Login

Ratjoy.com » Forums » Ratjoy.com General Discussion » Mitagation: Stock Market

Mitagation: Stock Market

Hajji Pajji RJ: Trade Merchant CO: VonDutch Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 194 Karma: 8 Joined: Oct 21, 2012	Posted on May 8, 2013 I agree with that. But, how do we know which company has stocks available now?
Dana Sands RJ: Fred Fredrickson CO: Fred Fredrickson Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 26 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 14, 2012	Posted on May 9, 2013 If/when there are more players, the market will be a LOT more liquid. Just like the real stock market, there will pretty much always be somebody buying and somebody selling.
James Melvin RJ: The Big Cheese CO: James Melvin Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 20 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 29, 2012	Posted on May 9, 2013 This seems like a poor compromise. He previous market was the wild west, no doubt. But this is no longer an unsupervised game..the stock market was to me a fun part of it. If we have punitive measures in place, and are removing shell companies..I wish Scott would implement a market that would allow for more trading, and have prices reflect company performance.
Dana Sands RJ: Fred Fredrickson CO: Fred Fredrickson Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 26 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 14, 2012	Posted on May 9, 2013 This market is actually less regulated since we're not forced to buy/sell at a "market" price that was mostly determined by virtual investors. Now if your "market" price is $1,500/share but you find someone willing to pay $10,000/share you can make that sale. We just need enough people to make the market liquid. In the meantime, it might be nice to get a list bids and asks to make it easier to find buyers and sellers.
Paul Jikanski RJ: Paul Jikanski CO: Paul Jikanski Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 194 Karma: 41 Joined: Jan 19, 2013	Posted on May 9, 2013 Thanks for the update Scott. But if the % of ownership in the company is the same, shouldn't the value of that % still be the same as long as the company's worth was unchanged? My holding lost well over $400,000,000 with the loss in number of shares
David Archer RJ: BallC CO: BallC Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 142 Karma: 135 Joined: Apr 11, 2012	Posted on May 9, 2013 @Dana: Yes, "Level 2 Quotes" or being able to see the entire "Order Book" for a given stock is an obvious feature to help make the new stock market more usable. http://stockalyzing.com/stock-learning/104-understanding-level-2-and-market-makers.html
Makis Dion RJ: Makis CO: makis Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 5 Karma: 11 Joined: Oct 14, 2012	Posted on May 10, 2013 the active players should reflect the hedge funds and the big investors .........the "people" of the game should reflect the free float ..... in any global market if someone has stocks can sell right when he wants ....... of course because of the number of players , but now that the actives are low I recommend to find a way somewhere in the middle ........ or the best scenario is to return to the old stock and supreme court wach the cheaters ...... :-)
Dana Sands RJ: Fred Fredrickson CO: Fred Fredrickson Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 26 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 14, 2012	Posted on May 10, 2013 @Paul, you haven't lost anything. The intrinsic value of the underlying asset hasn't changed. You haven't gained or lost anything until you sell. The "market price" you're used to seeing was driven by virtual buying/selling activity. You always had a reliable estimate of what someone would pay for your stock because a sale had always been recently completed. Since we don't have the same virtual transactions happening, you won't know what the market price of the stock is until you or someone else buys or sells the stock. If you sell one stock for $25,000, then the market price will jump to $25,000 (less the 1% transaction fee) since that is the only transaction that has happened on the market. It will stay there until another transaction happens. If we had thousands of players, you'd see more transactions and have a more reliable estimate of the market value. Similar challenges exist in the real world. Some assets (stocks and bonds and anything else with a reliable, liquid market) that companies commonly hold are "marked-to-market" meaning they are adjusted to the current market price on their balance sheet. While others (real estate is the most common) are always on the balance sheet at original cost. For example one of Ford's original assembly plants in Highland Park, MI is still listed on their books at whatever price they paid for it in 1910. @BallC, I'm think more like a list of stocks with ask orders and a list with buy orders rather than just showing information about individual stocks. I think it would help drive some liquidity if it was easier to shop, so to speak. The other thing that I think should happen is that more companies will need to offer big dividends to attract investors. Since we don't have a good way to track returns based on appreciation of the asset and most of the players lack the expertise to value a stock (I'm not even certain I could do the analysis to get the present value of the future free-cash-flows and I've got a BS in Finance). That and the lack of a risk-free interest rate (or a proxy for it like long-term US Treasury bonds) not to mention the compressed time frame makes it kind of hard to come up with a cost of capital. The dividend growth model is about 100 times easier to grasp and even without that, it's much easier for people to evaluate value based on a cash payout than on some future value of the equity that most lack the ability to project and the tools to track.
Paul Jikanski RJ: Paul Jikanski CO: Paul Jikanski Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 194 Karma: 41 Joined: Jan 19, 2013	Posted on May 14, 2013 @Dana But I have lost something. It's not that my stock shares lost value, there wouldn't be an issue if that were the case. It's that I lost 3,246 actual shares. I was not reimbursed for those shares that were "taken" from me. That's around 7.6 billion dollars in stocks at the current listed value. I highly doubt I could sell the 4 shares I have left for the same amount that I would have gotten if I still had those 3,246 shares that I'm missing. So I don't see how the intrinsic value is unchanged. The price per share would have to be somewhere around $200,000,000 instead of $2,000,000 for the value to be unchanged. No one would pay that much per share. If a challenge like this existed in the real world someone would be getting sued. And it wouldn't look too good for the defendant.
dan bra RJ: King CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 55 Karma: 12 Joined: Mar 20, 2013	Posted on May 15, 2013 (Last edited on May 15, 2013) im not very savvy with the stock market feature, but from a look on that 4 shares company it seems it has huge cash reserves and is very profitable. cant you get dividends on your shares? and if not, what is the purpose of the stock market anyway
Dana Sands RJ: Fred Fredrickson CO: Fred Fredrickson Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 26 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 14, 2012	Posted on May 15, 2013 Paul, did the total number of shares change? In other words, did your % of ownership change? If not, then you've basically just got a reverse stock split and a drop in value.
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012	Posted on May 16, 2013 Thanks to Dana here I don't need to explain anything else. ^_^ Now be careful about the "Use Market Price" feature when there is no activity, Trade Merchant told me he just bought some shares at $99,999,99.99 each with that feature.
Paul Jikanski RJ: Paul Jikanski CO: Paul Jikanski Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 194 Karma: 41 Joined: Jan 19, 2013	Posted on May 18, 2013 I believe you can only collect dividends if the company owner sets them up, which I've only seen 1 person do and it didn't last very long at all, I think 3 days and then the person quit the game, which is the reason he set up dividends to help out his investors before he left. Not sure, Dana. At 5,000 shares and now 4 shares I don't think my name has ever even been listed on the Major Shareholders. Not sure if the total # of shares in that company changed, as I only kept track of the shares I owned. Either way, after the update, that company's stock price doubled, but my holding value went from close to $1,000,000,000 to $9,000,000 due to loss of # of shares I own. That's a 99.11% LOSS in value in my holdings in that company. If all that changed was the number of stocks available, and my % of ownership remains the same, how has my holding lost 99.11% value when the stock's price and company's net worth have doubled? That just seems absurd and insanely unfair to investors. According to wikipedia in a reverse stock split the reduction in the number of issued shares is accompanied by a proportional increase in the share price, leaving holding values relatively unchanged. If that's the case, the proportions are way off. Also according to wikipedia, a reverse stock split often indicates the company is in financial trouble, which is obviously not the case with the company I chose to invest in.
Dana Sands RJ: Fred Fredrickson CO: Fred Fredrickson Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 26 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 14, 2012	Posted on May 18, 2013 You need to separate the two events. They don't have anything to do with each other. You had 5,000 shares at about $200,000/share ($1,000,000,000 total value). Then: 1. The value dropped to $1,800/share (5,000 shares x 1,800/share=$9MM). 2. Then the reverse split happened and the share price jumped to $2.25MM/share (4 shares x $2.25MM = $9MM) Though the numbers of shares you own and their total value seem to change from post to post. I don't have access to the data to tell you if that is what really happened and I'm not sure Scott is referring to this situation specifically in his last post.
dan bra RJ: King CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 55 Karma: 12 Joined: Mar 20, 2013	Posted on May 18, 2013 I believe the stock merging script did not changed the price of shares accordingly, and thats why there is a drop in the listed worth of your stake. (less shares at the same listed price) However, the actual Value of your stake remained the same. Now here is the deal: while the true value of your shares is indeed the more important factor, i think the listed value bear some weight as well? if i recall correctly your company's net worth determine what level of quests you get and of course what you receive loans against. on the other hand i think share worth is tied to your personal worth rather so it not much of use actually? all in all i think we can all agree it is recommended to refrain from hurting the listed value as well, so for one, the merging script should be fixed. imo those who already got "hurt" by it can either: 1. get their share price adjusted manually by the admin. (or with a script if there is 1.a record of old share's amount or 2. the script formula was consistent so write a reverse one that will change price only) 2. wait it out, as a company who is profitable and giving dividends will get itself balanced to the correct value, and those who would not had an inflated value in the first place. now i must say, because the current EoS stock exchange seems so dead, waiting might take a long time and be a little undeserving to those who got hurt. i have yet seen a single share with an "ask bid" after going through 50 shares... now solution for that is a better way to get the information about the stocks. if there was a kind of table like in the statistic page, with advance stats columns like profit/networth, and a different place where you see list of recent ask and call bid, it will be much more advance market.

You need to register or login to post a reply.

© 2012 Ratjoy.com Server Time: May 2, 2024, 10:03 AM