[52]
If you put this in your initial plan, then its the investors problem, and they agreed to it by investing.
If you didnt' then you take the chance of screwing people over even at 6mths. This is the same argument I brought up to Ebank when they talked about inactive accounts for 6mths. Many peole in the military invest very heavily prior to leaving for a deployment (or atleast I do/did). If you changed it while i was gone to 6mths I would lose all my isk since I went by your initial plan not staing anyting about a 6mth clause.
|
TornSoul
BIG
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 04:07:00 -
[53]
Please read post 39
I personally have no intention of doing this retro-actively.
It is (was) intended for new IPO's.
BIG Lottery |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |