| Author |
Topic |
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point. |
Posted - 2007.10.05 14:22:00 - [ 1]
did the disclosure of the (larger) shareholder really change anything?
is it too much of a bother?
does anyone actually care?
just wondering... it was the "biggest" (aka only) thing that happened to the financial district of the game in years *. personally, the prospect of improved ergonomics would make me get another GTC -.- maybe a success with the shareholders' list would boost ambition in this field :D
* = the doctor? only 'observes' but doesnt seem to have had any influence based on these observations |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.05 14:37:00 - [ 2]
did it change anything? it showed how a lot of people feel, one way or the other, and who is interested in promoting the player-run market and who pretends to be, but is actually in it for themselves. nothing wrong with being in it to just make a profit - but don't pretend you're anything else.
too much of a bother? don't think so.
anyone care? a number of people do. most of those aren't running public ventures at the moment. |
Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 15:47:00 - [ 3]
 Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
did it change anything? it showed how a lot of people feel, one way or the other, and who is interested in promoting the player-run market and who pretends to be, but is actually in it for themselves. nothing wrong with being in it to just make a profit - but don't pretend you're anything else.
Rubbish. My intent has ALWAYS been to promote the player market as a whole and regardless of the fact that the 4 ventures I am currently running have no publicised share listings has had zero negligble effect on the way/structure of the operation. To automatically throw everyone who doesn't like the idea into that pile is childish, immature, and very disapointing. I know you like to stir up trouble but you have to draw a line. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.05 16:31:00 - [ 4]
Edited by: Ezoran DuBlaidd on 05/10/2007 16:32:22 Originally by: Ricdic
...
sorry, i forgot i bookmarked some threads so i can throw it back in people's faces down the road. |
Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 16:35:00 - [ 5]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
sorry, i forgot i bookmarked some threads so i can throw it back in people's faces down the road.
I won't hesitate to do the same. You automatically assume that if people aren't adhering to your personal beliefs they aren't in it for the good of the game. |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2007.10.05 16:58:00 - [ 6]
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
Maybe a success with the shareholders' list would boost ambition in this field :D
I honestly don't see how... If someone can produce a valid reason why a list of shareholders in a sold out, successful IPO, could in any way promote the stock market game, then I would think otherwise. Keep in mind I believe what would promote the market more are more successful IPOs and NOT the people that invest them in. Just because some big shots invest in a corporation doesn't make it successful. It could be a scam or a complete failure, these hurt the market by far more then anything else. And a highly successful IPO that has a bunch of nobodies invested in it promotes the market, period. It's not who invested in what, it's what is there to invest in that makes the difference. |
Pang Grohl |
Posted - 2007.10.05 21:43:00 - [ 7]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
did it change anything? it showed how a lot of people feel, one way or the other, and who is interested in promoting the player-run market and who pretends to be, but is actually in it for themselves. nothing wrong with being in it to just make a profit - but don't pretend you're anything else.
too much of a bother? don't think so.
anyone care? a number of people do. most of those aren't running public ventures at the moment.
The funny thing is that there are both types in both camps, and some who are both types at the same time. I advocated share holder disclosure long before there was a game mechanic to facilitate such a thing, but even then only in a limited fashion, and when it would actually benefit the shareholders. The only thing disclosure does at this point is allow for e-peen* wagging, and we don't need to encourage that behavior. *e as in Economic... |
Ignatius Nilsson |
Posted - 2007.10.05 22:33:00 - [ 8]
The question is not only if show or not the shareholders name. The question is about the role of shareholders in EVE corps. With the current shareholders system, nothing. In this market shareholders are only "banks" lending money to others and waiting with faith for a return. Nothing more becouse shareholders have no opportunity of take decissiones in the corp. What happen if a CEO is making a bad work? What happen if a CEO is wasting our money? What can we do? The system is bad, I know, but publishing a list with shareholders of a corp could allow us to talk and maybe force a new way in the corp if we are not satisfied, for example, forcing a vote. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.05 22:35:00 - [ 9]
that's one of about a dozen reasons i posted in another thread TO list names.
but, according to the people running those publicly-funded corps -- it's not a real reason. |
Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.06 01:18:00 - [ 10]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
that's one of about a dozen reasons i posted in another thread TO list names.
but, according to the people running those publicly-funded corps -- it's not a real reason.
Stop making things up. As an example I put a vote through with C-R-A to see if the majority of my investors wanted such a thing. I am open to the idea. I am NOT open to your conclusion that EVERYONE who doesn't show shareholders names is in some way negatively affecting the sharemarket economy. It's like saying that all pirates in-game are murderer's in real life. |
Shadarle |
Posted - 2007.10.06 01:23:00 - [ 11]
Originally by: Ricdic
It's like saying that all pirates in-game are murderer's in real life.
That is an incredibly poor analogy. I can't get over how bad it was. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The analogy would only be right if he had said greedy corp owners in game were also greedy business owners in real life. Which isn't even remotely close to what he said. |
Rasta Farian
Rasta Tropical Club
|
Posted - 2007.10.06 01:45:00 - [ 12]
Are any public corporations releasing the list of their shareholders for people to see?
Which ones? Where can i see the info? |
Shadarle |
Posted - 2007.10.06 02:23:00 - [ 13]
Originally by: Rasta Farian
Are any public corporations releasing the list of their shareholders for people to see?
Which ones? Where can i see the info?
Dusk Blade did, which is a reason I am invested in it. |
Ricdic
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.06 03:24:00 - [ 14]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Ricdic
It's like saying that all pirates in-game are murderer's in real life.
That is an incredibly poor analogy. I can't get over how bad it was. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The analogy was to point out his choice of subjecting all people that don't do things the way he says into a certain category. * If you don't do this the way I want, then you are an X Probably is a poor analogy but depends on what way you look at it. I get it  |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.06 14:21:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: Ricdic
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
that's one of about a dozen reasons i posted in another thread TO list names.
but, according to the people running those publicly-funded corps -- it's not a real reason.
Stop making things up. As an example I put a vote through with C-R-A to see if the majority of my investors wanted such a thing. I am open to the idea. I am NOT open to your conclusion that EVERYONE who doesn't show shareholders names is in some way negatively affecting the sharemarket economy.
It's like saying that all pirates in-game are murderer's in real life.
funny, that's not what i said. i stated that said reason was brushed off as a non-reason. which it has been, numerous times. along with every other valid reason, to which the counter is then "oh well if there was a real reason..." |
Rasta Farian
Rasta Tropical Club
|
Posted - 2007.10.06 17:53:00 - [ 16]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Rasta Farian
Are any public corporations releasing the list of their shareholders for people to see?
Which ones? Where can i see the info?
Dusk Blade did, which is a reason I am invested in it.
Can you direct me to the threadwhere he describes is business plan? Thanks. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.30 14:55:00 - [ 17]
since this thread exists (one of a few) and thistopic deals directly with this thread, it's not a two week old necro. now, having gotten the necro idiots out of the way. this is a post about some divs or some such. prior to this post (if you read thru the thread), shareholders' names had not been revealed. as can plainly be seen in the threads about revealing shareholder names, the vast majority state PLAINLY and unequivocally that there are no good reasons to reveal shareholder names. ever. so, choose one. as several have (correctly) stated - this should be an all or nothing proposition. revealing shareholder names is the standard, or it's not. yes, this could be an exception. except, it's not an exception. if shareholder names had already been known, the question of whether the linked thread is for a scam or an actual legit program, would've never been a question. this is just one of many reasons that are pro shareholder revealings. the alt reason means it's more effort on the part of someone to scam/hide. poor baby. i weep for you. there is nothing in this game that can not be circumvented by the use of alts. using alts as a reason to say "shareholder names are crap" is therefore, logically speaking a non-issue. everything ingame can be voided/changed/screwed over by use of alts. the whole point of it is that there WAS a reason, and a good and valid reason, for ricdic to bring up "hey, did you really have any shareholders?" and i totally agree with his reasoning. but, according to a vast majority of people on this forum - there is NO good reason to reveal shareholder names. discuss if anyone wants. point stands. |
Shar Tegral |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:11:00 - [ 18]
You confuse the issue mate. Ricdic was asking if any shareholder would confirm the details of the financial statement. There was no request for the bond holder to release a list of shareholders. There is nothing wrong with asking, "Who will publicly stand up for you?"
Take a look in the mirror, there's your smoke.
No where else. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:15:00 - [ 19]
Edited by: Ezoran DuBlaidd on 30/10/2007 15:21:13 Originally by: Shar Tegral
You confuse the issue mate. Ricdic was asking if any shareholder would confirm the details of the financial statement. There was no request for the bond holder to release a list of shareholders. There is nothing wrong with asking, "Who will publicly stand up for you?"
Take a look in the mirror, there's your smoke.
No where else.
ok m8, let's think about it a tad. Quote:
For the love of Kieron please do a spell check before making a post.
Now, how many of those bonds sold out?
Can you have those investors post here please?
I saw all of your threads and none mentioned a single buyer of your bonds. I am sure there would have been a few, but advising of success of a purported 7.5b bond offering without an ounce of customer commentary makes me feel a little disturbed.
someone started an ipo the other day and gave a list of their shareholders. if the corp in question had done so, how would the quoted post have been needed? Quote:
But if you do start a new bond just be advised that you won't be able to promise the success of your last venture without people coming forward to say they actually were a part of that venture.
same thing with this - even if no one had posted in the ipo or sales threads, saying "hey i want X shares"; those folks would've been already listed and publicly known (or top 5/10/whatever holders). spin it however you so desire, in order to prove your point. now, this time, do show my untruths, mmmkay? edited: it's not about winning, it's not about being in the right. it's about a number of things - many scams were perpetrated by long time players, changes have been made in this player market arena and more need to be made as tools are available, and i'm sure other items that don't come to mind at the moment, which go against conventional thinking (i.e. played for 4 years and is trustworthy because of that, in spite of anything else he might have done, etc). |
Matalino |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:31:00 - [ 20]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
You confuse the issue mate.
I agree. Disclosing shareholder lists is seperate from establishing trust. While sometimes the two are connected in various ways, that is not always the case. It would appear that currently, disclosure of shareholder lists would actually harm the trust held by investors that their privacy is respected by the CEO's in whom they investor, more often than trust is gained by that disclosure. If you feel strongly that shareholder lists should be disclosed, then I would recommend that you do a combination of two things: 1) Only invest in offerings where the shareholder list will be disclosed and see if the lack of your investment will sway the market. This is unlikely to work because those operating "public" corps tend to listen to their investors more carefully than to non-investoring public. 2) Alternatively, you could try investing heavily in offerings that you feel should disclose their shareholder list, force the issue to a vote, then by controlling a significant portion of that corp, sway the outcome in your favor. While we as community call this part of the game a "public" stock market, in reality it appears to have more in common with venture capital than the real world stock market. Because of the nature of the game, I don't ever expect that to truly change. As such I think that we should approach our recommended practices by using real world venture capital, not real world stock markets, as our regulatory comparision. |
Shar Tegral |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:35:00 - [ 21]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
spin it however you so desire, in order to prove your point. now, this time, do show my untruths, mmmkay?
Firstly, you come at me with hostility and ad hominem attack. Doing so doesn't make you more correct now than it did when I said you were mistaken. Mistaken does not mean you told untruths thought I doubt you are really all that concerned on that regard. Splicing the truth into pieces placed where you think they'll do better... isn't telling the truth. It's just invalidating most of what you have to say and prving, beyond doubt, that you are a marginalizer of any issue. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:39:00 - [ 22]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
spin it however you so desire, in order to prove your point. now, this time, do show my untruths, mmmkay?
Firstly, you come at me with hostility and ad hominem attack. Doing so doesn't make you more correct now than it did when I said you were mistaken. Mistaken does not mean you told untruths thought I doubt you are really all that concerned on that regard. Splicing the truth into pieces placed where you think they'll do better... isn't telling the truth. It's just invalidating most of what you have to say and prving, beyond doubt, that you are a marginalizer of any issue.
off-topic and incorrect. matty - you're saying what one of my points are but twisting it to be a con. one of the MANY points FOR releasing shareholder names IS the trust factor. |
Matalino |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:43:00 - [ 23]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Ricdic
Now, how many of those bonds sold out?
Can you have those investors post here please?
someone started an ipo the other day and gave a list of their shareholders. if the corp in question had done so, how would the quoted post have been needed?
Those two questions would still have been asked in one way or another even if he had posted a list of shareholders on a regular basis. Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Ricdic
But if you do start a new bond just be advised that you won't be able to promise the success of your last venture without people coming forward to say they actually were a part of that venture.
same thing with this - even if no one had posted in the ipo or sales threads, saying "hey i want X shares"; those folks would've been already listed and publicly known (or top 5/10/whatever holders).
Even if they were publicly known, that does not mean that they will vouch for him. I did not disclose a list of shareholders who had invested in KITI Bond, prior to lauching Datacore Harvesting. Those who had invested in KITI Bond and wanted that to be public stated so, those who wanted their investment to remain private did so. Discloser of shareholder lists was not the issue, it is establishment of trust. Claiming that you have opperated a bond, even if you disclose a list of shareholders does not establish trust. Having those shareholders come forward and speak for themselves can, to some extent, establish trust. If the shareholders are coming forward themselves, there is no need for the CEO to disclose the identity of those shareholders who do not wish to be disclosed. |
Matalino |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:46:00 - [ 24]
Edited by: Matalino on 30/10/2007 15:47:40 Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
matty - you're saying what one of my points are but twisting it to be a con. one of the MANY points FOR releasing shareholder names IS the trust factor.
So, if C-R-A where to disclose its list of shareholders now that 95% of those who voted on the issue stated that they were opposed to that disclosure, would C-R-A's management gain or lose trust by that disclosure? That is not a trick question. The answer should be pretty obvious. What corp's out there do you think would be an exception, where the voice of a vote would be infavor of disclosure? Do you seriously beleive that those operating public corps should go against the voice of those who are invested in that corp? |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:46:00 - [ 25]
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Ricdic
Now, how many of those bonds sold out?
Can you have those investors post here please?
someone started an ipo the other day and gave a list of their shareholders. if the corp in question had done so, how would the quoted post have been needed?
Those two questions would still have been asked in one way or another even if he had posted a list of shareholders on a regular basis. Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Ricdic
But if you do start a new bond just be advised that you won't be able to promise the success of your last venture without people coming forward to say they actually were a part of that venture.
same thing with this - even if no one had posted in the ipo or sales threads, saying "hey i want X shares"; those folks would've been already listed and publicly known (or top 5/10/whatever holders).
Even if they were publicly known, that does not mean that they will vouch for him.
I did not disclose a list of shareholders who had invested in KITI Bond, prior to lauching Datacore Harvesting. Those who had invested in KITI Bond and wanted that to be public stated so, those who wanted their investment to remain private did so.
Discloser of shareholder lists was not the issue, it is establishment of trust. Claiming that you have opperated a bond, even if you disclose a list of shareholders does not establish trust. Having those shareholders come forward and speak for themselves can, to some extent, establish trust. If the shareholders are coming forward themselves, there is no need for the CEO to disclose the identity of those shareholders who do not wish to be disclosed.
well, say he posted a false list, and since none of those people HAD purchased shares, none would vouch for it (even if contact ingame). correct? perhaps he'd have posted some known market names - jig is up soon as the market forum ***** read his/her name. otherwise, if no one on the list could be contacted (which is what i'd do if/when he made a second offering - to verify from a number of people how the venture went IF i hadn't been in on the first venture); then, that would say something also. it is definitely in the "pro" side of listing shareholder names. as i stated, one of MANY reasons (discussed in several threads). i don't see how what you're saying is making this a con instead of a pro, and i'm not twisting or spinning or intentionally misreading your posts. you're giving a reason why releasing shareholder names is good. |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:50:00 - [ 26]
Edited by: Ezoran DuBlaidd on 30/10/2007 15:53:08 Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
matty - you're saying what one of my points are but twisting it to be a con. one of the MANY points FOR releasing shareholder names IS the trust factor.
So, if C-R-A where to disclose its list of shareholders now that 95% of those who voted on the issue stated that they were opposed to that disclosure, would C-R-A's management gain or lose trust by that disclosure?
That is not a trick question. The answer should be pretty obvious.
What corp's out there do you think would be an exception, where the voice of a vote would be infavor of disclosure?
what was determined to be the total percentage of shares which voted (read - say 10,000,000 shares were issued, how many of those shares voted?). now, once we know THAT number (which i believe someone figured out in another post), we then can look at the shareholder list and go "hmm, i see 70% of the shares issued (7,000,000 shares in our example, did not vote). joe owns 3,000,000 shares, obviously he didn't vote. and so on. that is another point that is pro listing shareholder names. you see if big shareholders bothered to vote. keep in mind, some big share holders will post in a thread stating they are not voting, as they wish to see what the other shareholders think, vs their vote making it a "i vote this and that's how it is" vote. proton power did that recently. he had controlling interest in a corp and he posted stating he was not voting in a vote, as he wished the other investors to have their voices heard. so, by his doing that, he negated there being a reason for a shareholder list, which is a moot point in this case because he's stated several times how much stock he held in this particular corp. edit: the point of there being a vote to list shareholder names isn't exactly the point of listing shareholder names as a standard practice here. the point is whether listing the names should be a standard practice. amirite? |
Matalino |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:51:00 - [ 27]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
well, say he posted a false list, and since none of those people HAD purchased shares, none would vouch for it (even if contact ingame). correct?
Well let's say that he posted a list of investors that was accurate. One of those investors was not happy about that disclosure. What has he lost due to that disclosure? |
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Native Freshfood |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:54:00 - [ 28]
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
well, say he posted a false list, and since none of those people HAD purchased shares, none would vouch for it (even if contact ingame). correct?
Well let's say that he posted a list of investors that was accurate. One of those investors was not happy about that disclosure. What has he lost due to that disclosure?
again, the point is that the listing of shareholder names is the standard practice or not. if i don't want someone to know i bought those (for whatever reason), i use another account or an alt. |
Shar Tegral |
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:57:00 - [ 29]
Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
again, the point is that the listing of shareholder names is the standard practice or not. if i don't want someone to know i bought those (for whatever reason), i use another account or an alt.
You argue for a system and then say how you'd defeat it with ease. How does one live with so many different people in one head at the same time unless you have more than one head? The only multi-headed humanoid I know of is an Ettin. Member of the troll family, mythologically speaking. |
Matalino |
Posted - 2007.10.30 16:02:00 - [ 30]
Edited by: Matalino on 30/10/2007 16:01:57 Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd
Originally by: Matalino
So, if C-R-A where to disclose its list of shareholders now that 95% of those who voted on the issue stated that they were opposed to that disclosure, would C-R-A's management gain or lose trust by that disclosure?
what was determined to be the total percentage of shares which voted (read - say 10,000,000 shares were issued, how many of those shares voted?). now, once we know THAT number (which i believe someone figured out in another post), we then can look at the shareholder list and go "hmm, i see 70% of the shares issued (7,000,000 shares in our example, did not vote). joe owns 3,000,000 shares, obviously he didn't vote. and so on.
I didn't ask what percentage of the shareholders did not care about the issue. You cannot claim that 75% are in favor of disclosing a list of shareholders, because they did not vote to oppose the disclosure. If you didn't get the point of my question let me rephase it. Would C-R-A management gain or lose trust if it assumed that the 75% of those to choose not to vote on the issue were in favor of that disclosure, and therefore proceeded with that disclosure dispite the fact that only 1% of shareholders could be bothered to press the button to indicate that they would like that list disclosed? |
|
All Channels
Market Discussions
