|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Montaire
Lacedaemon.
Sparta Alliance
    |
Posted - 2006.12.06 19:43:00 -
[1]
Hey Ray, wanna drop me a line on msn. matthosking@hotmail.com or matthosking@gmail.com on gmail chat.
 Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: EFS Manager
Now, if you have that 7% per month you would be far better off just saving it up until you had enough Isk to buy the BPO outright.
Would you? Not having to liquidate assets to buy that expensive BPO might well be worth it to take a bit of a loss.
The merits of the BMBE increasing your buying power have been discussed before. It effectively allows you to increase your income without requiring liquid assets. This may involve a short-term loss, but the long term benefits usually far outweigh that.
One of the specific benefits I'm trying to highlight here is the ability the BMBE gives you to utilise dormant assets without having to liquidate them.
If you're saving up to enter this market already, the BMBE is simply a boost to get into it quicker. Yes of course it would be better to save that ISK up yourself and buy the BPO, but that's the same for anything in life. If the sums add up and the oppurtunity arises, you can get involved in the Tech II market far quicker with the BMBE than you could by yourself.
That 7% Eefrit mentions equates to about a month.
|
Montaire
Lacedaemon.
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 21:46:00 -
[2]
Originally by: EFS Manager
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Also, discussion on this matter is best kept in a Shareholder's Report thread.
The issue has been raised numerous times in many threads, and so far there has not even been an attempt to answer it that I know of.
People agreed to such a disproportionately high fee when they were promised returns in the region of 10% per month (actually it was more than that). That fee is no longer even vaguely justified and not answering legitimate concerns regarding it is a huge endictment on BMBE in general.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
Were you granted some sort of oversight when you invested ?
Was any sort of advisory role set up for investors ?
I know a lot of people had questions about BMBE, but then those same people are "demanding" answers. But they invested knowing they wouldnt have a seat on the board.
Im very confused by this.
|
Montaire
Lacedaemon.
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.13 23:37:00 -
[3]
Go ahead guys.
Harass the person with 50 BILLION of your isk some more.
No, keep at it.
When you signed up you knew you dont get to backseat drive.
If you dont like the ride get off the darn buss. Sell your shares to me. I'll put up a buy order on EGSE.
Otherwise shush. You dont get a say, deal with it. You knew it from the beginnnig.
|
Montaire
Lacedaemon.
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 00:30:00 -
[4]
Im still unclear on why Baun should even get a say.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
We're going in circles here, Baun. My answer is clearly stated above, you just quoted half of it. The dividend ceiling will become an issue from our point of view when the BMBE consistently struggles to provide ISK for loans. From your point of view this ceiling is a result of too large an administrative fee. Put simply you want us to reduce our cut and spread that between dividends and re-investment. We've done this in the past, but are not currently willing to do so again.
|
Montaire
Lacedaemon.
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 05:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Baun
Ray, your answer is not remotely clearly stated. You have not justified your cut through appeal to your work you have simply stated that it is more work than I think it is. Those are different things.
Originally by: Montaire
Im still unclear on why Baun should even get a say.
Besides the fact that I am an original shareholder, everyone has a right to argue about anything. A person's relative position has nothing to do with the merits of their argument.
In any case, you are apparently under the impression that you have a right to question someone else's right to talk. Has it not occured to you that this is obviously more than a tad self undercutting stance?
|
Montaire
Lacedaemon.
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 06:00:00 -
[6]
I think you mis understood me. When I said "Why should he get a say" I meant "Why should what he thinks or feels impact policy"
I absolutly dont question you can argue the point. What I wonder is why on earth you feel it will get you anywhere. You dont have any reasonable expectation of enforcing change through your force of will.
But when you continue to argue your point, and Im not saying if its right or wrong, you looke like a man, sitting out in a rain storm complaining about the rain. You know what your saying isnt going to change the rain, but you still say it and refuse to go inside.
I looked back as far as I could, and diddnt see anywhere in the original shareholders agreement that said they would listen do you.
So, why do you persist in trying to push your agenda ? You dont have any ground to stand on in which to demand change.
Originally by: Baun
Ray, your answer is not remotely clearly stated. You have not justified your cut through appeal to your work you have simply stated that it is more work than I think it is. Those are different things.
Originally by: Montaire
Im still unclear on why Baun should even get a say.
Besides the fact that I am an original shareholder, everyone has a right to argue about anything. A person's relative position has nothing to do with the merits of their argument.
In any case, you are apparently under the impression that you have a right to question someone else's right to talk. Has it not occured to you that this is obviously more than a tad self undercutting stance?
|
Montaire
Lacedaemon.
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 17:50:00 -
[7]
He doesnt have to make an argument, he's in charge. And what you think he owes is is irrelevant.
I think there should be a Capital Mining ship. I've been thinking it for months and it hasnt gotten me anywhere. You've been thinking a lot of stuff about BMBE, but thats not doing you any good either.
Hey Baun, its still raining.
Originally by: Baun
It is quite clear that you believe that Ray, I would like to see some actual argument for it instead of an assertion. I think you owe us that.
|
Montaire
Lacedaemon.
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.16 19:29:00 -
[8]
Baun , its still raining.
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Nimie
ah, whether or not big gives more money to shareholders is irrelevant. you're making a big deal over a relativly small concern.
Is it a big deal for the entire population of EVE? Of course not.
It is, however, tremendously significant as far as BMBE goes. BIG's salary is approximately 5 times higher than any other corporate managers salary. Furthermore, BMBE's potential income is completely capped by interest rates. As a result, no matter how hard BMBE works they can only make the company earn a fixed amount of money. They cannot make the dividends go up past a certain relatively modest level through hard work.
This both disincentivizes hard work and exacerbates the problem we have seen. When the BMBE *is* making a profit its shareholders are earning around half of what they would be earning under similiar investments. As a result, BMBE share price is in the toilet, everyones' investment is less valuable (including BIG's) and people are less likely to trust BIG (which is something I very much don't want since I trust them very much, if you doubt this, however, just read the last 10 BMBE related posts).
BMBE can easily salvage the situation by lowering its fee. As I have argued, the work they do by all accounts should not be as great as many other ventures in any case so its difficult to justify the large cut. If their cut were reduced share value would go back up and *everyone* would be alot happier.
|
|