Is lucius allowed to take money out of the company in a way that does not benefit the shareholders (so not as dividends), and would that violate the "IPO companies must work for the benefit of the shareholders" rule?
Furthermore, what happens in the event that all assets are sold to another company lucius would own for less than its worth, would that also violate the rule? Should all decisions be explained by IPO companies rather than looking through the history and wondering why a company sold assets to another for 0 and got some back and a complete mess of confusion?
I am not saying lucius would do that, I am just curious as to what would happen for other companies as well and just using amazon prime as an example.
The rules on the base of have an IPO is not to take out money to benefit your self in anyway further more take money out of company’s to pocket cash,an example is how MDND took out all assets as well as money which was not his but shareholders and not paying dividends giving investors no money back or even trying to gain net worth,as my net worth says I have no money all my personal money went in to AP,I am holding my shares in a vault to keep it safe and also to evaluate the amount in which AP grows with different companies active.The whole point of IPO is trust which I need to get,
The rules on the base of have an IPO is not to take out money to benefit your self in anyway further more take money out of company’s to pocket cash,an example is how MDND took out all assets as well as money which was not his but shareholders and not paying dividends giving investors no money back or even trying to gain net worth,as my net worth says I have no money all my personal money went in to AP,I am holding my shares in a vault to keep it safe and also to evaluate the amount in which AP grows with different companies active.The whole point of IPO is trust which I need to get,
Ok so if I bought shares of amazon prime for an example, you can't tank the price by removing money right? Not paying dividends is fine because the shares grow still but if the shares are not growing then dividends should be paid.
Ok so if I bought shares of amazon prime for an example, you can't tank the price by removing money right? Not paying dividends is fine because the shares grow still but if the shares are not growing then dividends should be paid.
Ye that exactly what I try to do,but AP went for 800k to 926k in a couple of weeks so I am gonna pay dividends either way
Ye that exactly what I try to do,but AP went for 800k to 926k in a couple of weeks so I am gonna pay dividends either way
800k? It was never 800k, it was 900k~ at it's lowest (without counting the exchange manipulations like caffeine going from .7 to 0.02 which changed your company networth as you have some caffeine) and keep in mind it was worth 1m before so you actually lost money. And I'm pretty sure the "growth" was you getting your money from the players who took money out. I'm not saying you did not grow it at all but the growth is basically negligibly small compared to what your claiming.
800k? It was never 800k, it was 900k~ at it's lowest (without counting the exchange manipulations like caffeine going from .7 to 0.02 which changed your company networth as you have some caffeine) and keep in mind it was worth 1m before so you actually lost money. And I'm pretty sure the "growth" was you getting your money from the players who took money out. I'm not saying you did not grow it at all but the growth is basically negligibly small compared to what your claiming.
I don’t think 26k is gonna change the 200k loss it was around 810k-835k I don’t know what happened with caff I have had made lots of money from the food companies,for me I am not trying to claim that I made lots of money and I am responsible for the massive loss for ap which I am sorry as well as doge coin I am trying to make back ap first then doge
