AshleighWade wrote:

To me the "why" that is sought here is about dividends, and paying a company's hard earned money consistently into a black hole, to someone who has no interest in participating in our little world any longer.  For whatever reason they have written everything off as a loss and left for good.  The other blackhole would be alts of someone like Allen, Tizzy, Juran, Merlin that will never be revisited.  This money will sit and won't go back into the exchange/market/economy.

Let me compare this to something in Mart's original post.

martlupino wrote:

If account aren't been used for over 6 months then I think it would be good to delete the shares in that account. To me it's clear  they lost interest.

My reaction was something like this: Flashing red lights. Blaring klaxon. "Danger Konner McDonnell. You are now entering a spurious correlation field." Sorry for being flippant. Couldn't resist. Suffice to say, we're making way too many assumptions about what is motivating inactivity. I don't think any policy of this nature should be based on these kinds of assumptions. I'm not willing to make a distinction between the alts of those people you named and the alts of any other people unless their holdings can be linked to the companies they left behind (abandoned, transferred, defrauded, whatever). Finally, because an account holder is by no means required to use their funds in any of the ways described, I don't believe we can penalize inactive accounts for not doing so.

But I do see your concern. That money is being paid out to people who will never use it. That it's collecting dust and may never be retrieved. Not only is not benefiting the economy, but it's not benefiting the shareholder. The question is how this policy would change that. You'd still have to hold the shares indefinitely. You'd still have to set aside enough money to backpay dividends if they returned. If you paid them a premium and they returned to find the share value 3-4-5 times that amount, they'd be livid - and rightfully so since they'd bit smacked with the ex post facto paddle.

In my opinion the only way this could be done is by starting on x date and grandfathering all currently inactive account holders. But that policy would need to be paired with increased demands on CEOs to make every effort to contact their shareholders.

Many of the current companies are former WSE companies. Most of those left under 'bad terms' with Connell, meaning their announcement was deleted and subsequently replaced by some arbitrary 'TOS violation.' It  wouldn't surprise me if many WSE users didn't know their company had moved rather than outright disappeared. Honestly, I'm not surprised many WSE accounts remained inactive following 4.0. Account holders couldn't access their funds in world. They couldn't cash out via Paypal. Shares were grossly inflated while shareholders with WICS hedged their bets on which company was most likely to leave and thereby provide them liquidity. Finally, and as I already stated, I received one report that a WSE 4.0 user that had their RDX placed in their RL name (since 4.0 accounts were not tied to SL Avatars) and their attempt to contact Redux Dengaku was to no avail. So if we're doing this, we have to do something to raise the standards all around.

But in the end, Ashleigh, I agree with you. A shareholder is a shareholder for life until THEY decide otherwise. I should note I'm not trying to implicate Mart of having bad faith motives. I appreciate that he put himself out there to broach this topic. Any criticism I'm throwing his way is meant only to further the discussion.

AshleighWade wrote:

As I've said before, I am not inclined to invest in any company where my shares are ticking based on my activity in SL and/or ISE.

Since we agree this far, I imagine you'd share my hesitations about investing in an exchange that implemented this kind of policy. And THAT is what I think it'll come down to. As interesting as this is to discuss and consider, I have to admit that implementing this kind of policy could be taken as a Hail Mary. The day exchanges start draining inactive accounts will be a day I start looking for an exit (stage left...thank you Rush/Snagglepuss). Because it reeks of desperation. Not sure we'll have Bernake to count on. Maybe if his pal Andy Grant intervenes.

Don't suppose I could ask Cocky to share his perspective on this whole thing?

KonnerMcDonnell wrote:

Since we agree this far, I imagine you'd share my hesitations about investing in an exchange that implemented this kind of policy. And THAT is what I think it'll come down to. As interesting as this is to discuss and consider, I have to admit that implementing this kind of policy could be taken as a Hail Mary.

Konner we agree on a lot more and I think you are very correct.  However under my buyback scheme theory, the practice would need to be effected by the exchange, and therefore the buyback (and payment) would be enacted through the exchange.  So the account would not be confiscated or closed.  The shares would simply be bought by the company (at a premium) due to gross inactivity (meaning you dropped out of SL search and we tried our best to contact you through MULTIPLE channels and proved that beyond a doubt to the exchange).  So if/when a person checks his/her account they have a pile of cash rather than shares.

I think the costs outweigh the benefits of any of these plans.  Its an administrative and resource nightmare.  And Konner is right, its a tough PR thing to tackle given SL finance past, even under the best intentions.  It's also VERY questionable ethically (if not legally?), because who are we to enact any trades on a shareholders account that is not our own or where we haven't been given delegate authority? 

The other thing that came out of this that is a much more important topic to me...account succession.  If you want to enact a policy that eliminates for account inactivity you should also offer a way for someone to move their account to an alt or name a successor in the even of "SL retirement" if they so choose.  Some sort of RL verification process (email address?)  would be needed for this if the person chose to participate in the succession program.  I think it might be more advantageous of us to promote ways to retain people rather than being passive and eliminating dead weight as people drop out (ecspecially when we have no way of really telling peoples intentions and we all know that people in SL like to be crazy).

I too would like to hear Cocky's thoughts on this.

Last edited by AshleighWade (2009-01-09 13:41:31)