Yes I realise the current situation has it's flaws!
Early in 2018 I was already starting to become more concentrated in ANO and RFT, my high conviction picks. Then after I found the Strawman site I made the decision to
The design of the scorecard very much suited this approach and it has had it's benefits for me, and I'm not talking about the Strawman scorecard.
I guess in deciding on a new scorecard format it is really important to incentivise the kind of behaviour that is desired for the group as a whole. I haven't thought about this too much but here are the considerations that come to mind
My comment would be that if I had a long term investment (and scorecard selection) in this (or any) company then I would not want it to close and re-open as this lowers the average return on the scorecard. Perhaps investors could be given the option to close or continue with either WES or COL (with price adjusted accordingly)?
Thanks for raising, let me try and clarify.
Corporate actions like these always have their own unique circumstances, so it's not possible for us to automatically code into the system what should happen. We have to treat each one on a case by case basis.
In this instance, anyone with Wesfarmers on their scorecard will continue to hold it BUT (at this stage of development) we can't automatically create a new holdings for users. Besides, different people will want to do diffreent things (some will be happy to hold both, others will choose to sell either their Coles or Wesfarmers shares etc)
If members want to add Coles to their scorecard, they will need to do so manually (shares are below their start price, so it's actually an advantage to add now if you want).
If you hold Wesfarmers on your scorecard, and want to close it, we can reduce your cost base by the current market value of Coles shares to reflect the change. Email us at [email protected] and we'll make it happen.
Let me know if you have any questions/comments