CelebStock and StarBonds

Is it time to raise the H$250M cap when calculating TAGs?? Rationale inside... shwuck Nov 17, 10:34

Furthermore... shwuck Nov 17, 10:53

Try it the other way. In 10 years that I have been here, we have averaged 5 per year. This winter, other than HPOT7, we may not have any StarBondsFund BUY Now Jets7-2 Nov 17, 10:57

Umm, HPOT7 will be the 6th movie this year if it holds at it's current price... not the first. shwuck Nov 17, 11:03

The reason to change the cap is for greater accuracy in TAGs, for example HPOT1-6 are underTAG'ed by H$35.48 on avg. Thats a huge miscalc {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 11:18

Most films above $250M are the big special effects films. It's no longer about "starpower" that TAG is trying to approximate. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 11:40

Using this argument, then all of the Starbonds should be detached from Special effects movies... let's be consistent in our defenses here {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 11:43

Therefore, a cap is better than no attachment. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 11:45

No, a cap arbitrarily decides the max worth of an actor or director. Examples... shwuck Nov 17, 11:52

It is an uneven device at best.....When all of the small roles in HPOT7 count the same as DRADC there is somehing wrong.... {nm} StarBondFund BUY NOW.. Jets 7-2 Nov 17, 13:36

I can agree to that point... but that is not an argument against adjusting the cap... shwuck Nov 17, 13:42

Good luck differentiating between lead, supporting and cameo. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 13:43

WORD. {nm} secretstalker Nov 17, 16:49

Like determine the roles and % isn't arbitrary. Antibody Nov 18, 11:41

Creating a new set of rules to manage the process is less arbitrary than penalizing actors in movies that did exceptionally well {nm} shwuck Nov 18, 11:52

Your proposal has multliple arbitrary rules vs. the current system's one ,arbitrary according to you, rule. {nm} Antibody Nov 18, 13:04

Even with DRADC, people are going to see "Harry Potter", not DRADC. He's not gonna bring $250M to a non-Potter film. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 13:56

The counter to that argument is that the studio could have replaced DRADC and gotten another Harry Potter at any point {nm} shwuck Nov 18, 11:54

Yes, see James Bond, HULK... {nm} Antibody Nov 18, 13:01

But the number of films making $5 million or less is probably the same. The cap is not just to limit the top, it's also to lessen the fall. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 11:16

Why worry about the fall... shwuck Nov 17, 11:27

SWORT shouldn't be penalized if he makes an indie film that replaces AVATR, so the drop is mitigated to at most $50 ($250/50). {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 11:44

I mean 250/5 {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 11:46

He's not being penalized... HE CHOSE to make the lesser movie. Actors sometimes chose NOT to be in the biggest flick {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 11:53

a little historical perspective ProjectGenome Nov 17, 11:45

Thanks for the perspective... all i am really arguing is that the caps should be increased slightly to reduce inacurracy {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 11:59

You're looking to make more H$, not "accuracy". {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 12:21

The only reason would be making more money now is because things aren't accurate now. Why won't you want to be accurate? {nm} GBlaylock Nov 17, 12:25

Better wording - Only reason would make more money now is because things weren't done accurately before. {nm} GBlaylock Nov 17, 12:27

Of course... the POINT of the game is to make more H$. But ... shwuck Nov 17, 12:36

err, should have said... Daniel Radcliffs TAG is only worth 88% of it's true value {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 12:37

As I pointed out, once you get above $250M, it's the benefit of special effects. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 12:58

So the Blind Side, Meet the Fockers, and the Passion of the Christ were all driven by Special effects? shwuck Nov 17, 13:07

They will always be outliers, which is what the cap is for. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 13:17

For PASON, if you believe, absolutely, That IS the mystery is it not? {nm} mrbinns Nov 17, 13:21

Titanic was 100% a 'special effect movie'; cardboard cutout characters, predictable plot; all about the effects pedant Nov 17, 13:58

Example: SBULL's next adjust... her TAG will be H$1.00 less than it should be. shwuck Nov 17, 12:57

I'll live with $1 difference. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 13:05

Why should we have to consistently be wrong for all movies abouve H$250... of which there will be more!!! {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 13:17

I've never understood why after being delisted, a movie's gross continues to count toward a StarBond's TAG GBlaylock Nov 17, 11:30

This solution also seems more fair. See my Sandra Bullock example in the first post {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 11:32

It's a bonus incentive to hold a StarBond beyond the adjust. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 11:35

How is it an incentive? The TAG goes up, not the stock price. The stock price depends more on the next film, not the previous. {nm} GBlaylock Nov 17, 11:38

The added box office is counted on the next adjust. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 11:42

Again... this is an incentive to project the TAG after the actors NEXT adjust and act accordingly... not an incentive to hold outright {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 11:46

But that adjust only depends on the next film and the sixth film (the one being dropped from TAG) GBlaylock Nov 17, 11:46

In that case, the additional box office would lessen the fall. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 12:07

Let's reverse this argument - not if the movie was capped. The fall for SWORT only softens to H$250 if his next movie is an indie. shwuck Nov 17, 12:16

The additional box office added after the movie is delisted has nothing to do with the rise/fall afterwards GBlaylock Nov 17, 12:19

Unless a star is in 6 movies in a VERY short time, the blockbuster they are dropping would have stopped adding to TAG a long time ago. {nm} osmosis2003 Nov 17, 13:23

That argument only applies in relation to the next movie the actor is in... if they aren't in a movie for a year, the incetive to hold drops {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 11:40

No, because ultimately a StarBond would cash out at TAG due to inactivity. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 11:48

Ha, so you are saying the incentive is to hold and HOPE for a StarBond's inactivity to cause a cash out - which could take years. GBlaylock Nov 17, 11:56

It's just one way that a StarBond retains value, not saying it's the absolute reason. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 12:14

This argument only works if bonds AUTOMATICALLY delist for inactivity, rather than being chosen via a random process at random times {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 11:56

You know it's not random. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 12:09

Really? there are bonds out there that are more than 3 years past the last activity... why haven't they delisted ? {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 12:18

Random would I pick all the StarBonds without attached out of a hat regardless whether it's 1 week of 10 years from their last film. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 12:19

So when are StarBonds cashed out due to inactivity? {nm} GBlaylock Nov 17, 12:23

The guideline is after 3 years from their last film. Cashouts happen every few months so it's not exactly 3 years. Antibody Nov 17, 12:34

So the reason why say Frankie Muniz and Illeana Douglas haven't cashed out yet is . . . . ? GBlaylock Nov 17, 12:47

They were attached to films that just went STV recently. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 12:55

WHO CARES... they were past the 3 year mark... Frankie should have delisted over a year ago to keep the integrity of the rules... shwuck Nov 17, 13:01

If a StarBond was still attached to a listed MST, he's not eligible to be delisted as inactive. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 13:04

If there was never a moviestock attached to the bond, then your argument proves my point. Only moviestocks attached to a bond should apply shwuck Nov 17, 13:26

FMUNI was detatched from MYSYR in Sept. 09... again... why wasn't he de-listed this year - at any point {nm} shwuck Nov 17, 13:35

Sep 13, 2010. {nm} Antibody Nov 17, 13:39

Okay, not random - more like arbitrary...once they do cross the 3 year mark it there are pretty thin reasons they shouldn't delist. shwuck Nov 17, 12:27

The best example for counting post adjust box is MBFGW....should it count for 23.58 or 241.44 StarBondFund BUY NOW.. Jets 7-2 Nov 17, 13:31

If it is raised it should be going forward and not retro active {nm} laujer Nov 17, 13:32

Agreed... that would prevent wild swings. Make it easy... all movies delisting after 1/01/2011 will be creditted at the higher cap {nm} shwuck Nov 18, 06:41

This was one of the most interesting threads I've read here this year... thanks :) {nm} Chefbobcat Nov 18, 21:08