I don't think it's an exchange issue at all, it's a lot of paperwork, and it would put exchanges on a responsibility much out of their control, in RL the SEC can enforce some regulation, in sl the CEO is the SEC.

I have done a very simple declaration of rights for my own RA investors: http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/ … hp?id=1435

That is simplier to do for me since RA is a new company.

In case of sas its a bit more complex, but i would say that someone who does not monitor their unregulated, unaudited investment for a period of more than 90 days shouldnt invest in the first place (there is no guarantee this exchange will exist 90 days from now), ultimately these are not securities but rather placements of trust, and those people are by far better off coming back to an account with cash based on todays value rather than an equity either worth something or nothing when/if they ever show up. (SAS is currently trading a a very high premium above its book value, and there is no guarantee that will continue)

So ultimately i think you should define it as a SAS policy, rather than an exchange policy.

Last edited by AndyGrant (2010-02-02 00:28:14)

arbitomsen wrote:

So, no matter if you leave it to the companies or the exchanges it can get messy.  If it is an exchange issue at least the policy will be consistent with every company listed at that exchange.

That is a good point, it would make sense to have one policy, the problem is it will take another 5 years to agree on a policy for all, and also the exchanges receive the most miserable emails already from shareholders who once owned stocks like BCX, having exchanges have policies only adds trouble. (look at even the simple thing as financial reports required every 30 days, about 30% of ise CEO's don't respect that policy, similar is the case at VSTEX, and also in the case of slcapex).

And to be honest about the exchanges, vstex clearly doesn't prioritate vstex, second football is a business, the exchange is just an expense, so why care, slcapex is still trying to save the 220k USD misery of arbitrage wise, both of which have zero new IPO's, zero new revenue sources, pretty much absolutely forgotten, and the exchange communities dead, literally. And ise, well Cocky is buzy, also here the exchange comes as the last thing to prioritate, and little to no new revenue sources. Adding more work to them i dont think is practical, nor realistic.

So ultimately it only gives shareholders yet another false promise of security, and it puts the exchange on yet another set of responsibilities they will be blamed for not enforcing, and they're too buzy to enforce.

We could however do this more efficiently, based on each individual company, with or without a "trustee" holder such as i propose RA to be.

Last edited by AndyGrant (2010-02-02 01:02:47)

itchygamba wrote:

I quite like the bond idea, probably prefer them a bit cheaper though.  Also, I think that would be against LL's rules.

If it would then all stocks are too, and so are insurances. It's not a bank deposit, and there is no guarantee just like stocks, it's just an obligation (that can like stocks default) but has the advantage of being prioritated above equity holders and with a fixed max profit.

I think however 12% return is more than sufficient, at least to attract my interest. (i may be a bit biased saying this since i own SAS shares and i dont want the bond to cut too much of the companys earnings)

Last edited by AndyGrant (2010-02-02 02:16:30)

If lexx does exist, then its propably not a big issue. Then i suggest we both cancel our sale orders at 3.5 and get it up to beyond 4 / share and then sas can issue sas calls when the price is beyond highly speculative
(then there's simply not enough sas shares to satisfy the demand)

0.892857143, 0.88 would just lead to 0.9856. ? Yeah, the 0.88 would lead to about 13.6% for investors and about 13% for sas.

Last edited by AndyGrant (2010-02-02 03:59:01)

Mines too

edit to add: and contratulations on taking back your throne as SAS #1 outside shareholder

Last edited by AndyGrant (2010-02-02 04:17:31)

Right, good to know.

See, my charts don't lie

http://intlstockexchange.com/punbb/view … 195#p13195

Id like to add that of course any motion can be put to vote at any time by any shareholder with 5000+ shares, but I like this route of discussion here and in-world first, which is how SAS strategy has evolved over the last few years.

it looks like someone bought 20 shares to set a new alltime high

SAS    02.02.10 13:47    7.98    20    159.6

Last edited by fujiwaraFood (2010-02-02 15:28:11)