CelebStock and StarBonds

Can we raise the max share of bonds held.... what? Look down? Ay-yi-yi... nevermind!!! {nm} secretstalker Nov 17, 17:47

agree.. but not this year there still too much volatility with movie stocks to add starbonds to the mix. Guillo Nov 17, 18:24

Also shwuck have some good points below that again i agree but rather not see this year. Guillo Nov 17, 18:41

Empire: Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, Jason Isaacs, and Thomas Kretschmann credited to [CARS2] Antibody Nov 17, 13:42

As someone of German blood, I'm offended that Kretschmann is more than likely playing a Volkswagen {nm} secretstalker Nov 17, 16:47

he might be a BMW :) {nm} daveart Nov 18, 08:13

How about an Opel? :) {nm} DTravel Nov 22, 00:11

[MCAIN] [EMORT] [JISAA] [TKRET] {nm} StarBondFund BUY NOW.. Jets 9-2 Dec 04, 20:25

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. {nm} 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

[CHER] mentions in this interview that she is still very much interested in making [DROPO] with [JKNOX]. (dated 11/15/2010) accountant_4_Jesus Nov 16, 23:02

Sorry, dated 11/14/2010. {nm} accountant_4_Jesus Nov 16, 23:02

So now we have the exact amount.....BONDS needs to have 279,995 shares sold to catch FOXX at No 25 {nm} mrbinns Nov 16, 16:12

I don't think it works off the number of shares. It probably takes into how many individual accounts hold at least 1 share. EuroFund Nov 16, 19:04

takes into "account" {nm} EuroFund Nov 16, 19:07

what you need to do is encourage everyone already holding it long to also short it {nm} RogerMore Nov 16, 19:34

maybe short just 1 share? to double up the number of account holders. unless, of course, each account is only counted once EuroFund Nov 16, 19:40

I do not really know how it works....Antibody...??? The number of shares is now greater than WBROX which is less than FOXX... StarBondsFund BUY Now Jets7-2 Nov 17, 05:35

I can understand your frustration. Yet compare BONDS' status to, say, SLABE: 43.4m shares held long, 4.5m held short. Diapason Nov 17, 07:06

Post Adjust Bond Show For 11/16/10 RazorHawk Nov 16, 10:42

Thanks. I have NSJOB as MDAMO's next adjust. {nm} RogerMore Nov 16, 11:04

Somehow in my mind that became "MDAMO's next adjustment will be a nose job". {nm} DTravel Nov 16, 15:02

you're not alone {nm} lapuckfan Nov 16, 15:46

That's both comforting and disturbing. :-P {nm} DTravel Nov 17, 00:08

Also isn't he dropping Ponyo not The Informant {nm} JDolphin Nov 17, 13:32

Official Adjusts Antibody Nov 16, 10:33

IPO Thoughts: Shiloh Fernandez (SFERN) RazorHawk Nov 16, 06:05

If WRWAY is going wide on December 3, then in just over a month and a half, KBOSW will almost double in value, as she is massively ARB. {nm} accountant_4_Jesus Nov 15, 22:59

She would be ARB whether it goes wide or not. {nm} secretstalker Nov 16, 03:24

Yes, but if you re-read my post, you'll notice that she'll double in value in just over a month and a half if WRWAY goes wide, and if not, accountant_4_Jesus Nov 16, 04:10

This is why we always refer to dROI....at PrG it is 1.60 with a Dec 28 delist; thenumbers is .69 with Feb 22....Guess on the earlier one? {nm} StarBondsFund BUY Now Jets7-2 Nov 16, 05:50

Let's not use ARB in a future tense until a film has opened and reported box office. {nm} Antibody Nov 16, 10:36

Yes, sir! accountant_4_Jesus Nov 17, 18:13

Bradd Pitt [BPITT] to make Chilean Miner film? StripedKing Nov 15, 09:14

EW: "Not true" Antibody Nov 15, 12:42

Hey everyone, don't know if you realized this, but MIRIC is no longer attached to HPOT7. accountant_4_Jesus Nov 14, 23:25

Hadn't noticed. Thanks for sharing! {nm} Port Value League Admin Nov 14, 23:51

Thanks. Saved me some loss :p {nm} idrom Nov 15, 03:19

Thanks. {nm} shadowking Nov 15, 08:56

Spoke with MIRIC earlier and she said it's doubtful she's in HPOT8 either. {nm} secretstalker Nov 15, 18:46

I also count 3-4 other bonds who probably won't be making it to HPOT8 but I'm not gonna spoil it. D. Mac will figure it out :) {nm} secretstalker Nov 16, 03:31

Well to be honest, I'm not connected with the movie industry at all and I loathe Harry Potter period, so I don't know and don't really care. {nm} accountant_4_Jesus Nov 16, 04:12

Meaning that I have no clue whatsoever about the story and which characters die etc. {nm} accountant_4_Jesus Nov 16, 04:13

You do realize that I didn't just post that for your sake, right? :) secretstalker Nov 16, 06:31

Yeah I realize that. {nm} accountant_4_Jesus Nov 16, 12:02

don't want that Rita Skeeter poking around anyway :) {nm} tealfan Nov 15, 22:57

Wow the ticker symbols for the two Mesrine movies aren't *too* confusing... :) Surprise VCASS wasn't attached to OCEN3.. cameo? {nm} secretstalker Nov 14, 05:00

Good Takuy Nov 16, 01:20

NLMGO and attached bonds....Sadly, it looks like no theaters this week and the final tally will be the current box... StarBond Fund Sweet 16 BUY BONDS Nov 13, 06:37

Why would you think it has no theaters this week? A simple Fandango or Moviefone search returns showtimes this weekend for NLMGO. {nm} shadowking Nov 13, 19:04

You are very correct. Announcements list of theater counts and BOM show none....but Fandango shows that StarBond Fund 16 ...BUY BONDS Nov 13, 22:19

The ERC theater counts are unfortunately always incomplete. shadowking Nov 15, 08:58

So in the end it wass 32 screens.....24,680 box, 805 more than CATFS mrbinns Nov 15, 16:18

Response to THETOM for a post below about KCHAN IPO.... StarBond Fund 16 ...BUY BONDS Nov 12, 09:41

Why hasn't 50CEN been credited to MORNG? He's mentioned in the Variety review of the movie. accountant_4_Jesus Nov 11, 23:07

He's not mentioned where in the credits section. It's a slight difference. {nm} Antibody Nov 12, 10:02

IPO Thoughts: Bryan Cranston [BCRAN] RazorHawk Nov 11, 09:29

Any relation to Lamont? {nm} laujer Nov 11, 20:50

Good Takuy Nov 16, 01:19

Just wondering why John Cho's [JCHO] page doesn't show up for Harold and Kumar's Christmas [HAKU3]? {nm} thesilverfox Nov 09, 23:41

I see it there...browser problem? {nm} tealfan Nov 09, 23:55

I mean...problem with your particular browser maybe? {nm} tealfan Nov 09, 23:56

Herp Derp! You're right....I'm completely blind. It was on the tail end of a long port adjust session. All is right in the HSX universe. {nm} thesilverfox Nov 10, 01:07

It does takingbacksunday Nov 24, 16:47

TMZ: RWEIS left DARON for DCRAI?! Antibody Nov 09, 13:03

aww...way back I saw them at Comic-Con at the Fountain panel...seemed like a solid couple {nm} tealfan Nov 09, 13:20

Post Adjust Bond Show For 11/9/10 RazorHawk Nov 09, 11:09

I have KURBA's next adjust as ASDRK and MLPAR's as HOWL. I like the extra bit you put in this week explaining your choice for BWILL's next {nm} RogerMore Nov 09, 11:20

ASDRK isnt expected to report box office RazorHawk Nov 09, 11:25

Ah, I'd forgotten that post. {nm} RogerMore Nov 09, 11:28

Where does it say it's not going to report box office in that thread you linked to? {nm} secretstalker Nov 09, 11:33

It doesn't say explicitly, but it's a 4-wall release by a distributor that doesn't always report BO, so it's a reasonable call {nm} Roger More Nov 09, 11:40

Not really... unlike the Anchor Bay movies that didn't report box office, ASDRK doesn't have a DVD release date yet. secretstalker Nov 09, 11:54

uh dude, ....yes it does have a DVD release date. RazorHawk Nov 09, 11:57

Or maybe that release date has changed cause Amazon doesn't list one, which is what I checked before commenting. Dude. secretstalker Nov 09, 12:05

again, it is helpful if you actually read and know what is going on before mouthing off RazorHawk Nov 09, 12:16

To all the young dude, follow the news....per RH,,check the link StarBond Fund Sweet 16 BUY BONDS Nov 09, 17:45

That's in the **2nd** link you posted, not the first. I asked Moviesnob and he said the plans are still the same. {nm} secretstalker Nov 09, 18:36

(IOW, I didn't read the entire thread. I just read the post you linked to.) {nm} secretstalker Nov 09, 18:37

Moviesnob already told us 2 weeks ago that the plans had not changed {nm} RazorHawk Nov 09, 18:43

Why don't you read the post right above this one? As I've said many times, I don't live here like you do, so I miss a lot of conversations. {nm} secretstalker Nov 09, 19:00

Then you need to take that into consideration before you take it upon yourself to "correct" other people RazorHawk Nov 09, 19:16

This whole argument started because you claimed the movie won't report box office (something you STILL don't know for sure). secretstalker Nov 09, 19:58

RH posted that he didn't _expect_ it to report Box Office, not that it definitely won't. There is a difference. DTravel Nov 10, 12:30

Saying something "isn't expected to report box office" seems like a pretty definitive statement to me. {nm} secretstalker Nov 11, 05:22

But not to everyone. {nm} DTravel Nov 11, 10:59

Also, I don't know why you didn't link to *that* post which is more pertinent to the discussion than the one you did. {nm} secretstalker Nov 09, 12:11

with the DVD hitting the street a week after the theatrical release date {nm} RazorHawk Nov 09, 11:54

Thanks again for this research. Very appreciated. :-) {nm} Skauge Nov 09, 13:04

Official Adjusts Antibody Nov 09, 10:24