EVE Search - Blackhole share dividends

All Channels

Market Discussions

Blackhole share dividends - What to do about it?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2010.01.14 13:12:00 - [1] Characters can go inactive. Those characters can hold shares that pay out dividends. When dividends are paid out, dividends are also poured into these "black holes" where no one has any benefit of them. This is frankly a waste of good ISK, that could benefit others instead of simply being poured into a black hole (inactive character) The problem is to identify a black hole character... Not to mention when is a character a black hole character... (1 month inactivity, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months?) And what if that character suddenly returns (after 3 months, 12 months... 2 years...) - How do you handle that? Also - Even given that we somehow could (agree upon how to) identify a black hole character, what should happen with the shares hold by this character? What should happen to the dividends paid to this character? --- I honestly don't think we'll be able to come up with a solution to all of the above given the current tools we have available. So instead of trying to duct-tape something together, I'll instead outline a proposal that would require some CCP intervention, which, if we can agree to something, I suggest we put to the CSM, so they can push it to CCP to make it happen. --- The suggestion is actually incredible simple and is as follows: - Between two() dividend payouts, a shareholder has to indicate they are active, or they will simply not receive the next payout. () The period should be adjustable, and set upon share creation. As 1000 shares are created automatically as it is, it would have to be set before the first share transfer could be made, and should require a shareholder vote to change later. That's really all there is to it. If someone does not "activate" their shares, the dividend is simply distributed between activated shares. There should be a way for the share-issuer/everyone? to see how many shares are active/not active. This in order to be able to calculate a sharevalue of active shares, both for bookkeeping purposes, but also in case of liquidation. Please discuss. Flaws, improvements ? BIG Lottery
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2010.01.14 13:18:00 - [2] It's a waste of good ISK but it's not your ISK, even if you made them. As such if I was in the same situation (ehm actually I am :S, I am "giving back" about 2B of stuff to a guy who is not logging since months) I'd still keep paying dividends. I consider that money as "gone" and not mine and that's it. This avoids any problem if the guy comes back. It's just money and it's not even "real" money and in EvE it's one of the easiest things to make, why be or look cheap? - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2010.01.14 13:23:00 - [3] With my suggestions you would have the option of setting the "activation period" to whatever you want - including indefinite (or a tick box on whether to active this option or not) Just a way of further differentiating share offerings. Some would use it, some would not. All optional. And there's (good) arguments for doing it both ways. Simply a matter of what you are looking for as a shareholder. BIG Lottery
Bret Caliaro Fortuna inc. Leather Rose Syndicate	Posted - 2010.01.14 13:34:00 - [4] Edited by: Bret Caliaro on 14/01/2010 13:33:58 For this reason I never use the dividend mechanic I just pay players directly, shares are just for keeping track of investors and them to keep track of their investments imo. Would be nice to "void" shares though through a vote, there are obviously complications but it would be better than the current useless system. _________________________________________________ I'm a so very lazy, so I play smart not hard.
RAW23	Posted - 2010.01.14 13:44:00 - [5] Sounds like an ideal solution as long as its agreed upon in the initial terms and conditions. I'm not sure anything would need to be implemented at CCPs end though. You could just add a requirement into your offering that the shareholder must reply to an EVE mail at least once every X months. Obviously, it would be easier if CCP were to implement something, but it could be done without. The key is that these conditions be agreed to by the purchaser. In the case of one publicly owned company buying into another, however, I would expect that many shareholders in the purchasing corp might be wary of buying into ventures with such a clause (unless it became an industry standard and they had no choice), as accepting such a clause would remove any legitimate claim they had on company assets should the CEO, or BoD go silent. Originally by: TornSoul You seem to misunderstand... This would not benefit the shareissuer in anyway. So it's not a question of being cheap or not. It would however benefit the remaining shareholders. On this, though, the company founder would often be a major shareholder and, while technically distinct from the share issuer, may well stand to benefit significantly from such a clause. But still, as long as investors know that their share ownership is conditional and not absolute, I don't see a problem with that.
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2010.01.14 13:48:00 - [6] Edited by: Estel Arador on 14/01/2010 13:53:53 As long as you have isk from a character in your business, you should pay dividends to that character, whether the character is active or not. Doing anything else would amount to theft. Now paying dividends to characters which are inactive is a waste. If at all possible I'd go for a system where shareholders have to confirm that they are active every x months. Any shareholders who don't check in, get their investment refunded (along with any dividends up to that point) and the business can take new investors for the amount that was returned. I guess it's more like a rolling bond than an IPO, but it avoids the 'endlessly-paying-dividends-to-inactives-problem'. Of course the ingame share system is hopeless for this, so you'd have to use virtual shares. Edit: as far as new ingame features are concerned, this scheme would benefit from a forced buyback of shares (per shareholder) feature. Free jumpclone service: Thread\|Expanded again!
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2010.01.14 13:53:00 - [7] Originally by: RAW23 I'm not sure anything would need to be implemented at CCPs end though. You could just add a requirement into your offering that the shareholder must reply to an EVE mail at least once every X months. How would you prevent paying out div's to the inactive shares though? Only way to do that would be to virtualize the shares, with all the hazzle of div payouts that entails. BIG Lottery
RAW23	Posted - 2010.01.14 14:02:00 - [8] Originally by: TornSoul Originally by: RAW23 I'm not sure anything would need to be implemented at CCPs end though. You could just add a requirement into your offering that the shareholder must reply to an EVE mail at least once every X months. How would you prevent paying out div's to the inactive shares though? Only way to do that would be to virtualize the shares, with all the hazzle of div payouts that entails. Ah - I see you point. I'd certainly be willing to support this. Who on the CSM would we need to pressure? I'm not sure how those politics work. Is it a formal process or do we just pick a member and eve mail them?
cosmoray Bella Vista Holdings Corp	Posted - 2010.01.14 14:54:00 - [9] I do support this idea in theory, but would be a bit concerned about the 2 month rule. I know some players invest while they take breaks. What I would like to see, is that if it can be confirmed that a shareholder is: 1. banned 2. left the game 3. Scammer (maybe?) Then action taken against those players. If it can be proved a new holding corp needs to be set up each time, but what happens to the shares. Does the CEO get them? Do the other shareholders split them? Removed from circulation thus increasing NAV per share? Not sure of best approach.
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2010.01.14 14:59:00 - [10] @raw23 Don't worry too much about the CSM thing for now (and it's rather informal anyways) - I'll deal with that when/if the time comes (as the proposal maker) "When/if" because I'd like to see some sort of consensus consentment from the MD regulars before moving on with it, as that would give it more weight with the CSM, and eventually CCP (and otherwise it would simply be wasting their time having to deal with it). So lets get some more views/reviews on the merits of the idea, and possible tuning before moving it to the CSM. Plenty of time until next (major) patch anyhow BIG Lottery
Cista2 Jita Direct Sale	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:01:00 - [11] There is no problem really. I pay out dividends using the ingame share system myself. If a time comes when I suspect some of the shareholders have left the game, I will just stop paying them dividends. To do that I would have to switch to manual payment of the dividends, so there would be a weighting if I wanted to do it that way. Should the missing persons return to game and go "Hey what happened to my dividneds!??1!!", you simply pay up. No problem. ----------------------- MD stock market / Audits 001 / MD investees
Hel O'Ween Men On A Mission	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:03:00 - [12] Originally by: TornSoul - Between two() dividend payouts, a shareholder has to indicate they are active, or they will simply not receive the next payout. While I agree in principal with your observations, the above doesn't seem to be a good solution to me. One reason why I would invest in something that pays out on a regular basis, is to not* have to "babysit" it. -- EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:10:00 - [13] Originally by: cosmoray I do support this idea in theory, but would be a bit concerned about the 2 month rule. Tsk tsk cosmo - sloppy reading on your part. Not like you. I never mentioned 2 _months_, simply two div payouts (quite deliberately as well) and "() The period should be adjustable, and set upon share creation.* Originally by: cosmoray I know some players invest while they take breaks. Aye, which is why an IPO should state their inactivity period, and investors can thus invest accordingly (to fit if they think they might take a break or not) Originally by: cosmoray What I would like to see, is that if it can be confirmed that a shareholder is: 1. banned 2. left the game 3. Scammer (maybe?) Then action taken against those players. If it can be proved a new holding corp needs to be set up each time, Frankly it's no business of the share-issuer why a character might be inactive (imo). Inactive is inactive. Originally by: cosmoray ... ,but what happens to the shares. Does the CEO get them? Do the other shareholders split them? Removed from circulation thus increasing NAV per share? Not sure of best approach. My suggestion is to simply mark the shares as inactive. And thus (automatically) in-eligible for div payouts (if the share-issuer has chosen to use this option) This makes it easy to re-activate the shares again. AKA - They are basically removed from circulation, when it comes to div payouts. NAV wise - I'm a bit unsure as well. But I think it should be up to the share-issuer how he wishes to deal with that. One of the points is to give options - And if the share-issuer can see how many shares are active and how many not, it's easy enough for him to say decide to simply maintain the same NAV, and thus increase the value of the other shares by doing so. Or - He could choose to write of the value of the shares and thus reduce overall NAV and pocket it himself (with the risk of having to pay it back later upon someone re-activating) - Not a very nice approach from the share-issuer imo., but none the less an option (which is the point - Giving us more options) BIG Lottery
Diraus Trader	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:11:00 - [14] my opinion is its immoral not to pay a dividend you agreed to apon accepting that chars money. the agreement for an investment is you take there money and they get a return . not that they would actively log into that account or not. if you dont want to pay that person money then you should return there investment with right about of dividend pay out there are owed upto the point you return the investment.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:11:00 - [15] All liabilities incurred from declaring someone "dead" and folding their shares would have to be publicly viewable so that people who buy the company's shares on the secondary market are aware of the possibility of having to action those liabilities should dead characters return.
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:18:00 - [16] Originally by: Hel O'Ween While I agree in principal with your observations, the above doesn't seem to be a good solution to me. One reason why I would invest in something that pays out on a regular basis, is to not have to "babysit" it. Couldn't agree more, which is why I would be weary of investing in someone who'd demand "activation" every month. While one requiring activation only every 6 months (or 12 months, or not at all) would be more interesting. The point being that the share-issuer has the option of setting it as he deems reasonable for his offering. And the investors can use it as a parameter to invest or not. Some might even gamble on getting some extra ISK in an IPO requiring activation each month (ie. gamble that some will forget to do so every month, and thus get more ISK themself) BIG Lottery
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:24:00 - [17] Originally by: TornSoul The point being that the share-issuer has the option of setting it as he deems reasonable for his offering. And the investors can use it as a parameter to invest or not. Some might even gamble on getting some extra ISK in an IPO requiring activation each month (ie. gamble that some will forget to do so every month, and thus get more ISK themself It would be very sensible to make it a conventional practice for all future equity offers. If such a clause is not outlined, then no such action can be taken. There is still the issue of all past offers though.
TornSoul BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:30:00 - [18] Originally by: Diraus Trader if you dont want to pay that person money then you should return there investment with right about of dividend pay out there are owed upto the point you return the investment. If you don't feel like investing in an IPO that requires activation, don't. Pick the ones that don't require activation (or have a very long period between them) Again - It's about options. And it's obvious some share-issuers would like this option, to increase the div payouts for active shareholders. While some share-issuers might not care either way, and would rather cater to those shareholder not liking activation, by not demanding it (as they dont care either way. Options people, is what it's about - And is what I'm suggestion. It's not about either or - Please keep that in mind. Originally by: SetrakDark There is still the issue of all past offers though. Ah good point. Can't forget that. My suggestion would be that all shares issued previous to this option, would default to not having the activation option activated (ie. no change at all to how things work currently) And it would require a shareholder vote to change that. BIG Lottery
cosmoray Bella Vista Holdings Corp	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:33:00 - [19] Assuming we agree what inactive means, what next: 1. Banned account: If player is banned I would remove shares from circulation, create holding corp for shares or do manually. This would benefit shareholders as would increase NAV per share and ivs per share. If a player is banned but other entities still exist that had claim for the shares(Ricdics banned EBANK accounts specifically), the shares should be given to the entity, in this case EBANK. 2. Inactivity (e.g. EMFI) I think I would change docs to state that a player has to be prove activity every (quarter/half year, whatever CEO decides), or faces possibility of removal from share register with mechanism form 1. above. In the case of EMFI I would consider withholding the cash for another 3 months and state the intention if Ghost doesn't return by x date then that cash will be converted to NAV/paid to shareholders and EMFI would lose the shares. 3. For new launches I think it is acceptable to do this because it would be stated in the launch docs. For current scenarios such as Ric a way should be found not to waste the ISK
Dretzle Omega Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:36:00 - [20] I see this is more important where shareholder votes are concerned, as opposed to ISK. In my personal opinion if you are still holding that character's money you should still be paying them dividends, period. However, I would like to see the ability for a forced buy back (for redistribution or shrinking the business), but only if you could ensure that you give that character back the value of the shares, which you can't. But that's besides the point. I think more important is for shareholders, for example, in BPO lock down security. I may be a little off on the mechanics, but when a vote is called to unlock a BPO you need a majority of the (votes from) shareholders to vote NO to stop the unlocking. Bad Bobby is facing a similar problem in the T4U project. Some of the security shareholders seem to have gone inactive, so he's taking on more to replace them (well, at least cosmo, don't remember if there were others coming on), with the risk that shares are still in the inactive's wallets and they could return to affect a future vote, for better or worse. Originally by: Akita T BTW, if you see God when you're clutching for your chest due to sudden realization you have no chance to get out of this with your wallet intact tell him he still owes me money
Grendell Technologies Unlimited	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:42:00 - [21] Hey TS, Since I know you are looking for a solution for this maybe I'll go ahead and share my thoughts. So be ready to get grilled by me now Ok so I lied, but here's my thoughts and potential solution: 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. A solution? Well perhaps something like this: Since it is beneficial for the current shareholders to lower the amount of shares the dividens are getting paid out to. You could start a vote amongst the shareholders with 2 main options. Option 1: Leave it as it is, a deal isa deal. Option 2: That extra isk that would be spread amongst the shareholders would be split up in to 2 piles of isk. 1 pile that get's split up amongst the active shareholders. Pile 2 is a reserve fund, more accurately an insurance fund. In other words a reserve of isk that can cover a returning customer's dividend payments if they magically re-apear. That reserve if without any insurance claims for 1 year gets split at the end of the year. 50% remains in the reserve the other 50% gets split to the shareholders. So there's never any dead money piles. As the amount in the reserve will also still grow larger and larger, it is essential for it to do so, because as time goes on the potential insurance payout will also grow. Just some food for thought....
Onyth	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:43:00 - [22] I would be in favor of creating a system where its OPTIONAL to not pay out dividents to inactive characters (the inactivity being clearly stated up front in the ipo or what not) like this people who are in favor of this system can invest in deals where the share issuer will apply this. For myself, I would never invest in anything what so ever that used this system, you invest your isk to get a return, no mather whether you're active or not. Imo, its none of the share issuers buisness whether you're active or not either (not that I mind them knowing, just in a 'it shouldnt mather' kind of way). As the only thing you agreed to was giving them isk in return for a %. As others have said above, not so you'd be active to collect your %. But then again, many seem in favor of this, hence my being in favor of it being implemented, but not forced upon anyone, leaving it up to the choice of the issuer seems like a good idea to me, like that people can decide for themselves if they wish to go with it or not.
SetrakDark Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance	Posted - 2010.01.14 15:49:00 - [23] Originally by: Onyth you invest your isk to get a return, no mather whether you're active or not. Imo, its none of the share issuers buisness whether you're active or not either (not that I mind them knowing, just in a 'it shouldnt mather' kind of way). As the only thing you agreed to was giving them isk in return for a %. As others have said above, not so you'd be active to collect your %. I fundamentally agree with this, and if forced to decide I would say you jut keep paying dividends no matter what. However, there is something about putting ISK in accounts that will never be active again that just bugs me.
RAW23	Posted - 2010.01.14 16:44:00 - [24] Originally by: TornSoul Originally by: SetrakDark There is still the issue of all past offers though. Ah good point. Can't forget that. My suggestion would be that all shares issued previous to this option, would default to not having the activation option activated (ie. no change at all to how things work currently) And it would require a shareholder vote to change that. With you up to the shareholder vote. I don't see why the tyranny of the majority should be able to enforce changes to terms and conditions, especially as those who will be affected will, almost by definition, not take part in the vote.
Ulle Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2010.01.14 18:07:00 - [25] Here's me, back after two years of inactivity and AATP (and others) shares holder. Let me tell you: I was rather happy to find in my wallet dividends sent while I was away. With those millions, and some more I got from R&D agents, I had enough isks to jumpstart my EVE activities quickly (I gave all away to friends before leaving), and that was one of the main reasons why I resubbed again. In my last week of EVE back in 2007, I bought shares from almost all IPOs, even those I was almost sure it was a scam (let's say early donations :D), more because of curiosity than for real investment (millions in excess at the time, now would be spare coins for most you ...). Two years after, knowing that there are people still giving some value to their words, well, that is quite a news in the EVE tough universe. Still ... I understand the reasons behind this idea. Probably the easiest way to fix it would be to send, instead of insta isk, delayed isk in the form of cheques that the share holder should transform in isk in 30 days - or maybe this could be decided by the share issuer - time. After that, those isks/cheques would be back to the issuer that could decide, based on policy, to cash them back in the dividends stack, or just save them in case the MIA reappears. So, a player driven mechanism, but with game mechanics helping it to work. Here's dividends. About share votes - just remove vote rights to inactive accounts, if it's not already so.
InUrJita CheckinUrPrice	Posted - 2010.01.14 18:39:00 - [26] Edited by: InUrJita CheckinUrPrice on 14/01/2010 18:39:28 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_absentia Quote: Most countries have a set period of time (seven years in many common law jurisdictions) after which an individual is presumed to be dead if there is no evidence to the contrary. However, if the missing individual is the owner of a significant estate, the court may delay ordering a death certificate to be issued if there has been no real effort to locate the missing person. I would suggest creating a similar "official" death in absentia rule in Eve. Important parameters: Size of the investment Prior history of long intervals between playtime Age of the oldest known original (non-purchased) character Any known declaration of intent to not return* Length of time since last login Knowledge of whether or not the character is an investment alt (COUGH COUGH) Action Procedure: If sufficient evidence exists to create doubt in a reasonable mind as to whether the player of the character in question intends to return to the game, a two months notice should be given. This notice should explain, in plain language, the cause or causes of doubt, and ask for a reply if at all possible. This should be accompanied by a post in MD -- preferably in a dedicated, stickied, death in absentia thread -- that contains the full text of the notice to the player in question, as well as their name. After a two month period without response, the initial investment (if applicable) should be returned to the character in question, along with any early termination benefits that would normally apply. Additionally, the public notice should be amended to note that the DIA claim had been acted on, and what actions had been taken to finalize it. If physical shares are involved, it is recommended that a holding company** be set up for future dividends payments, with existing shareholders notified of the change, and of the cause of that change, both through eve-mail and in a thread on MD -- either through editing an existing thread, or through creating a new one. I would personally be disinclined to include eve-mails or private convos as I consider both of these communication formats little better than hearsay, as they are both easily faked. *In all honesty, all players should use a holding company for any and all such dividends payments.
InUrJita CheckinUrPrice	Posted - 2010.01.14 18:53:00 - [27] I feel that that's a pretty comprehensive framework for dealing with a DIA claim. One of the areas I'd really like to highlight from my prior post is the existence of a public notice DIA thread on the MD forum. It helps those of us who rarely log in on our investment alts, and it also creates "non-binding legal precedent" for handling DIA claims. People get used to seeing what notices should look like, and what the proper clean-up process should be, and that's good for corporate governance. Plus, it'd reduce the amount of repeated work -- if an existing DIA claim has been acted on by A, then B can simply cite it in a letter that contains the refund. Finally, it'd give busybodies something to look at and gossip about. I would, however, like to punt on the "I lost my password to that account but that's my character" issue, which seems to have no easy solution.
Krathos Morpheus Legion Infernal	Posted - 2010.01.14 19:44:00 - [28] Edited by: Krathos Morpheus on 14/01/2010 19:45:47 Not supported. Firstly, if you have not thought about it in your initial conditions, you have no right to enforce this. Special situations can be handled with singular approachs and can be done within the actual system. Secondly and more important, if we are going to put something to develop in the hands of ccp, there are more important things first, have you forgot about the share system revamp promised? Push on that instead. Having voting and not voting shares, maybe a bond system (shares not linked to corporations' ownership). I would like to see that bonds tracked the same way that contracts are. I wouldn't mind seeing forced buybacks implemented there. Instead of patching a broken system, ask for a better system. It would be nice too if shares ownership could be tracked through the api. EVEwatch Sidebar soon "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. "
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2010.01.14 20:08:00 - [29] So the scam of the future is really... Build a reputation Open an IPO Work it for a year Liquidate Purchase shares in well known good working long term investments. Disappear Never respond to any scam thread. Pray that everyone follows the letter of the law and continue to pay out dividends to people even if they stopped paying dividends in their IPO. Awesome!! While I'm not calling Ghost a scammer, if he was, he is a genius sitting on a goldmine of shares all paying dividends and collecting billions of ISK every month funding his EVE time AND his spending. While it's a pessimistic point of view it's one in which people should consider when a CEO is talking about holding funds from non-appearing CEO's of Public corps. This is one of the reasons I was so combatant against the idea of a entity holding funds from a single entity for whatever reason. While I see the desire to hold funds from Banned/Vacant accounts it's a real slippery road. Amarr for Life
Prodigal Caldari New Genesis Project	Posted - 2010.01.14 20:20:00 - [30] I also believe that "a deal is a deal" should be followed as much as possible, however there may be some special circumstances were this may change. In the event of a shareholders account being inactive (please note that however that determination is made is not what I am discussing here) - a better term here may be (terminated) as folks do quit from time to time, the original investment should be considered profit and the issued shares should go back out to public (or privately depending on how they were originally issued) to be snatched up again. This gives a chance for new investors to pump isk into the investment or for current shareholders to improve their position. Cheers,
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. Titan BPC For Sale \| Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.