Re: [Rails-devel] Further 1835 testing

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Brett,
I agree and disagree with you at the same time:

* I agree that the concepts of certificate and "share" should be clearly 
distinguished.

* I disagree the concept of "share" should be objects in Rails. I prefer the 
nominal (percentage) being an attribute of the certificates.

So my suggestion (derived from all input from the current discussion) is:

A) Use one class that represents share certificates types. Use another class 
that represent concrete share certificates (similar to trains and train types, 
and this would be required for your proposal as well).

B) Share certificate types have an attribute called nominal_percentage (or 
nominal percentage) which defines what their contribution to the total capital 
stock is and another boolean attribute which defines president or not.

C) Each company defines an attribute called quotation_percentage which defines 
the percentage of stock ownership the stock market price corresponds to. The 
selling and purchase price for each certificate then equals 
(nominal_percentage / quotation_percentage) * stock_price.


For 1835 the following certification types would be defined:

Major PR:
* One certification type "President share", nominal_percentage = 10% and 
president = yes
* One certification type "10% share", nominal_percentage = 10%, president = no
* One certification type "5%share", nominal_percentage = 5%
And the quotation_percentage is 10%.

For all other majors except BY,SX:
* One certification type "President share", nominal_percentage = 20% and 
president = yes
* One certification type "20% share", nominal_percentage = 20%, president = no
* One certification type "10% share", nominal_percentage = 10%
And the quotation_percentage is 10%.

For BY and SX: 
* One certification type "President share", nominal_percentage = 20% and 
president = yes
* One certification type "10% share", nominal_percentage = 10%, president = no
And the quotation_percentage is 10%.

The major advantage is now that we do not have even to fear a lunatic game 
designer who defines a company with share capital divided into shares with  
9%, 11%, 21%, 28%, 31% participation, for which the stock price is quoted for 
the 9% nominal ;-)


Stefan


On Friday, November 18, 2011 03:51:44 pm brett lentz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote:
> > On Friday, November 18, 2011 10:39:01 am Erik Vos wrote:
> >> > 3) Most people's definition of a "share" is such that the stock price
> >> 
> >> chart gives
> >> 
> >> > the price of one share.  Therefore, a "share" is 10%.
> > 
> There are two basic concepts that my gaming circle uses for 18xx games
> that I think are well-suited for clarifying this issue.
> 
> There's the "pieces of cardboard" or "certificates", which is used for
> things like maximum certificate limits.
> Then there's "shares" which are the divisible denominations of the
> company ownership.
> 
> Each "share" is divided up into face-value percentages, the most
> common being 10%. However, a single "piece of cardboard" may have
> multiple "shares" represented (e.g. the president's "certificate" is
> really 2 "shares")
> 
> So, in terms of internal code representation, we (should) have two
> classes and a few properties.
> 
> Class 1: Certificate.
> - property: share_array
> 
> Class 2: Share.
> - property: base_percentage
> 
> 
> So, for situations like 1856's formation of the CNR, it's actually a
> decision of whether we're creating 10 10% shares (using 9
> certificates) or 20 5% shares (using 19 certificates). This is part of
> the process of the CNR formation, because it requires calculating how
> many companies are being folded in.
> 
> >> Yes, that is a sensible point of view.  One problem is, though, that we
> >> must rethink how to report selling multiple shares.
> > 
> > Erik I even wondered how you got everything consistent with his
> > definition PR's share unit being 5%?
> > I suspect you created a variable that defines something like "stock is
> > quoted in multiples of 2".
> 
> But you never sell "shares", you always sell "certificates" (i.e. the
> piece of cardboard).  So, your transaction is always with the
> "container" for the shares.
> 
> >> If a player sells two 5% certificates, what did he sell in terms of
> >> shares? One share?  Two 5% shares? Two half-shares?
> > 
> > I prefer two "5% certificates". All other definitions end up being
> > ambiguous in some constellation. I would even use an ID for the
> > certificate types instead of the 5% attribute, as there might come up a
> > game with various certificates that have the same nominal but differ in
> > some other properties.
> 
> I'm a little unclear on the 1835 situation. My thought would be that
> the base "share" value should be whatever the smallest denomination
> being used is.
> 
> So, if there's 2x 5% shares floating around and everything else is
> 10%, we should use 5% as the base value, and the whole company's set
> of (cardboard) certificates should contain a number of share objects
> that adequately represents their total value. This means that the
> whole company has 20 "shares" of stock, divided into 10 (cardboard)
> certificates. (e.g. 2x certificates at 5%, 7x certificates at 10% each
> containing 2 shares, and 1x certificate at 20% which contains 4
> shares.)
> 
> Having two separate objects makes all of the math and logic *so* much
> simpler.
> 
> > Stefan
> 
> ---Brett.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel