Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

On the other hand...

Msturlese

Msturlese

Stalker
Joined
Mar 7, 2021
Posts
2,154
Location
italy
Society
Dirty Dingos
Avatar Name
Marco Killy Stur
I read today ROI tracker for CLD i never looked at those

average a deed pay about 4 ped per week and the cld (normal and "X") are 60.000

so every week there is a payout of 4 *60.000 = 240.000 ped (24.000 usd) or 1.250.000 USD per year

from a strict financial point of view (by issuer side) it is total nonsense to keep that kind of payout
and refinancing the "debt" at current market rates would make MA gain in a buyback even at 5000 per deed

i think the only answer is that the real payout is NOTHING... ma delviers PED that are kept in game

if a real big investor put 10m EUR in deed and that investor takes the deed payout off game
it would have a dofferent impact on game sustainability

open to discussion ont he point but keeping a liability at 20% or even at just 8% actual returns
compared to 3% maximum rate on financial markets is really a nonsense to me

(if deeds had a "guarantee of repayment" in case of game shutdown would be better than any bond over there
 
Don't forget that over 40% of all deeds (25k) were purchased by a single investor, and although MA bought back some later to use as prizes and to run the additional sale to players at 1150 ped in late 2012, the investor still holds the majority of those deeds and most likely withdraws everything.
 
Yes imagine if he sells all of his deeds for 2500+ and then withdraws...
 
Also, 'real gains or losses' are impacted by prices. Cost of CLD now vs initial offering are very different.
 
ty Svarog you really are the "archivist" of the game :)
yes matermesh now are higher in price and so return are 8% anof not 20% (cost for ma)
remember MA current account and 1.250.000 (and much more if Unreal and Epic store deal has a good result)
have an impact on a small company (yes less than 8m sales per year is a small company)
@lillahbee there is a 30% of yearly sales in MA accounts for repaying the withdrawals
so it is not a matter of concern, money is there
i wonder why MA does not use those PED to buy CLD back on ah and cancel them. would be a good move
for several reasons
1. the deeds bought back would keep the relative"payout" into the company to naturally build reserves for withdrawals (i would destroy those tbh)
2. the buyback would not fire a "rise in prices" due the CLD are more about "dividend" than speculation on scarcity
3. would show that company is sure that they better calcel payouts due the future is bright and the company account are in good state (removing a liability is always good)
4. in case of the always announced stock exchange lising, the payout of a dividend is way lower than the payout of deeds
just my 2 cents of course but if i were MA CFO......
 
unufain8 said:
MA is not obliged to accept his withdrawal.
Click to expand...
Yea, but it would ruin trust in to game if they dont.
Anyhow i do not see problem here. I assume that there are only few investors that have very large stack of clds where they wirthdraw money every month. Would be interesting to have some research how much avarage player owns clds or auds. Best.
 
Bamb00cha said:
Yea, but it would ruin trust in to game if they dont.
Anyhow i do not see problem here. I assume that there are only few investors that have very large stack of clds where they wirthdraw money every month. Would be interesting to have some research how much avarage player owns clds or auds. Best.
Click to expand...
Treasure Island ...... trust? After whatever happened there with deathifier you cant talk about trust.
 
unufain8 said:
Treasure Island ...... trust? After whatever happened there with deathifier you cant talk about trust.
Click to expand...
What did happen? I'm still unsure on that mystery.

Anyhow this is defo an interesting thread/thought. I think the OP nailed it in that likely many investors keep the peds in game, so in essence there isn't really a pay out and it may even work in MA's favour in that "perceived free PED" in the game may even encourage more frivolous/less careful expenditure/game play from the investors. The "easy come, easy go" mentality. I know I'm fairly guilty of that one as my deed pay outs are effectively my "wages" in game. While that would only "pay off" for MA in terms of PEDs converted to decay etc if such conversions, as a result, overall exceeded payout, it has other benefits in that the investment not only helps keep players in the game but also adds to the overall populated feel and community, not to mention in game economy churn. So in short the benefits are not only financial. From reading the recent financial report this year, MA seem to define the liability as the expected withdrawal rate which is based on previous trends/data, so in short, I don't think the deed payouts concern them as they simply look at the bottom (withdrawal) line.

It's defo a valid point that "the possibility for a single investor with 40% of the share to withdraw" is more of more concern/possibiliy than if the deeds were more evenly spread but, that said, the value of the deeds is now perceived to be significantly higher than the initial offering. This means that the person with 40% of the share would ideally like to find in game buyers for their deeds and ideally as a few as possible. This means any sale would likely come hand in hand with an equally large deposit into the game from the buying players. In short, I expect a "sell out" would balance itself out.

All fascinating stuff though for sure!

Good thought
Wistrel
 
unufain8 said:
Treasure Island ...... trust? After whatever happened there with deathifier you cant talk about trust.
Click to expand...
Why are you still here if there is no trust?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top