• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Second hand price insanity!

Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
12,596
Regulation is rarely the correct answer to anything. It's choking enough as it is right now. The only reason why scalpers are successful is supply and demand. If there weren't people willing to pay these prices then there wouldn't be any scalpers, the few ruins it for the many I guess, like always. Why is it wrong to sell an item you have for the most someone is willing to pay? If you want to put a limit on something then try and figure out a way for bots to be halted or less effective.

We will have to agree to disagree, there is lots of problems out there now that exist purely due to lack of regulation, it is required by law for CEO's to put their shareholders needs first meaning companies will put profits first, they not going to be do gooder citizens on a voluntarily basis if it means harming their bottom line.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2004
Posts
22,594
Location
Devon, UK
Pre-scalped for your convenience. :eek:

I'm not saying they are or aren't scalping but the B Grade is notorious for having out of date pricing. Generally you're expected to post in the CS forum and make an offer on the individual items. I picked up a 3700X earlier this week for £215, despite it being listed at closer to £300. :)
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Posts
4,415
Location
Denmark
We will have to agree to disagree, there is lots of problems out there now that exist purely due to lack of regulation, it is required by law for CEO's to put their shareholders needs first meaning companies will put profits first, they not going to be do gooder citizens on a voluntarily basis if it means harming their bottom line.

Well, this is what actually keeps surprising me over and over. What I highlighted gives the consumers power over the companies but the problem is that power only exists when a big enough majority adhere to common sense. When enough people realize that a consumer GPU(or any other luxury item) isn't important to them and that waiting is fine then companies will be forced to put prices more in line with reality if they want profits for their shareholders. Once people understand and think about how a business operates they will understand how to get what they(the consumer) want as long as they are able to show patience and restraint. Don't get me wrong though, the itch is difficult for many of us not to scratch when new toys are released, I understand that.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Apr 2009
Posts
7,580
We will have to agree to disagree, there is lots of problems out there now that exist purely due to lack of regulation, it is required by law for CEO's to put their shareholders needs first meaning companies will put profits first, they not going to be do gooder citizens on a voluntarily basis if it means harming their bottom line.

What law would this be?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Apr 2009
Posts
7,580
Companies Act 2006. If you read it, bear in mind 'members' refers to shareholders specifically. edit: in the UK but basically every liberal country has a law like this or it's just accepted in common law (as it was in the UK before that act).

I should have bolded a bit more of that post. I was thinking specifically of the profit requirement. The Companies Act only requires a director to act "in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole". It does not require, specifically, that they put profit first.

However, acting in the best interests of shareholders doesn't necessarily mean putting their "needs" first. Those two things could look quite different; what if shareholders "need" something that would risk the success of the company, and therefore the long-term benefit of members? A director would then be required by the Act to ignore the "needs" of the shareholders.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2007
Posts
5,740
Location
from the internet
I should have bolded a bit more of that post. I was thinking specifically of the profit requirement. The Companies Act only requires a director to act "in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole". It does not require, specifically, that they put profit first.

I think it's either going to involve profit in terms of generating dividends and such, or increasing the impact of the company such that equity valuation/share price increases (e.g. loss-leading market capturing moves) - but ultimately that's just creating the expectation of future profits. What other kinds of benefits are you thinking it refers to?
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
12,596
I should have bolded a bit more of that post. I was thinking specifically of the profit requirement. The Companies Act only requires a director to act "in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole". It does not require, specifically, that they put profit first.

However, acting in the best interests of shareholders doesn't necessarily mean putting their "needs" first. Those two things could look quite different; what if shareholders "need" something that would risk the success of the company, and therefore the long-term benefit of members? A director would then be required by the Act to ignore the "needs" of the shareholders.

Indeed, e.g. shareholders may always want a dividend, but the company may have to take a risk or borrow with interest to pay out that dividend.

Same argument applies to pricing of products, the CEO will try to get the right balance for reputation of company high amount of sales and profit per sale. I expect nvidia decided they priced the turing series too high because sales were too low hence the ampere adjustments.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Apr 2009
Posts
7,580
I think it's either going to involve profit in terms of generating dividends and such, or increasing the impact of the company such that equity valuation/share price increases (e.g. loss-leading market capturing moves) - but ultimately that's just creating the expectation of future profits. What other kinds of benefits are you thinking it refers to?

I... may have attached my own meaning to chrcoluk's post :p

I took "put profit first" to refer to the short term. Specifically, the practice of jacking up GPU prices to profit from the current shortage. Though reading back, I'm now not sure that this is what was meant.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2007
Posts
5,740
Location
from the internet
I... may have attached my own meaning to chrcoluk's post :p

I took "put profit first" to refer to the short term. Specifically, the practice of jacking up GPU prices to profit from the current shortage. Though reading back, I'm now not sure that this is what was meant.

Fair enough, that does make sense in context. I'm probably being a bit pedantic tbh.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2009
Posts
4,900
Location
London
Yep! They tend to be in the minority though, but still, ludicrous pricing across the board.
Absolute madness. I got a founders edition for 389 few weeks back brand new, haven't really used it as having back issues so can't really game, tempting to stick on the bay but I'd feel a right **** taker making that much off it.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Feb 2021
Posts
21
I think it's either going to involve profit in terms of generating dividends and such, or increasing the impact of the company such that equity valuation/share price increases (e.g. loss-leading market capturing moves) - but ultimately that's just creating the expectation of future profits. What other kinds of benefits are you thinking it refers to?
If you're going to quote legislation, you should put in context. Here's the text:

Duty to promote the success of the company
(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—

(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

(b)the interests of the company's employees,

(c)the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

(d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,

(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and

(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

So there's absolutely no requirement to chase profit/dividends for shareholders as an overriding priority legally, especially in the short term. Also, bear in mind that in most private, non-publicly listed companies, the shareholders are often limited to a very small number of people - e.g., the directors. They're perfectly entitled to act ethically and in any case are unlikely to take themselves to court for selling GPUs at uninflated prices. When investors are involved it obviously gets more complicated because of the financial pressures they bring.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
29,679
Absolute madness. I got a founders edition for 389 few weeks back brand new, haven't really used it as having back issues so can't really game, tempting to stick on the bay but I'd feel a right **** taker making that much off it.

They should have a £1 final fee promotion on this weekend, def check if it’s available to you ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom