Dividends

[d_w_w]

As I roll into year four of my GAMMA game, I'm continuously making bundles of money (over the last three months I've made 3.4, 3.8, and 2.7 million dollars). As the #1 org in the world, in a good economic period, this seems reasonable.

However, I'm not convinced that all of this money would flow back into the company. Keeping in mind that I'm only the president and not the owner, it seems like the owner would swing by and take a chunk of my month profit. Similarly, if this was a public company, it might be expected to by dividends as well. I don't see this listed in the expenses, though I guess it could be contained in the idea of misc (though, if it is, I think the amount might be too low).

Regardless of the actual form of this, I guess I'm just suggesting that some chunk of a profitable company's profit is likely to be funneled into other hands. The amount could maybe vary based on owner characteristics. This would be less important for smaller orgs, as the owners of those companies would understand that their promotions are still future investments.

For the larger companies, having someone swing by to take like 10-50% of your profits might make the upper popularity levels in the game a little more interesting and challenging.

[1234]

As I roll into year four of my GAMMA game, I'm continuously making bundles of money (over the last three months I've made 3.4, 3.8, and 2.7 million dollars). As the #1 org in the world, in a good economic period, this seems reasonable.

However, I'm not convinced that all of this money would flow back into the company. Keeping in mind that I'm only the president and not the owner, it seems like the owner would swing by and take a chunk of my month profit. Similarly, if this was a public company, it might be expected to by dividends as well. I don't see this listed in the expenses, though I guess it could be contained in the idea of misc (though, if it is, I think the amount might be too low).

Regardless of the actual form of this, I guess I'm just suggesting that some chunk of a profitable company's profit is likely to be funneled into other hands. The amount could maybe vary based on owner characteristics. This would be less important for smaller orgs, as the owners of those companies would understand that their promotions are still future investments.

For the larger companies, having someone swing by to take like 10-50% of your profits might make the upper popularity levels in the game a little more interesting and challenging.

I have thought long and hard about how to cope with excess money, and what I came up with was more buying out profitable companies, paying for media coverage, etc.

I like your idea though. The best way IMO would be:

Up until National you are treated as a Sole Trader (No Shareholders, etc) and the Owner does not take out any money.

Up Until International you are treated as a Private Limited Company (Only invited shareholders, not for sale to general public) At this stage you pay dividends and directors remuneration (salary). Of course the amount being paid here will be less than at International, with Directors Remuneration being a fixed amount per month/year and dividends will be dependant on having positive cash flow.

At International you are a Public Limited Company (Shares sold openly to public). Here the amount of dividends paid will increase drastically, and have a minimum amount to be paid regardless of Profit/Cashflow, and also higher Directors Remuneration, which would still be fixed.

Other things to work in regarding this: When National is reached a small one-off amount of cash is recieved (People buying shares), providing a financial incentive to making the jump.

The same would happen at International, but would be a much larger amount (More shares being sold)

The flipside to this being when you drop down a level you recieve a large financial hit as you revert back to lower stages of the business. (The expense having to pay back shareholders at a higher sum than they were sold for). This would give a way to take down larger companies such as ALPHA-1, which seems impossible ATM without editing, and also provide the user with greater incentive to cling on to popularity.

And of course if you are jumping and falling levels to frequently the amount recieved on the jump would drop as shareholders realise your company is fluctuating too much. (Maybe rising to the same level 2+ times in 2 years would count as too much).

Sorry for the thread hijack (just felt the need to brainstorm how to expand the idea.)

[Pogo92]

I really, really like this idea, it feels like a better "Distinguishing Point" between Organization levels than just "You're more popular now!". This means it can be reported now on Blurcat.com as well--"BCF has recently opened it's ownership up from private share-holders to public buy-ins! This move could mean a big improvement in the organization's management, or have a detoriating effect on popularity and income. Only time will see."

Would really like to see this, maybe even at the low- mid- and high- subsection there could be text on Blurcat like, "GAMMA has invited more private shareholders in on the company, a sign of improving popularity and perhaps improving finances."

[lean]

I think at the international level the owner should be taking a significant about of cash at the end of every year, depending on how well you do. But it the company profits like $3mil a month average, or $36mil+ for whole year, the owner should be taking about like $20mil at the end of the year for himself. Especially when you are constantly profiting at the top level, the company only needs a few million to cover signing bonuses and possible TV losses in the short term until the next PPV. Why would an owner leave all that extra money in the company's coffers when they don't need it?