Re: [Rails-devel] Players total value

[Chris S. <chr...@gm...>]

Great analysis, and I believe I agree with all of John Galt's decisions
regarding how to count prospective net worth.

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM, John David Galt <
jd...@di...> wrote:

> Stefan Frey wrote:
> > Chris:
> > could you please help me with some details about the companies in the
> games
> > you mention below? I have not played those so I have no extensive
> knowledge
> > and I admit I am too lazy to look up rules now. Why are the better
> examples
> > for worthless companies than those minors and privates we have in other
> games
> > already?
> >
> > A more general reply:
> >
> > If you think all of the type B assets are worthless use the still
> existing
> > current value. If you think only some are worthless or you assign a
> different
> > value make your own back-of-the envelope calculation.
> >
> > I have never claimed that my valuation for type B company gives you the
> true
> > (fundamental) value of the company.
> >
> > However I led myself guide from real-world accounting principle.
> >
> > You could value assets on the balance sheet in several ways, some are
> put down
> > below:
> >
> > 1) Value at termination (liquidation value)
> >
> > 2) Market price
> >
> > 3) Purchase price which is actually a historical (market) price if
> available
> >
> > 4) Model based value
> >
> > So you prefer the end-of-game value guided by the first principle.
> > I prefer using the purchase price for those items which do not have an
> end-of-
> > game value, but which are usually not worthless in 18xx (think about the
> > minors in 18EU).
> >
> > Consequently I believe that the on-going player values give a better
> picture
> > of the current ranking of players than the end-of-game player value in
> the
> > opening phase of 18EU.
> >
> > Stefan
>
> To illustrate the principle, let's look at the common classes of private
> companies, beginning with the six in 1830.
>
> *  SVN&RR, C&StL, and D&H, each comes by itself.  (Each produces income,
> each
> blocks a space on the board, and two of them have build powers once
> purchased
> by a company, but I don't think any of us wants to assign a value to any of
> those facts in computing a player's net worth.)  So:
> -  If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face
> value.
> -  If the game plays out to the end, a company will probably buy in the
> private
> for (2xface) in mid-game, and until then the private will produce income.
>  (If
> no company ever buys in the private, it will eventually close for $0.)
> -  Both Stefan and I would count these as their face value (type A).
>
> *  M&H comes by itself, but can be traded in for a share of NYC.
> -  If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face
> value.
> -  If the game plays out to the end, then as above, a company will
> probably buy
> it in for (2xface).  The NYC trade-in is an option, but not often used (and
> like the buy-in, it makes sense not to consider it until it happens).
> -  Again, both Stefan and I would count this as face value (type A).
>
> *  C&A comes with a 10% share of PRR.
> -  If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face
> value,
> but the share is worth zero because no one has bought the presidency yet.
> -  If the game plays out to the end, then like the first three, a company
> will
> probably buy in the private for (2xface), while PRR will probably float,
> giving
> the share a market value.  Again, I prefer not to consider these events
> until
> they happen since both are optional.
> -  Stefan would count the C&A as $160 (type A) and the share as the actual
> price paid minus $160 until someone buys the presidency of PRR.  Then the
> share
> becomes worth market value.
> -  I would count the C&A as $160, but the share as zero until someone buys
> the
> presidency of PRR.
>
> *  B&O comes with the presidency of B&O, but the private cannot be bought
> by a
> company and closes when B&O buys a train.
> -  If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face
> value,
> and the two shares are also worth market value!
> -  If the game plays out to the end, B&O will almost certainly float and
> buy a
> train, causing the private to close for $0, while the two shares will
> certainly
> have a market value.
> -  Stefan would count the two shares as market value and the private as the
> price paid minus the par value of the two shares.
> -  I would count the two shares as market value and the private as zero.
>
> **  1835 has two major rules differences that affect all privates: none of
> them
> can be bought in by a company, and none of them count if the game ends
> early in
> a bankruptcy.
> *  NF, OBB, and PfB come with 10% shares of BY.
> -  If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth zero.
> -  If the game plays out to the end, the private will produce income but
> will
> eventually close for 0M.
> -  Stefan would count the share at market value and the private at the
> price
> paid minus the par value of the share (so NF = 8, OBB = 28, PfB = 58).
> -  I would count the share at market value and the private at zero.
>
> *  LD comes with the presidency of SX.  It closes when SX buys a train.
> -  If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth zero.
> -  If the game plays out to the end, the private will produce income for a
> few
> rounds but then will close for 0M.
> -  Stefan would count the two shares at market value and the private at the
> price paid minus the par value of the two shares (14).
> -  I would count the two shares at market value and the private at zero.
>
> *  BB and HB come by themselves but will eventually have to trade for 10%
> shares of PR.
> -  If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth zero.
> -  If the game plays out to the end, the private will produce income for a
> few
> rounds but then will merge and become a PR share which will certainly have
> a
> market value.
> -  Stefan would count the private at face value.
> -  I would count the private as the market value of the trade-in share
> (and at
> its par value if it has not yet floated).
>
> *  1835's minor companies come by themselves but eventually will have to
> trade
> for 5% or 10% shares of PR.
> -  Same analysis and results as BB and HB.
>
> *  18EU's minor companies come by themselves but eventually will trade in
> for
> major company shares or close.
> -  If the game ends immediately, the minor company is worth zero.
> -  If the game plays out to the end, it will probably merge (but could end
> up
> closing for $0 if not connected), and until then the minor will produce
> income.
> -  Stefan would count the minor at the actual purchase price.
> -  My principle says it is worth zero, but here I would depart from
> principles
> and arbitrarily count the minor as worth $100, regardless of which minor
> it is
> or the actual purchase price.
> I use $100 because it is the value of the train that comes with the minor,
> and
> because it is a reasonable estimate of the value of an eventual trade-in
> share.
>
> *  Two of 1837's private (mountain) companies come by themselves; the
> others
> each come with one of the minor companies S1-S5.
> -  If the game ends immediately, both the private and the minor (if any)
> are
> worth zero.
> -  If the game plays out to the end, the minor will certainly merge (and
> as in
> 1835, the national companies have predetermined par values, so the share
> will
> certainly have a market value).
> -  Stefan would count the two privates that come by themselves at the
> actual
> purchase price.  For the ones that come with a minor, he would divide the
> actual purchase price equally between the private and the minor.
> -  I would count the privates as zero and the minors as the market value
> of the
> trade-in share (and at its par value if it has not yet floated).
>
> *  1837's coal companies come by themselves.  Each will eventually trade
> for a
> 10% share of a known major company (but the par values are not yet set,
> and the
> trade is not forced unless the major company sells out the rest of its
> shares).
> -  If the game ends immediately, the coal company is worth zero.
> -  If the game plays out to the end, the coal company will probably merge,
> but
> even the par value of the trade-in share is not yet known, and the trade-in
> does not have to occur (and if it doesn't, the coal company is worth zero).
> -  Stefan would count the coal company as the actual purchase price.
> -  I would arbitrarily count each coal company as 100K, the amount of
> treasury
> cash it starts with, until someone purchases the presidency of the trade-in
> company.  Once that happens I would count the coal company as the market
> value
> of the trade-in share.
>
> *  1837's minor companies come by themselves (except that U1 and U3 each
> come
> as two 50% shares) but all eventually will have to trade for 10% shares of
> the
> three national companies, which have predetermined par values.
> -  Same analysis and results as 1835's minors.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Write once. Port to many.
> Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create
> new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
> Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>