40k, who stuck with it?

[Baragash]

to keep that money rolling in

Issuance of shares represents a one-off investment only, there is no "to keep that money rolling in".

I have to agree with Stryder, although a shareholder may not have any direct influence over a company, if they are not getting the returns on their investment then they will sell those shares, if too many shareholders sell their shares, share prices go down, the company is seen to be in trouble as a result of this and at worst go into liquidation. To keep the shareholders happy a company has to turn a good profit.

A few shareholders selling shares is a drop in the ocean in terms of effect (if any) on share price. Essentially it's only going to make a difference if a substantial (typically institutional eg a pension fund) shareholder decides to divest itself of it's entire (or a substantial part of) shareholding. And even then, it could have the opposite effect (if it's reason for sale is goal X, but by implication the company is therefore good for goal Y then it could actually push share price up, not down). Annual statements, press releases, the companies market or the wider economy are all vastly more important factors in determining share price than the general buying or selling of shares.

As for the armaggedon scenario, in a physical product market the chances of that scenario occuring are outrageously improbable.

they have shareholder meetings (and if you dont go to them then you cant really say anything about it) and they discuss about the profits, costs pretty much anything that could directly effect their own money which they have invested so if they decide that for continued investment they advise a price rise the company will more than likely put up prices to keep them happy

As I said above, it's not "continued investment".

Price rises are not driven by shareholders*, I've done a few hundred in the last 10 years, I'm pretty sure Red Devil (who's done a few thousand in the last 10 years) will tell you the same.**

*They might be driven by a singularly powerful individual shareholder, because he owns enough shares to influence the company if he doesn't get his way, but directors don't give monkeys about the marginal shareholder because they have no power or influence. If you don't own more than 25% of the shares, or otherwise have significant influence in the market (eg a TV company owning some small amount of shares of a football club) you are barely a footnote to a board of directors.

**I'll add a caveat here that the existence of a market for shares (and by implication/indirectly - shareholders) drives profitability, because a company's annual budget will be constructed based on being +/- x%pts against the prior year based on macro influences such as the prevailing market, economic conditions etc such that once you strip these factors and other significant "system shocks" out you're basically saying "look, we did better".

[RotweillerofJustice]

Just reading about some of you guys saying you wish this wasn't in the rille book or that wasn't in the rule book.
Surely if you don't want to play with a rule you agree with your oppo to omit it?

[Stryder]

not if its one of the main rules within the game (i.e random charge distance) you can omit small rules if its friendly banter but whats the point of learning a game if you omit the rules you dont like...if that was the case we'd all have our own version of the rules that we'd have to sit down with our opponents and discuss our own rule sets and change any if needed

[BANE]

The message I am trying to get across is that at shareholders meetings they don't send out a form asking how they should price things of if prices should raise, these are decisions made at board level with things like long term stragies, market research, growth of business all considered by people who are paid to know what they are doing (weather they do or not). After all why would a business consult its shareholders when there is criteria to hold them is nothing.