| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
EMFi Manager
   |
Posted - 2006.07.08 13:05:00 -
[1]
That is silly, definately not the way it should be done. However this isn't he EGSEX but the broker that made that decision.
by rule the dividends are received by the person that holds the shares at the moment of dividends (it isn't a savings account) that is why there is so-called: Cumdiv and Exdiv status on a share...
What broker told you so?
Alt of Naphtalia
Visit my investment site |
EMFi Manager
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 13:26:00 -
[2]
Nope the actual time the dividend is paid vs. the time the isk is received in the brokers wallet should determine who gets the dividend, NOT the schedule time of the dividend payment.
You should receive your shares immediately. and if there have been Div payments between the moment you paid for the shares and you received the shares you should receive dividends from teh broker as well.
Alt of Naphtalia
Visit my investment site |
EMFi Manager
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 13:31:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Apocryphai
Please name that broker so that the rest of us know to avoid them.
nah, only after he/she keeps this up :)
Alt of Naphtalia
Visit my investment site |
EMFi Manager
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 17:42:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Each broker has a different rule for dividends, most tend to go on the side of owner gets it (even of owner is in limbo due to trade occuring while they are asleep/away). Can't speak for anyone else, but when divs come in, i check to see if there are any trades that occcured before the div was paid.
Diff rules are fine, as long as they are published when deviating from the standard rules :)
Alt of Naphtalia
Visit my investment site |
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.07.16 18:19:00 -
[5]
TS, I think that the problem is that as a broker for EGSEX, people expect you to act as the other brokers, even though you only deal in BMBE, other brokers deal in BMBE as well and other brokers didn't take into account when the dividends 'ought to be paid' vs 'was paid'
For example, Emfi is a very active fund with trades every hour.
If I announce to pay out dividends on 15:00 but actually pay out at 17:00 because my trustee was unavailable or my first report was rejected by my trustees... does that mean that the 7 transactions by 4 brokers should be held back?
I really don't think brokers should take into account when a fund had the intention to pay out divy or not.
Alt of Naphtalia
Visit my investment site |
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.07.16 22:55:00 -
[6]
4 players:
1) tami the buyer
2) Tornsoul the seller (Alliance leader of BIG)
3) Tornsoul the CEO of BMBE (issuing divvy)
4) Tornsoul the broker for EGSEX (handling the transaction)
and what the previous poster said, if #3 promisses to issue divvy at a certain time it doesn't matter to #4 since #4 has no way of knowing if BMBE will pay divvy ever ;)
I don't think that TS was trying to screw anyone, I think he acted what he thought is most fair, and logical given the circumstances.
I do think that he was mistaken and confused his 3 roles (seller, broker and product) he was playing.
I hope TS (#4) talks to (#2) and ask for hte Divvy that #3 paid back so he can give that to Tami..
Late payment of Divvy means that Tami got lucky and took a risk... and gets the divvy :)
Alt of Naphtalia
Visit my investment site |
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 18:01:00 -
[7]
Edited by: EMFi Manager on 17/07/2006 18:05:06
TS, the following scenario describes how brokers have been handling these cases... (note, the moment when a corp ought to pay out dividends vs the moment the corp actually pays out dividends is of no concern to the broker)
1) Monday Morning: Seller logs in, places sellorder with broker and xfers shares.
2) Monday Evening: Broker logs in and activates the order
3) Tuesday: Buyer logs in and presses [BUY] next to the buyorder buyer xfers isk [TIMESTAMPED]
4) Thursday: CEO pays out dividends
5) Saturday: Broker finally logs in (was sick for a few days) sees that the shares were paid for *before* dividend-payment hence he xfers the shares to the buyer *AND* the dividends the broker received on behalf of the buyer.
This is the way all brokers work and is fairest... that is what we mean with comparing 'timestamp' of payment vs. timestamp of actual dividend payment.
In the case of Tami, I believe the following happened (not actual dates)
1) 1/jun: Seller places sellorder through EGSE Broker
2) 15/jun: CEO announces that they ought to pay dividends every 1st
3) 1/jul: CEO doesn't actually pay dividends.
4) 5/jul: Buyer buys shares from Broker and pays
5) 9/jul: CEO actually pays dividends
6) 10/jul: Broker xfers shares to buyer but fails to xfer dividends he received on behalf of the buyer.
What you are saying TS, is that if a CEO announces he will try to pay dividends on a certain date, that the time he says he intends to pay dividends is more important then the time he actually pays dividends. It may feel natural to you since you represent 3 parties on the list and that RL problems affect each of the 3 persons equally ;)
In the same example but now for EIBI and Omber Zombie
1) Cally announces to pay out dividends every 28th of the month
2) On the 27th Cally still hasn't logged in yet, people start panicking and with the current controversy decide to sell of.
3) on the 27th a Seller places a sellorder 100shares @ 15Mil
4) on the 29th Cally has been spotted again, and someone decides to take a chance and sends 1.5bil to OZ and buys the shares.
5) Omber Zombie decides to wait with executing the order till Cally pays the dividends Cally ought to have paid on the 28th.
Now....
6a) What will happen if Cally *NEVER* pays dividends? who gets the 1.5bil? the buyer or the seller? in your theory, the buyer gets his isk back?
6b) What will happen if Cally pays dividends on the 10th of august?
Now take the same thing for RDST, RDST promissed to liquidate his corp and pay it out in dividends a few weeks ago... so any shares of RDST I buy now are worthless becuase all liquidation-dividends that will be paid out will be paid to the seller, because the liquidation ought to have happened a few weeks ago?
------------------------------
What I am trying to illustrate is that it is crucial to use the actual timestamps in your wallet for transaction and keep all intel from the other 'roles' seperate. And don't hold on to shares becuase the CEO ought to have done something at a certain point in time (even though it is you and you know what you intended to do) :)
Alt of Naphtalia
Visit my investment site |
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 18:18:00 -
[8]
TS, I can see that IRL your argument holds :)
however in EVE a broker never knows if a CEO will actually pay on the date he intends to, or if a CEO will pay ever.
Are you saying that the correct way of brokering is to halt all transactions on all shares in all funds between the announced dividend date and the actual dividend date (which may be never).
Or is this a feature we gain for 1 corp and 1 broker becuase that broker is close with the CEO :)
Now I know the complete story I am not mad or anything, I just think that the way you propose brokers handle transactions around dividend dates is impossible and an undue burden on the brokers, since this is impossible to do and therefore not done I think the methodology of using the *actual* pay time instead of the *intended* pay time of dividends is much better ;)
Alt of Naphtalia
Visit my investment site |
| |
|