Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 15:42:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Nice tone. You obviously don't expect me to reply politely, and it's clear what your agenda is here: to incite yet more frivolous rhetoric.
If you want polite, be polite. If you behave like a prat, expect to be treated as one.
Close the bank, Ray. YouŠre acting more and more like Ricdic every day.
|
Tiberizzle
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 15:49:00 -
[212]
Confirming that Ray doesn't care about EBank's image and sustainability as an institution, because he's just planning his own RMT cash out
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 16:35:00 -
[213]
Skarii TuThess, your proposal is pretty much the same as what EBANK is planning on doing with liquidation withdrawals. The chosen value for the amount of isk EBANK can use profitably is 700B, and the percentage is the assets/liabilities ratio minus 5%.
Originally by: Varo Jan Good grief! Seven pages of posts about a supremely simple legal concept - the right of set off. Google it! If youŠve ever had the displeasure of vetting corporate contracts, and I have, youŠll be familiar with the term.
EBank uses that right whenever it liquidates collateral to repay a defaulted loan. Kwint has every right to apply the same principle. End of story. Nowt to do with morals. Can we move on now?
Kwint's purpose was not to recover his isk from EBANK, it was to use the bonds as leverage in an attempt to force EBANK to acknowledge interest obligations. However, the thread has diverged far from the original topic.
I was going to post some more analysis of the EBANK financials, but the spreadsheet is broken, in particular the value of loans. Can past versions of the financials spreadsheet be made available, so we can see how things are changing and to avoid temporary problems like the ones now and the previous weekend?
The EBANK website is also broken.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 16:43:00 -
[214]
Try this instead.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 16:49:00 -
[215]
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 28/12/2009 16:52:10
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
The EBANK website is also broken.
I'm talking to the host right now to find out what's going on with that.
EDIT: The site was consuming 99% CPU for some unexplainable reason. The process in question has been killed and the site is now back up
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 16:53:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Varo Jan Try this instead.
Very good, thanks, although it would be nice to have the data from farther back.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 17:20:00 -
[217]
Originally by: LaVista Vista The process in question has been killed and the site is now back up
Executed with extreme prejudice, I hope.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 17:23:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Originally by: LaVista Vista The process in question has been killed and the site is now back up
Executed with extreme prejudice, I hope.
That's funny, that's what the host said he would do
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 17:39:00 -
[219]
Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 28/12/2009 17:38:48
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Originally by: LaVista Vista The process in question has been killed and the site is now back up
Executed with extreme prejudice, I hope.
That's funny, that's what the host said he would do
Terminate with extreme prejudice.
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 20:48:00 -
[220]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 28/12/2009 20:51:04
Originally by: Tiberizzle Hats off to Kwint Sommer.
Yeah, I wonder if Kwint will ever realize he has been used. Anyway, after 8 pages looks like the coup attempt has failed and MD is once again on the joyous path of reconciliation.
Coffee?
Black Sun Empire |
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 21:06:00 -
[221]
Originally by: YouGotRipped
Yeah, I wonder if Kwint will ever realize he has been used. Anyway, after 8 pages looks like the coup attempt has failed and MD is once again on the joyous path of reconciliation.
Haha. Care to elaborate on what this "coup" was? And who was using Kwint? Or do you prefer the to keep the dramatic accusations vague?
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 22:39:00 -
[222]
Katiana Swan,
I am flattered, but in all honesty I have been behaving as bad as ray at times with regards to trolling. Not realy befitting for such a public function.
Also, I am not sure my chosen path is the right one. Much like Raw seems to think as well as many other have also posted, some of the choices ebank is making may be right fom their viewpoint, they are just terrebly badly presented to the public. If I look at some of the bitter bile that has been thrown in their direction while they may see themselves as hero's cleaning up after someone-elses muck, I am not sure I would have persevered in my choises even if I believed them to be right. I might have given up and liquidated the bank just to silence the people complaining.
Considering the policies ebank has tried to propose I think they also suspect quite a large amount of the remaining accounts are not sleeping, but in fact dead. Liquidating would probably have ment selling the assets, setting a percentage for liquidation and honering every request made within a reasonable timeframe (say 1 year), but then What to do with the possebly sizeble ramains? Setting up a liquidation proces where everyone has to register for liquidation within a reasoneble period and then deviding the loot between registered parties may be a better option, but it is also much more work. What would be a reasonable fee for liquidating ebank, it is a lot of work with no lasting potential to the people doing that work, and whatever figure they pick it will be highly critizized and probably be in no relation to the workload required anyway. All this makes liquidating the bank not that simple.
And in a response to ray's posting my posts may (occationally) seem rational, but I am not so sure you would have thought me right had I been the one to post my plans to be invoked unilatiraly over your accounts
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 23:17:00 -
[223]
I have been waiting for this situation to arise. I think I am going to have to side with EBANK on this one.
1. I do believe that banks can change their interest rates they offer on their accounts. 2. I do NOT believe that fixed bonds can change their rates of payments. 3. Bond launchers can ask for a change in terms that affect all bondholders, see Argentina or Dubai World. This should effect the risk profile of further launches.
Where this situation gets tricky is that both sides feel they are owed money and can't come to an agreement about how to deal with it.
In a real world scenario I would think that Kwint would take a bigger hit here by changing the terms of his fixed bond. Newer bonds launched by Kwint should be penalised with a higher interest rate (they won't be). EBANK hasn't taken a further hit, as they were already insolvent and an administrator has been brought in to get the best deal for the customers he can. EBANK would likely feel that they should be treated like all bondholders equally, and would probably win a judgement confirming this.
IMO.
1. All bondholders should be treated equally. 2. EBANK should do what they can to speedily return as much, if not all the money to their customers. 3. EBANK should take steps to eliminate fraud where possible, including use of API if administrator deems it the best solution for the customers. 4. If long term recapitalization of the bank does not look likely for a significant period of time (a go no-go date should be set for this), then the bank should be liquidated and distributed to the customers of the bank that have met the anti-fraud criteria.
note: Does anyone have a RL example of Kwint and EBANKS scenario.
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 23:36:00 -
[224]
Originally by: cosmoray thoughts on EBANK and Kwint situation
I agree with most of what you have said above, especially about treating all bondholders equally. And I would agree with you regarding this situation as well, if EBANK had handled themselves differently. And I'm not talking about the way they talk to their depositors either - its that they did not consult them. At the VERY LEAST, a representative from the depositors should have been placed on the board (and probably have multiple seats on the board).
I can't think of a RL example, but I think because they don't make the news, at least the way I see this situation (just a simple repo). EBANK defaulted on Kwint. Kwint has every right to seize any assets to recover his losses. The only assets he has access to, due to the way Eve works, is his own bonds that EBANK owns. He can seize these until such time that EBANK makes good on its obligations to Kwint or they reach some other agreement. There are no laws in place so EBANK cannot file for bankruptcy protection.
This is not very different from how EBANK is conducting business themselves. Supposedly, they are requiring API keys to determine who has defaulted on debts to them. And I assume they will seize the ISK in the accounts of those people. Kwint should seize the ISK that EBANK has "deposited" with him.
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 23:44:00 -
[225]
Edited by: Kwint Sommer on 28/12/2009 23:45:53
Originally by: cosmoray
In a real world scenario I would think that Kwint would take a bigger hit here by changing the terms of his fixed bond.
You clearly have not read the entirety of this thread and I'm more than a little disappointed to see you making pronouncements against me without even having the decency to read all of my posts. I expected better man.
In Summary: I considered changing the terms of the bond as applied to EBANK, I believe I was even criticized by someone for not going that route. However, I concluded that under the original terms I didn't have the right to do anything except close the whole bond down and then invoke the widely acknowledged and long established legal principle of off set to keep the funds from the payout of their shares until a settlement can be reached.
To quote from earlier in this thread,
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Reviewing the terms of my IPO I have concluded that I have no right or authority to suspend interest payments, particularly not on a preferential basis as would be required here. To that end I am closing the bond and paying back all investors.
EBANK is in default. They have failed to pay interest and are denying access to the principle in direct conflict with the terms of the original agreement. Hence, the value of their shares will be paid to me and held in trust until an amicable solution can be reached or until such time as their debt equals the value of the shares, then it will be considered paid.
Originally by: cosmoray
EBANK would likely feel that they should be treated like all bondholders equally, and would probably win a judgement confirming this.
As many posters have stated in this thread, which you apparently haven't bothered reading, my actions are completely backed by legal principle and precedent. This sort of thing is done often. I would win this case in every court in the world with ease and I'd bet my life on that.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 23:45:00 -
[226]
Originally by: cosmoray In a real world scenario I would think that Kwint would take a bigger hit here by changing the terms of his fixed bond. Newer bonds launched by Kwint should be penalised with a higher interest rate (they won't be).
In the eyes of many, myself included, Kwint has done nothing wrong. Personally I would invest with him in the future.
Remember Cosmo, you scammed a scammer yourself! Does that mean people trust you less? I would doubt it considering the number of people that still want you to secure collateral or preform audits on them. Hell, I'd trust you with my collateral even though you technically scammed (scam the scammer) according to a few people.
Now if EBank was solvent and operating normally (ISK available for withdrawl and interest being paid) then yes, most people would consider this borderline scam. However, EBank is bankrupt, not paying interest, not allowing withdrawls, and very unlikely to ever be solvent in the near future*.
*CCP has a better chance of getting rid of every bug, having the most stable servers, and perfectly balanced gameplay in the near future than EBank does to become solvent.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 00:02:00 -
[227]
While I agree that a Bank can change their interest rates, I do not agree that they have the right to first FREEZE all accounts, and then remove ALL interest. It must be either one of them, not both.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 00:19:00 -
[228]
Originally by: cosmoray
1. I do believe that banks can change their interest rates they offer on their accounts.
EBANK is a bank in name only. Just because they call themselves a bank does not give them any rights that differ in any way from any other private venture. In any case, the right of banks to change the interest rate they offer is only one aspect of the arrangement they have with customers. It is inherently bound to the customer's right to reject these changes by withdrawing their money.
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 00:21:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
As many posters have stated in this thread, which you apparently haven't bothered reading, my actions are completely backed by legal principle and precedent. This sort of thing is done often. I would win this case in every court in the world with ease and I'd bet my life on that.
The legal terminology, as already stated by Varo Jan, is legal set off or set off at law. In theory, Kwint is entirely correct in his actions. My only question regards the exact amount of ISK each side is disputing - legal set off only covers the overlapping amount and cannot be applied as a "to make whole" remedy. This post from Ray implies that Kwint owed Ebank approximately 3b more than Ebank owed Kwint. If that is the case, then Kwint is still responsible for that 3b debt.
However, this is Eve, not a stuffy courtroom. Ray et al have chosen to **** on their customers at every possible opportunity, and I don't see any reason for their customers to not fire back. If Ebank wants to be treated like a real bank, with legal expectations and proper business procedures, then they need to act like a bank. This means immediately unfreezing the accounts, dealing with the run on assets, then relaunching with new TOS and mission statements. If the Ricdic era of Ebank was Ebank 1.0, then Ray's Ebank is 2.0, and the only version that will have any success or respect in Eve is 3.0
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 00:30:00 -
[230]
Holding the excess sets a confusing and harmful precedent. I understand the motivation, but I think the example set will be abused.
|
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 00:31:00 -
[231]
I did read all the thread.
The problem is that you paid out MOST bondholders and set aside EBANKS. I don't think you could do that.
All banks have the right to change their interest rate policies.
EBANK is NOT a SCAM YET. That may change. At present they are insolvent and are trying to resolve a bad situation.
I have set a personal time limit on concluding the failure/SCAM debate on EBANK.
If at June 30th 2010 EBANK have made no significant inroad to recovery (assets over 1T and a clear path to recovery), and the BOD are insistent about carry out a program that won't make a full recovery for years I think the bank will fall into SCAM. At that point the BOD will be acting for personal reasons, not in the best interest of the customers.
On EBANKS path to recovery, I think needs to be completed at end of 2010 at the latest or most customers will lose their money because they have left the game. At any point if it doesn't look like EBANK could meet the Dec 31st 2010 deadline the bank should be liquidated.
EBANK should institute goals to be met at the end of each quarter throughout the year. If they are not met a liquidation vote should be enacted by the administrator for the BOD. Older BOD members should vote on these scenarios on whether it is in the best interest of customers, not the personal glory of recovering EBANK
As for the point about me scamming a scammer. I did that to recover an investment by scamming via a sale of shares that I didn't own.
At no point have I EVER changed my business terms, or gone back on my word here in MD.
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 01:30:00 -
[232]
Originally by: SetrakDark Holding the excess sets a confusing and harmful precedent. I understand the motivation, but I think the example set will be abused.
Regarding that, there are five justifications all with their own merits. I consider the the narrower third, fourth and fifth to be the most relevant.
1) They violated their contractual obligations to me. At that point any deals I have with them are null and void and that includes any terms associated with the bond. At that point I'm fully within my rights to pay them nothing. 2) The shares can be thought of as collateral. They defaulted on their obligations and thus forfeited the collateral. That the collateral was greater than the debts makes it especially stupid to default but it does not entitle them to the difference in value. 3) Their default caused me continued damages for the 9 months I was unable to access the funds. Kwint Industries has returned 12% monthly for the last fiscal period I analyzed. If I analyzed the most recent quarter it would be much higher but lets stick with 12%. Over 9 months of compounding interest that 2.something billion works out to more than the 5B they owe me. It is standard practice to asses late fees. If I asses fees reflecting my opportunity cost then I'm justified in keeping more than the full value. 4) Ray's precipitous threats to sell the shares forced me to close the bond on the spot. This translated to selling 25B in assets to buy orders rather than sell orders. The spread between what I would have gotten at the time of liquidation had he not forced me to do it quickly versus what I did get was at least 12%. At 12% that's a 3B loss that they are directly responsible for. Adding those damages brings the total over 5B. 5) Again thinking of the shares as collateral, in order to liquidate the collateral the entire bond had to be closed. There was a cost incurred, at a 12% spread on 25B in liquidated assets that cost was at least 3B. The cost of liquidating the collateral is of course removed along with that owed to me. After paying these cost there's nothing left to pass on to EBANK.
So, arguably EBANK forfeited everything when they broke our initial agreement. Even if they didn't the shares can be considered collateral which they either forfeited in whole or lost the remainder of to the costs of liquidation. Furthermore both the late fees for failing to return my money and the damages incurred to Kwint Industries because of Ray's actions are individually enough to wipe out the remainder of the money. No matter which way you cut it, they lost the whole 5B.
Despite which I'll give it all to them and let them zero out my account if they just agree to honor their commitments to their customers and pay the frigging interest. Which in all likelihood the customers will negotiate away anyways in an effort to get their principle returned quicker. Which makes EBANK's refusal to so much as consider it all the more absurd.
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 01:35:00 -
[233]
Also, I would like to point out that we are at the point where I am literally trying to pay you to do the right thing by your customers so please stop calling me a troll. If anyone is out of line here it's the guy who's response to several lengthy, carefully considered posts asking to negotiate a settlement was to call me a financial terrorist.
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 01:47:00 -
[234]
Since you can't get in game I'll put my short comments here.
My only issue with this whole situation is that rather than direct contact you chose a post on MD as your first contact. That is what really bothers me.
To everyone talking about RL legal aspects of this situation, there really aren't any. If Eve was like RL then the EBANK situation would be much different. There would be a governing body to step in and take care of the bank's depositors. Obviously I'm using the US as my example with its FDIC insurance since I don't know what other countries have in place.
I do wish to resolve this issue but I'm certainly not going to do it on the MD forums with all its trolls, know it alls, and everyone in the peanut gallery.
I hope all involved parties will step out of the nonsense that this thread has turned into and come together to find a resolution. If that can't happen then aren't we all a bunch of children.
That's really all the constructive comments I can add. Titan BPC Auction Thread |
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:00:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Regarding that, there are five justifications all with their own merits. I consider the the narrower third, fourth and fifth to be the most relevant...
First thing, I wouldn't consider it as collateral because it wasn't collateral. This isn't a big deal, but I think it muddies the issue unnecessarily.
Moving on, I think there are 3 ways you can and are justifying it.
1) Damages
I have absolutely no problem with this. If you can catalogue and reasonably justify costs resulting from the default, then you should be able to recoup them.
2) Loss of all contractual obligations owed by you due to default against you
My issue with this is where people will draw the line. Under this precedent, I could renege on 100b owed to you because you were 1 day late in repaying the 1 ISK you owed me. It is far too dangerous a precedent in my mind.
3) Loss of all contractual obligations owed by you due to default against others
This, in my mind, is the most dangerous issue. Once we start down the path of enforcing agreements between other parties we open the possibility of a huge cascade of punitive contract breaking based the disputes of others.
I am not trying to "call you out" here, and I know your intentions are good. However, I would consider the greater impact of this action, as I strongly believe that it will cause more harm than good.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:03:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
I do wish to resolve this issue but I'm certainly not going to do it on the MD forums with all its trolls, know it alls, and everyone in the peanut gallery.
I thought the new EBANK was going to be more transparent. Your arguments should be able to stand up in public and the fact that you can't stand other people talking about these issues, to the extent that you insist negotiations are carried out away from the public gaze, is ridiculous.
Have the conversation in public and just don't read the posts by any one other than Kwint if they offend you so much. In so far as any negotiations with Kwint will effect all EBANK depositors, they should be transparent. Any flexibility you are willing to show Kwint must also be shown to others in a similar position. Demanding privacy smacks of attempting to make a back room deal.
And the fact that you object to Kwint posting his views in EBANK's own thread is little short of bizarre.
Given the contempt you feel for MD, why do you and the bank continue to post here?
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:09:00 -
[237]
To this point I've always conducted business on the forums.
The only person I ever conducted serious business with outside of the forums was Ricdic and boy did that leave a nasty taste in my mouth.
I've always believed that honest dealings are best done in pubic and that keeping them public tends to keep them honest. I think it was Wilson that claimed foreign relations was so corrupt and immoral as institution because of secret treaties.
Furthermore, the thing I wanted to negotiate involved two things, the bonds of publicly traded corporation and a publicly invested bank. It seemed natural to do it publicly.
I also haven't been on the forums all that much this year and seriously underestimated the level of hostility both towards and from EBANK. The usual level of civility while never uniformly followed is now seemingly gone and things are a lot less fruitful without it.
On the one hand, I now recognize that doing this here added a lot of turbulence that we might have otherwise done away with. That said, based on Ray's strong and continued dismissal and Scenes seeming disconnection from reality I don't think the result would have been any different. In fact, had I gone the private route I would have gone to you, AC, and thus I would have been having these rather upsetting and unproductive arguments with you rather than Ray and I'm glad we were able to avoid that. I really don't like having these sorts of arguments with friends. I love a good debate but not this.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:10:00 -
[238]
Originally by: RAW23 Given the contempt you feel for MD, why do you and the bank continue to post here?
To tease account holders?
|
YesI'mAnAlt
Amarr Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:12:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
1) They violated their contractual obligations to me. At that point any deals I have with them are null and void and that includes any terms associated with the bond. At that point I'm fully within my rights to pay them nothing.
First, a contract violation does not automatically make the entire contract null and void. Second, in this case there were two independent contracts involved. Unless one of them explictly says otherwise, they *are* independent, and a breech of one has no effect on the other.
Quote:
2) The shares can be thought of as collateral.
I suppose someone could think of them as collateral, but they would be wrong.
Quote:
3) Their default caused me continued damages for the 9 months I was unable to access the funds.
This argument has merit. However, you unilaterally deciding on your own damages is not nearly as seemly as offsetting the principle.
Quote:
4) Ray's precipitous threats to sell the shares forced me to close the bond on the spot.
Uh huh, and Riddic's default forced EBank to institute a limited API policy. In other words, no.
Quote:
5) Again thinking of the shares as collateral, in order to liquidate the collateral the entire bond had to be closed.
This gets very nebulous. Essentially, the cost of liquidating collateral) is indeed deducted from the value of the collateral. However, in this case (1) it isn't collateral and (2) you were able to liquidate enough to pay off the bond. The fact that you made less personal profit than you might otherwise goes to point 3.
In short, you are fully justified in recovering your principle balance from EBANK. You have very weak (in my opinion unconvincing) justification for keeping the additional 3Billion. And you certainly have no right to claim your keeping an additional 3Billion has anything to do with the good of the depositors. Or let me rephrase that -- on the EveO forums, people have the right to claim all sorts of ridiculous things, but that doesn't make them true.
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:17:00 -
[240]
Originally by: YesI'mAnAlt
In short, you are fully justified in recovering your principle balance from EBANK. You have very weak (in my opinion unconvincing) justification for keeping the additional 3Billion. And you certainly have no right to claim your keeping an additional 3Billion has anything to do with the good of the depositors. Or let me rephrase that -- on the EveO forums, people have the right to claim all sorts of ridiculous things, but that doesn't make them true.
What makes you think he will listen to you? We've been telling him the same thing for days.
Black Sun Empire |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |