“The StarBond market itself is still up in the air.”
–Mac Daddy, emailing me earlier this month

HSX has been hinting at revising the bond system for months now. However, no one knows how they might go about doing so. In this article, I hope to lay out some principles for the bond system to come that I think we all can agree on, and their implications for what the perfect bond system would look like. For now, I’m just going to deal with the numerical aspects of the market. Issues such as the timing of adjusts and halting will be dealt with in a future column.

Principle 1: There should be adjusts based on box office performance.
Principle 2: Adjust prices should not depend on the current price of the bond.
Principle 3: Bond ratings and prices should be able to go down if a movie bombs.
Principle 4: There should be a minimum of HSX judgment involved.
Principle 5: It should be understandable.
“Let me explain… no, there is too much. Let me sum up.”

Let’s take these principles one at a time.

Principle 1: There should be adjusts based on box office performance.
Reason: I think this is obvious. If there are no adjusts, then there is no way to gauge the true value of a bond. Everyone would just buy the latest teen idol, leaving minor actors’ bonds to wallow in squalor and misery.
What this means: Exactly what it says. A side benefit is that I maintain my job as keeper of the HSB&R bond charts, which is always good.

Principle 2: Adjust prices should not depend on the current price of the bond.
Reason: I believe that, looking ahead to an upcoming movie starring a certain actor, one should be able to lay out with certainty what the adjust price will be if the movie grosses a certain amount. If the adjust price fluctuates with every purchase, then it makes it harder to plan proper prices.
What this means: I’m not a big fan of the “No change” adjust. Often, a bond will drop by a thousand dollars if a movie does surprisingly well, while if the movie tanks, the bond remains in the stratosphere. This runs counter to the intent of the bond market design.

Principle 3: Bond ratings and prices should always be able to go down if a movie bombs.
Reason: Say a bond adjusts for a movie, and has a second movie coming out the next week. If you believe that the second movie will totally tank, the market should be structured such that you believe that the next adjust will not be higher than the current adjust.
What this means: Some have suggested that bond adjust prices just be equivalent to a running box office total of the actor’s filmography. Since such a system would imply that the price keeps adjusting up and up with each movie, I feel that it needs some modification to be viable.

Also, it should be noted that the current system also fails this test, at least on certain occasion. Let’s say a star has 1 movie in his TAG, with a gross of $78M (AA). His current movie tanks, and grosses $0.5M, so his new TAG is just under $40M (BB), for an adjust to $500. If one thinks his next movie will tank as well, he will have a TAG of less than $30M (B), for an adjust to $888 — meaning one should purchase his bond.

Principle 4: There should be a minimum of HSX judgment involved.
Reason: Duh.
What this means: Things like weighting a movie less if the actor only had a minor role or determining how much of a movie’s gross was due to starpower vs. effects should not be implemented.

Principle 5: It should be relatively understandable.
Reason: Same as #4. I would say that the new system shouldn’t be much more complicated than the current system. A little bit might be OK.
What this means: Principle 1 ensures that I have a job. This one ensures that I can actually do it.

If I had to rank these in order of importance, I would say the most important principle should be number 1, followed by 4, 5, 2, and 3.

Potential solutions:

Keep the current system. As noted above, this fails principles 2 and 3, but has the unique advantage of not confusing anyone with a switch.
Keep the current system, except if a bond does not change ratings, it adjusts to $1000. This minimizes any changes, but still fails #3.
Set a price for each rating (i.e., $500 for U, $600 for C, $750 for CC, etc.); after each movie, bonds adjust to the price for their new rating. So, if a C bond becomes a CC, it adjusts to $750, if it stays a C bond, it adjusts to $600, etc. This satisfies all of the criteria.
Abandon the rating system. Bonds should adjust to $X + $Y * TAG, where X and Y are some constant values to be worked out (such as $400 and $50). This also satisfies all of the criteria.
Obviously, neither the list of principles or the list of potential solutions is exhaustive. Feel free to discuss on TT or email me with suggestions and criticisms. I’m especially curious to see if anyone disagrees with the 5 principles I laid out.