Results 1 to 5 of 5
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Switzerland

    • Join Date: Aug 2009
    • Posts: 1,676
    #1

    up to

    "Dividends will be paid out to the stockholders up to the amount of their contributions."

    Is the usage of "up to" above correct? I interpret the sentence as meaning that the amount of dividends paid out to the stockholders will not be higher than the amount of their contributions. Is that how you interpret it as well? Could one replace "up to the amount" with "in the maximum amount"?

    Thanks!

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Switzerland

    • Join Date: Aug 2009
    • Posts: 1,676
    #2

    Re: up to

    Anyone?

    Thanks a lot!

  1. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,091
    #3

    Re: up to

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasmin165 View Post
    Anyone?

    Thanks a lot!
    It's meaningless to me. Dividends are not paid up to the "amount of contributions." In most cases, people don't contribute to companies; they buy shares, and are paid dividends of a few percent per year (as I'm sure you know).
    If this is a managed fund, members can contribute capital through the year. So their assets at the end of the year would consist of principal, contributions through the year, and dividends or interest. Perhaps the fund did not make a profit, but promised to redistribute a dividend up to (but not exceeding) the amount of the members' 'contribution' that year? So, if the member did not add to the fund that year, that member receives no dividend.
    But this is total speculation (like half of my share portfolio, I'm afraid to say )

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Switzerland

    • Join Date: Aug 2009
    • Posts: 1,676
    #4

    Re: up to

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymott View Post
    It's meaningless to me. Dividends are not paid up to the "amount of contributions." In most cases, people don't contribute to companies; they buy shares, and are paid dividends of a few percent per year (as I'm sure you know).
    If this is a managed fund, members can contribute capital through the year. So their assets at the end of the year would consist of principal, contributions through the year, and dividends or interest. Perhaps the fund did not make a profit, but promised to redistribute a dividend up to (but not exceeding) the amount of the members' 'contribution' that year? So, if the member did not add to the fund that year, that member receives no dividend.
    But this is total speculation (like half of my share portfolio, I'm afraid to say )
    Thank you for your lengthy reply.

    So you think "up to" is used correctly? Could one replace it with "in the maximum amount"?

    Disregard the rest of the sentence; I'm just wondering about the use of "up to."

    Thank you very much.

  2. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,091
    #5

    Re: up to

    Quote Originally Posted by Jasmin165 View Post
    Thank you for your lengthy reply.

    So you think "up to" is used correctly? Could one replace it with "in the maximum amount"?

    Disregard the rest of the sentence; I'm just wondering about the use of "up to."

    Thank you very much.
    "Up to x" means "some amount up to and including, but not exceeding, x"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •