Quote from: scrybe on February 08, 2013, 12:27:02 AM

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on February 07, 2013, 10:14:07 PM

I hate to be a d*ck, but...

I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.

Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.

In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.

Retained Earnings are good for us as shareholders and will lead to a faster payback.
http://bit.ly/W15QPs

I agree on both points. Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.

And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.

And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.

My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?

So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.' It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.

In my mind that was the expectation set. Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.

Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer. But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right? Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?

Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.