Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on February 09, 2013, 11:07:05 PM

Quote from: scrybe on February 08, 2013, 02:42:27 AM

Quote from: meowmeowbrowncow on February 08, 2013, 02:14:04 AM

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.

Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution.

I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers.

Hmm. The spirit of the initial discussion around the IPO, IIRC, what % would be available to the public in exchange for financing. Me bringing this point up again has little to do with take-overs, or wanting to buy that 12% cheaply as Sabastian accused me of.

Since ASICMiner is in a fortunate position to have an extra 12% of shares what are they being used for?
Are they being retained and not receiving dividends?

If what you say is correct, and if it is I completely agree with your point of view, that dividends will be distributed to a smaller number of shares - GREAT!

If not and these shares receive dividends where is this money going? Re-investment? Ok, good. Not a bad thing at all. But if they take dividends of 12% of shares for OpEx and R/D, but then down the road say 'Hey, we don't have enough money we need to withhold dividends to gain capital,' well, wouldn't that be crap. A pretty good reason to cry foul.

If you look at Jatarul's comments below it leaves me in a confused state as to whether or not shares are retained, earn dividends and if those dividends are used for re-investment.

Quote from: matauc12 on February 09, 2013, 01:15:15 AM

Quote from: niko on February 08, 2013, 10:51:22 PM

Quote from: matauc12 on February 08, 2013, 08:28:10 PM

Quote from: VJain on February 08, 2013, 04:43:49 PM

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?

It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....

And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.

Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs.

obviously, but that wasn't part of my quoted message.

Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives.

You seem to imply it isn't a relative matter. If its used for operation and R&D, there is no guarantee that it will be sufficient. If it isn't, you still need to retain dividends, but to a lesser extent, which is still a win.

The only venue that those extra shares doesn't benefit shareholders is if bitfountain pockets them and that's the end of it. Where the operation and R&D cost would be full cost and no extra dividends (if it would have been redistributed, which has been implied that it is not the plan).