| Author |
Topic |
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 10:43:00 - [ 1]
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 01/10/2007 10:52:30Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 01/10/2007 10:49:38Septembers profits have come to approximately 3 billion isk. This results in a per share payout of 10.7k isk (10.7% on initial share cost). This payout is going to be in two 1.5 billion dividend payments, as dividends seem to be capped at some number just over 2.7 billion :/ As a result, I may consider re-issuing shares to shareholders through a semi-holding corp, Jmanis Cathargs operational corp DB Ops Wing, in order to reduce the amount which gets paid out (I was a noob and didnt realise how all that worked :P) Current shareholder listing is as follows (ordered by size of investment) 240000 - Dusk Blade 6000 - SiJira 4680 - Texhnolyze 3000 - Deradur 2000 - Ricdic's Hoe 2000 - Paul Horach 2000 - Dale Helsing 2000 - Auri Hella 2000 - resinator 2000 - Tyrelius 2000 - Strobe S 2000 - Shadarle 1160 - Gawain Edmond 1000 - Tenzo Inc 1000 - Savaran Zhayedan Spah 1000 - BritishInvader 1000 - Blue Dice 1000 - Achnaton 700 - Arilius 500 - Zelseus 500 - Ryveth 500 - Marcathonas 500 - leona starfire 500 - Bug Out 250 - Council on Foreign Relations 150 - Razorfish012 150 - Karugan 110 - William Walker 100 - Colkov Goroshnicov 100 - andeh33 100 - Dr Blindless Interesting to see some shares now held by actual corporations :) Don't know if that has any impact whatsoever, but hey, I like it! A more detailed report into the months operations will be issued over the shareholder mailing list soon, as well as details on what's on the horizon for Dusk Blade. Unfortunately, this may take a little bit, as real life job applications (about three, due in 10 days) are a slightly bigger priority atm :) Brought to you to the awesome sound of Nightwish: "Ghost Love Score", and Kylar  EDIT: typos in names, will add Dusk Blade itself to the list so it doesn't make the payout seem disproportionate. I also suck at maths. I forgot there's 280000 shares, not 240000 |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party |
Posted - 2007.10.01 10:45:00 - [ 2]
 Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
Interesting to see some shares now held by actual corporations :) Don't know if that has any impact whatsoever, but hey, I like it! A more detailed report into the months operations will be issued over the shareholder mailing list soon, as well as details on what's on the horizon for Dusk Blade. Unfortunately, this may take a little bit, as real life job applications (about three, due in 10 days) are a slightly bigger priority atm :)
I found the same thing to happen. Several corps now holds CAP4U Shares. Several of them also hold shares in your IPO it seems. Very interesting indeed. |
Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 12:22:00 - [ 3]
Man you had a 2000 share cap and some mofo's were able to source 6000, I demand more shares!!!!1  |
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 13:20:00 - [ 4]
lol,, well,, in my own defence I did announce when the cap was released :) But to be fair, a lot of purchasers in the week following that announcement still evemailed me saying they'd like to purchase "the max amount of 2000". Oh well, plenty of people there who might sell you some ;) |
Marie deMedici |
Posted - 2007.10.02 08:51:00 - [ 5]
to make things more fun, my fund is a corp which owns corps (right?) , and it in turn is owned by some corps which might be owned by corps.
I for example will not buy mostly-investment corps (like emfi) since it would be kinda weird to have two funds owning parts of eachother? |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.02 14:52:00 - [ 6]
most every public ipo on this forum will find it's shares being owned by a corp or two.
on of them being my "failed ipo", which returned out a few 1000% of it's nav, inherited a ton of shares from me. now it just sorta collects moneys and gets a chunk of shares that i purchase. the rest go to someone else, just so i can have people flame me by saying "why you talking, you gots no shares of my corp".
then there's a couple of mutual fund type publicly traded stocks.
irony is when a mutual fund owns shares of a mutual fund, which also owns shares of a third mutual fund.
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.02 14:54:00 - [ 7]
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
Current shareholder listing is as follows (ordered by size of investment)
240000 - Dusk Blade
6000 - SiJira
4680 - Texhnolyze
3000 - Deradur
2000 - Ricdic's Hoe
2000 - Paul Horach
2000 - Dale Helsing
2000 - Auri Hella
2000 - resinator
2000 - Tyrelius
2000 - Strobe S
2000 - Shadarle
1160 - Gawain Edmond
1000 - Tenzo Inc
1000 - Savaran Zhayedan Spah
1000 - BritishInvader
1000 - Blue Dice
1000 - Achnaton
700 - Arilius
500 - Zelseus
500 - Ryveth
500 - Marcathonas
500 - leona starfire
500 - Bug Out
250 - Council on Foreign Relations
150 - Razorfish012
150 - Karugan
110 - William Walker
100 - Colkov Goroshnicov
100 - andeh33
100 - Dr Blindless
i forgot to mention -- KUDOS for this! i only wish more publicly traded corps/alliances would follow suit in some form or another. and no, i don't mean blowhards publishing what they own in various corps, cuz i really don't care about that. |
Shadarle |
Posted - 2007.10.02 15:51:00 - [ 8]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
Current shareholder listing is as follows (ordered by size of investment)
240000 - Dusk Blade
6000 - SiJira
4680 - Texhnolyze
3000 - Deradur
2000 - Ricdic's Hoe
2000 - Paul Horach
2000 - Dale Helsing
2000 - Auri Hella
2000 - resinator
2000 - Tyrelius
2000 - Strobe S
2000 - Shadarle
1160 - Gawain Edmond
1000 - Tenzo Inc
1000 - Savaran Zhayedan Spah
1000 - BritishInvader
1000 - Blue Dice
1000 - Achnaton
700 - Arilius
500 - Zelseus
500 - Ryveth
500 - Marcathonas
500 - leona starfire
500 - Bug Out
250 - Council on Foreign Relations
150 - Razorfish012
150 - Karugan
110 - William Walker
100 - Colkov Goroshnicov
100 - andeh33
100 - Dr Blindless
i forgot to mention -- KUDOS for this!
i only wish more publicly traded corps/alliances would follow suit in some form or another.
Agree 100% |
Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 15:55:00 - [ 9]
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.02 15:58:00 - [ 10]
Originally by: Ricdic
I could do it with C-R-A but the list would be almost 180 members long. Would have to vote it in either way but still. Writing that up, and having to maintain it would be a nightmare.
what about major investors? X% of corp? say 5 or 10%, how much would that fill up? sorry for the derail. |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations. |
Posted - 2007.10.02 16:00:00 - [ 11]
|
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 16:13:00 - [ 12]
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 02/10/2007 16:14:55
Well, on the whole issue of whether or not to reveal shareholders, I'm pretty neutral. I never considered doing it as part of the initial launch, but decided to do it when the idea was originally raised.
There's pro's and cons to both really in my mind, and as an industrialist rather than an investor, I probably don't know the half of it.
Main reasons why I did it though were
1. Visibility. I wanted shareholders to be seen, and although it would have nothing to do with how my business operated, I thought it'd promote a bit more between-player sales of shares by knowing who had what stake. It might even help raise share prices somewhat. The secondary benefit I get is that sales means more generated interest in the corp.
2. Security. Although probably more a false sense of security, as a one man corp, predators may be less inclined to attack me with knowledge of how many investors I have. As I said, it's not *real* security, but it's like a peacocks feathers.
3. Transparency and commitment. I guess by having them out in the open, there's an additional benefit that people know I've got good reason to keep the corporation running effectively, with the secondary effect once again being, generating more interest in the corp.
On the whole, my reasons for doing it *are* fairly weak, but they're still the reasons I did it, and there's prolly plenty more good and bad ones out there. Anyways, it's 2am, so I'm off to bed :P
BTW Ricdic, that "major investors" idea prolly the way to go. I only have a small amount of investors in a small business. If it were to blow out much larger, I'd chop off the less important rungs in the listings. |
Shadarle |
Posted - 2007.10.02 16:16:00 - [ 13]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Disagree 100%
It's quite easy to figure out if you'll be for or against something Ray. If it involves more work for you, or someone in any way challenges your past decisions you will be against whatever the idea is. If it in no way involves you or will benefit you you'll be for it. And to Ricdic, as Ezoran said, just listing the top shareholders would be enough imo. Anyone over 5% or the top 10-20.. something along those lines. |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations. |
Posted - 2007.10.02 16:19:00 - [ 14]
Originally by: Shadarle
It's quite easy to figure out if you'll be for or against something Ray. If it involves more work for you, or someone in any way challenges your past decisions you will be against whatever the idea is. If it in no way involves you or will benefit you you'll be for it.
Not quite true. It wouldn't really create any more work for me, besides taking fresh screenshots once a month. And I'm open to people challenging any past decisions, as long as they can argue it logically. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.02 16:27:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Shadarle
It's quite easy to figure out if you'll be for or against something Ray. If it involves more work for you, or someone in any way challenges your past decisions you will be against whatever the idea is. If it in no way involves you or will benefit you you'll be for it.
Not quite true. It wouldn't really create any more work for me, besides taking fresh screenshots once a month. And I'm open to people challenging any past decisions, as long as they can argue it logically.
i can understand a corp having major contributors from one side of a big war, or all sides, having reservations about posting. but, an evemail could be sent to all investors, along the lines of "going to reveal shareholders next month, if you don't want people to know you own shares, please funnel shares to alt toon/corp". so then, you add an extra level of play to the market, one previously unavailable. say i hate goons and see a bunch of goon names in your list; i now have reason to hire mercs to destroy your assets in some fashion. not wanting to reveal, because "i said so", makes as much sense as when someone's mom used that excuse and had no actual reasoning behind it. |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations. |
Posted - 2007.10.02 16:30:00 - [ 16]
Revealing simply because you think it would add another exciting level to the playing field isn't good enough reason to switch either. Unless there is something wrong with hiding investors' identities I doubt many people will follow suit and reveal them.
So while you may feel it's a good idea to do so, you cannot reasonably expect corporations to do so on that argument.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations. |
Posted - 2007.10.02 16:31:00 - [ 17]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
not wanting to reveal, because "i said so", makes as much sense as when someone's mom used that excuse and had no actual reasoning behind it.
Comments like these are generally why I pay little attention to your twisted opinions. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.02 16:35:00 - [ 18]
Edited by: Ezoran DuBlaidd on 02/10/2007 16:39:23 Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
not wanting to reveal, because "i said so", makes as much sense as when someone's mom used that excuse and had no actual reasoning behind it.
Comments like these are generally why I pay little attention to your twisted opinions.
i said that nonsensical logic is stupid and that's why you ignore me. please god, use that caod cleaner with my name and never see another post i make; because if your idea of smarts is nonsensical logic, i'm very happy to not own bmbe shares. edited: i'd use it, but then where would my boredom fun come from? i'm going to LOVE reminding you of this, cuz you now have my attention and love. again, sorry for the derail |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 16:47:00 - [ 19]
As a CEO every action I take must be with the purpose to benefit the corporation and the shareholders. I don’t see any benefits for providing a list of current shareholders.
1) Visibility: most shareholders prefer to remain anonymous.
2) Security: big liability if someone really hates one of your investors.
3) Transparency and commitment: investors simply want to know how things are going and where is their money. Make sure investors aren’t going to get irritated that you went the extra mile to reveal their names.
However, if your investors think its good PR for your corp, then you are doing the right thing.
|
Shadarle |
Posted - 2007.10.02 17:03:00 - [ 20]
Originally by: Block Ukx
As a CEO every action I take must be with the purpose to benefit the corporation and the shareholders. I don’t see any benefits for providing a list of current shareholders.
1) Visibility: most shareholders prefer to remain anonymous.
2) Security: big liability if someone really hates one of your investors.
3) Transparency and commitment: investors simply want to know how things are going and where is their money. Make sure investors aren’t going to get irritated that you went the extra mile to reveal their names.
However, if your investors think its good PR for your corp, then you are doing the right thing.
1. I challenge this assertion. Most don't know any better as most have kept it anon. I personally would rather everyones names were known for all IPO's. If that means my name has to be released first to get things going that is fine with me 2. You leave out the other side of this. Big bonus if people trust those who invest in your corp. You'll get a big boost to your current or future investors if its shown that well known people own a lot of your corp. Or if someones friends owns shares. 3. I'd like to know who else is invested in a corp so I can tell if their rants on these forums are insider complaints or complains from an outsider. If someone raises an objection it would be nice to be able to quickly check how much money they have invested. I am far far more likely to invest in IPO's that reveal their investors, or at least the larger investors. Others can choose to be less likely if they choose, but any IPO I open up will be as transparent as I can make it. If someone doesn't want to invest because of that then that is their choice. Originally by: Ray McCormack
Revealing simply because you think it would add another exciting level to the playing field isn't good enough reason to switch either. Unless there is something wrong with hiding investors' identities I doubt many people will follow suit and reveal them.
So while you may feel it's a good idea to do so, you cannot reasonably expect corporations to do so on that argument.
This is just more of the same Ray. We know you're not gonna want to do anything new, ever, unless you're dragged kicking and screaming into it. It doesn't matter if it would benefit the market as a whole, your investors, or anyone... if it isn't of direct benefit to you then you see no reason to do it. It makes sense... people have to put a value to their time. But it's quite obvious people should not expect anything from you to be done for the public good or to enhance the player run business side of EVE. That's totally fine, you can do whatever you wish, but it helps for other posters to know your typical reply so as to not get discouraged when you shoot down everything. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.02 17:08:00 - [ 21]
Quote:
For the shareholders, to know who are other shareholders would be very important in order to propose actions. Today, when we put our money in a corp we are doing a faith act becouse we have no chance to change things in the corp. With the shareholders name public, we could discuss with another shareholders and propose votes in order to modify the policy of the corp.
Quote:
I personally can't understand why it would be bad if people knew I invested in a corp. I wouldn't be against it at all, as long as everyone else was going to be listed as well. In fact, it would prob make me more likely to invest larger sums if I saw other respected players had a lot of money invested as well.
Quote:
The reason RL corps are obligated to ID major shareholders is so other investors can make informed choices knowing who has what influence on corporate direction or may be positioning for a takeover. So for the purposes of Eve markets I think it would be good if corps listed how many shares are held by corp members.
Quote:
We would need EGSE and RESX help, but I think there would be some corps interested in get a "trust seal" given from EGSE and RESX. This "trust seal" would be given to all corps who make public their major shareholders and promise a monthly report of their account. Accepting this proposition, corps would show they have nothing to hide and would be more atractive for investors.
Quote:
If a corp is too busy to list anyone with >5% shares then is that a corp that you want to invest in? Honestly... it would take 5 minutes or less.
double quote, with a name. Quote:
Originally by: Disposeble AltSo I set up a corp and post some of the major names to own stiock in it and then sell the shares to some nice marks..
the public has no means of checking the statement effetively, so it is worthless.
Why not?? If you say X has 10% of the shares, I can ask X if it is true.
What do you prefer? I prefer security in my investment more than privacy of my wealth.
Quote:
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of disclosing large shareholders (the ISS/Goonswarm example is a good reason why). It would be swell for rooting out corruption and letting shareholders know about potential conflicts of interest. However, since people can make anonymous alts, it would be sort of a pointless endeavor.
Quote:
Personally I couldn't care less if people saw my holdings in that alliance, but I wouldn't be willing to disclose all my investments.
Were a new IPO to come along that listed the investors, it would be possible to verify at initial buy of the shares, by using the wallet API to see who's buying. This could be independently checked, since they key can be safely given in public.
The transparency issue could be further continued by keeping the key open, and letting anyone audit the results of ongoing transactions. It would take discipline for the person running the corp to label and transfers correctly, but that's good practice for any serious corp anyway.
Quote:
Oooh, I like that idea (using limited API for anybody to check IPO corp dealings) but it is sure to be a real pain.
As to listing shareholders; there does not seem much point as shareholders have no real powers (takeovers/force votes, stc.) but listing those corporation members who also hold shares in the corporation might be an idea as "a majority" shareholder who is also a corporation member can start a takeover vote.
and finally... It *could* also be the incentive not to war dec the corporation. Quote:
If corporation A is invested heavily into by the three most powerful corporations, well, lets just say I wouldn't want to interfere with the cash supply of the three most powerful corps. Moreover, encouraging a more diverse range of investors gives you bargaining chips in political situations, and may even offer a higher level of protection than simply having a massive fleet would serve.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations. |
Posted - 2007.10.02 17:18:00 - [ 22]
Originally by: Shadarle
This is just more of the same Ray. We know you're not gonna want to do anything new, ever, unless you're dragged kicking and screaming into it. It doesn't matter if it would benefit the market as a whole, your investors, or anyone... if it isn't of direct benefit to you then you see no reason to do it. It makes sense... people have to put a value to their time. But it's quite obvious people should not expect anything from you to be done for the public good or to enhance the player run business side of EVE. That's totally fine, you can do whatever you wish, but it helps for other posters to know your typical reply so as to not get discouraged when you shoot down everything.
I'm getting sick and tired of people telling me what my motives and opinions are of late. None of the above is true. I am quite happy to instigate change in either my own dealings or the market in general if I am either presented with or can present a clear and concise argument. Please stop thinking you know my agenda, as you are quite wrong. You need simply look at who was responsible for outing the BMBE equity loss to see that. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.02 17:37:00 - [ 23]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Shadarle
This is just more of the same Ray. We know you're not gonna want to do anything new, ever, unless you're dragged kicking and screaming into it. It doesn't matter if it would benefit the market as a whole, your investors, or anyone... if it isn't of direct benefit to you then you see no reason to do it. It makes sense... people have to put a value to their time. But it's quite obvious people should not expect anything from you to be done for the public good or to enhance the player run business side of EVE. That's totally fine, you can do whatever you wish, but it helps for other posters to know your typical reply so as to not get discouraged when you shoot down everything.
I'm getting sick and tired of people telling me what my motives and opinions are of late. None of the above is true. I am quite happy to instigate change in either my own dealings or the market in general if I am either presented with or can present a clear and concise argument.
Please stop thinking you know my agenda, as you are quite wrong. You need simply look at who was responsible for outing the BMBE equity loss to see that.
tami. whom you called a troll. |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 17:44:00 - [ 24]
Originally by: Shadarle
1. I challenge this assertion. Most don't know any better as most have kept it anon. I personally would rather everyones names were known for all IPO's. If that means my name has to be released first to get things going that is fine with me
2. You leave out the other side of this. Big bonus if people trust those who invest in your corp. You'll get a big boost to your current or future investors if its shown that well known people own a lot of your corp. Or if someones friends owns shares.
3. I'd like to know who else is invested in a corp so I can tell if their rants on these forums are insider complaints or complains from an outsider. If someone raises an objection it would be nice to be able to quickly check how much money they have invested.
I agree with you. However, we do all this thru our private blog. I just don’t see any benefits other than good PR to disclose that information to the general public. |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations. |
Posted - 2007.10.02 18:49:00 - [ 25]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
tami. whom you called a troll.
lol. Idiot. If you want to get into an argument with me get yours facts straight. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.02 19:07:00 - [ 26]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
tami. whom you called a troll.
lol. Idiot. If you want to get into an argument with me get yours facts straight.
can't, i'm an idiot who can't get his facts straight who is beneath your notice. probably why i gave a huge list of reasons TO list shareholders publicly and you ignored it. the reasons given by a dozen+ people are also beneath notice i guess? make a new thread and leave the div thread alone already. |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire |
Posted - 2007.10.02 23:43:00 - [ 27]
I don't see any benefit to my share-holders in revealing their names - so I won't. My primary responsibility is to my share-holders. If some reason is provided why revealing their names helps them then I'll consider it. Until then, my share-holders' names remain private.
If some decent reason is provided then I'll happily start a vote (in which I won't participate)to determine whether names should be reeased. I can't see such a reason materialising. Fury Holdings is sold out (and has been for months). I turn away people after shares in it every week. The only possible reason I can see for disclosure is if share-holders want to sell and believe the value of their shares would be increased by public revelation of who the shareholders are. I don't see any sign of people wanting t osell shares - so I can't see any benefit in such disclosure.
Give a good reason why you think I'm wrong and I'll put it to the share-holders. |
Shadarle |
Posted - 2007.10.03 00:41:00 - [ 28]
Originally by: FastLearner
I don't see any benefit to my share-holders in revealing their names - so I won't. My primary responsibility is to my share-holders. If some reason is provided why revealing their names helps them then I'll consider it. Until then, my share-holders' names remain private.
If some decent reason is provided then I'll happily start a vote (in which I won't participate)to determine whether names should be reeased. I can't see such a reason materialising. Fury Holdings is sold out (and has been for months). I turn away people after shares in it every week. The only possible reason I can see for disclosure is if share-holders want to sell and believe the value of their shares would be increased by public revelation of who the shareholders are. I don't see any sign of people wanting t osell shares - so I can't see any benefit in such disclosure.
Give a good reason why you think I'm wrong and I'll put it to the share-holders.
This was already discussed in fairly great detail in a thread a month or two back. There were plenty of reasons given to do this. I am really too lazy to bother finding it though. |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire |
Posted - 2007.10.03 02:09:00 - [ 29]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: FastLearner
I don't see any benefit to my share-holders in revealing their names - so I won't. My primary responsibility is to my share-holders. If some reason is provided why revealing their names helps them then I'll consider it. Until then, my share-holders' names remain private.
If some decent reason is provided then I'll happily start a vote (in which I won't participate)to determine whether names should be reeased. I can't see such a reason materialising. Fury Holdings is sold out (and has been for months). I turn away people after shares in it every week. The only possible reason I can see for disclosure is if share-holders want to sell and believe the value of their shares would be increased by public revelation of who the shareholders are. I don't see any sign of people wanting t osell shares - so I can't see any benefit in such disclosure.
Give a good reason why you think I'm wrong and I'll put it to the share-holders.
This was already discussed in fairly great detail in a thread a month or two back. There were plenty of reasons given to do this. I am really too lazy to bother finding it though.
I remember that discussion - think I participated in it. My recollection is that no reasons were given which made it useful for me to divulge my shareholders. That may be because I'm not selling shares - I can see reasons for listing shareholders when you're actively trying to sell shares. Most of my shareholders don't actively use these forums - and hence probably couldn't care less whether I listed them ot not. But without a good reason why Fury Holdings, specifically, should list our shareholders it's not going to happen. It's not that I'm opposed on some moral principle to it - just that I don't see how it helps the shareholders. Satisfying the curiosity of non-particpants falls rather low on my list of priorities :) |
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2007.10.03 02:41:00 - [ 30]
There's probably plenty of reasons for some corporations to not list shareholders, and probably pretty good reasons to not change that. At the end of the day, for me, listing shareholders isn't a "good" or "bad" choice. As this guy put: Quote:
1) Visibility: most shareholders prefer to remain anonymous.
2) Security: big liability if someone really hates one of your investors.
3) Transparency and commitment: investors simply want to know how things are going and where is their money. Make sure investors aren’t going to get irritated that you went the extra mile to reveal their names.
These are the parallel negatives of my choice. Typically, people will choose to focus on negatives rather than positives (what's the old saying, there's no news like bad news?) They don't nullify my earlier claims however, and the impact of these effects are purely dependent on the scale of my business. As a very small business run by a one-man corporation, I generate, for the highest investor, 60 mil a month. Pfft. Wow. I make that in a day of mission running, probably more actually. So *if* someone took a massive dislike to an investor, there's probably far better ways to destroy them than through me. And also, the positive I pointed out isn't really much. Who is going to take time out of their 0.0 campaigning or whatever to save 60 million a month. For both aggressor and investor, there's no real need to do anything about it. However, if my business was much larger, then there'd be a greater chance of both parties stepping up to the plate. For the most part it's like comparing chalk and cheese. Arguably, to parallel what I think, a Democracy and a Dictatorship are both effective governmental systems. they have different pro's and con's, but it's hard to say if one is better than the other. But thats a little off topic. |
All Channels
Market Discussions
