| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gamarabi
   |
Posted - 2010.10.14 03:42:00 -
[1]
Do you feel as though this is feasible in Eve? For example compnay A CEO has a 50+ percent stake or more in company B and C who's CEO's have a 26+ Percent stake in the company. (This way the CEO's are in control unless the parent corp interferes) If all companies pay dividends from top to bottom, do you think this is a possibility in Eve?
Personally I think it would be interesting, for say one financial corp to own several mining,PVE,investment,mutual funds,trading funds, and so on.
So what are your opinions on this? Feel free to discuss. If you choose to flame or troll, at least be humourous about it.
|
egola
|
Posted - 2010.10.14 03:45:00 -
[2]
executor corps....executor corps, now if only there was a way to reject a corp's ability to leave then it'll REALLY be a conglomerate
|
Liza Nicley
|
Posted - 2010.10.14 15:27:00 -
[3]
I like the idea but the big issue at least in the example you provide is that the conglomeration is held together by a couple of CEOs (single people). There is very little incentive to remain in the conglomerate once you have created your own subsidiaries. Even with the 'parent corp' controlling most of the shares there is not enough power with shares to prevent any 'rebellion' by the subsidiaries.
I do like the idea and wish I had more time to elaborate on what I am trying to say here but alas I have to run I might get back to you much later. |
Gamarabi
|
Posted - 2010.10.14 20:34:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Gamarabi on 14/10/2010 20:36:13
 Originally by: Liza Nicley
I like the idea but the big issue at least in the example you provide is that the conglomeration is held together by a couple of CEOs (single people). There is very little incentive to remain in the conglomerate once you have created your own subsidiaries. Even with the 'parent corp' controlling most of the shares there is not enough power with shares to prevent any 'rebellion' by the subsidiaries.
Well if the parent corp provided over 51% of the financing, they should have 51% of the vote and even if they are not part of the company they should be able to disband it by having a majority vote. Really I think there needs to be a way to have a board of directors that are not actually part of the corporation or at least the ability to propose a vote without being part of the company. Shares should have a lot more power in the company.
|
Liza Nicley
|
Posted - 2010.10.14 21:36:00 -
[5]
A conglomeration would be an amazing idea. I am a big believer in the collective is more productive that any single group, but with out any security support in game I think it would be hard to create successfully in EVE.
|
egola
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 00:10:00 -
[6]
what i'm wondering is how much different is it from a null sec alliance? the idea is that they "share" wealth together and cover up most of the costs it takes to operate in whatever area they're in. isn't that effectively conglomeration minus proportional wealth splitting/control?
|
Gamarabi
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 02:11:00 -
[7]
Originally by: egola
what i'm wondering is how much different is it from a null sec alliance? the idea is that they "share" wealth together and cover up most of the costs it takes to operate in whatever area they're in. isn't that effectively conglomeration minus proportional wealth splitting/control?
Well there are a few key differences and advantages in a conglomerate. The way a null-sec alliance functions I feel is more similar to a nation and its provinces. The corporations pay taxes to maintain their infrustructure primarily. A conglomerate on the other hand would be more like an international corporation as there corporations can be a part of the conglomerate while being in seperate alliances. Their taxes would be used partially as maintence but their main goal is to provide a good ROI to those who invested in it.
Another major difference is that a null-sec alliance generally do not distrubute dividends. Although all the member corporations do contribute towards the alliance funding, the money is generally used towards maintenance and expansion and to an extent functions more a like a non-profit organitzation.
A conglomerate in my case however would be for profit by nature as that is what the shareholders expect from these types of companies.
If you don't understand what I am saying about the diffences then I will be glad to explain it to you by email.
|
egola
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 03:11:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gamarabi
Originally by: egola
what i'm wondering is how much different is it from a null sec alliance? the idea is that they "share" wealth together and cover up most of the costs it takes to operate in whatever area they're in. isn't that effectively conglomeration minus proportional wealth splitting/control?
Well there are a few key differences and advantages in a conglomerate. The way a null-sec alliance functions I feel is more similar to a nation and its provinces. The corporations pay taxes to maintain their infrustructure primarily. A conglomerate on the other hand would be more like an international corporation as there corporations can be a part of the conglomerate while being in seperate alliances. Their taxes would be used partially as maintence but their main goal is to provide a good ROI to those who invested in it.
Another major difference is that a null-sec alliance generally do not distrubute dividends. Although all the member corporations do contribute towards the alliance funding, the money is generally used towards maintenance and expansion and to an extent functions more a like a non-profit organitzation.
A conglomerate in my case however would be for profit by nature as that is what the shareholders expect from these types of companies.
If you don't understand what I am saying about the diffences then I will be glad to explain it to you by email.
i do understand the majority of the case but the fact is money does flow back into the player base that contributes through forms of ships, modules etc. in that sense isn't it still like a conglomerate? the only difference i can think of is physical isk going through different hands, in which case isn't too far apart from mods and ships.
essentially the way i see it is that a conglomerate works much like an alliance because don't forget, there are alliance-corporations (essentially conglomerates) who just split divisions but still stay connected through an alliance network.
|
mista fear
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 04:40:00 -
[9]
i think the only way for this to work is to have a group of real life friends, each one owns a corp and subsidaries, so you can pretty damnw ell trust them to not break off and screw you.
i bet you can get something really good going with this
|
Gamarabi
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 05:37:00 -
[10]
I think the main issue, (besides trust) that would interfere with this type of idea getting off the ground is that a director MUST be part of a corporation. I feel since this it is possible to do so in RL and happens quite often, I feel the best way to do this would be to allow someone to be the director of more than one company.
A shareholder should be able to direct a company they are not a member of if they own more than 5% of the shares.(This percentage is debatable. I just chose it because that is the percentage you need to propse a replacement CEO I feel this wouldn't change the game mechanics too much. However, if you see something wrong with this potential solution say something/
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |