EVE Search - (#16 - 2007.05) BMBE Shareholder Report

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Market Discussions

(#16 - 2007.05) BMBE Shareholder Report

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Topic
TornSoul BIG Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.04 02:55:00 - [1] www.BIG-EVE.com/BMBE This is the sixteenth BMBE shareholder report. Dividend Action Report More bullets to come... This is a preliminary report. It's been one crazy month. And it's taken far far longer doing the books on this than I anticipated. It's now nearly 5AM my time, and I gotta be at work in 4 hours... The numbers are preliminary, as I still need confirmation on a couple of the very small loans. So if anything changes, it will be almost unnoticable. We also have 2 new defaulted loans. It's secured in NPC BPO's and are for a small amount. More on this later as well. The following will simply have to do for now. Dividend May dividend : 2,645,675,000 ISK This equals 1,322,837.50 ISK per share Nearly identical numbers to last month. Dividend will be paid out in the comming week Worth noticing is that this is the 6th month in a row with dividends in the 3B range. Action Report 11 new loans !!! 1 loan refinanced 3 loans paid out in full BIG Lottery [url
Tami Auryn Natural Evolution	Posted - 2007.06.04 23:38:00 - [2] Edited by: Tami Auryn on 04/06/2007 23:38:37 Well ... if you keep up like this of recents months you'll keep me quiet. I still suspect this is largely due to Ray, but to what extent he makes BMBE decisions now I have not yet been able to put my hands on, not that I am as active as before in collecting BMBE/BIG information. (But if you have it, call me, I pay well :) ) Anyway the only thing I have to note is the lack of that buyback program mentioned previously. - update Seems like Ray is running the show, as he's the CEO and only member of BMBE, sounds like TS is just a figurehead.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.04 23:50:00 - [3] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 04/06/2007 23:49:00 Not bad. Not that great either, but not bad. The news loans seem to show that business is looking up, however. --23 Member--
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.06.05 01:46:00 - [4] Originally by: TornSoul May dividend : 2.641.355.000 ISK ... Worth noticing is that this is the 6th month in a row with dividends in the 3B range. Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :)
Tami Auryn Natural Evolution	Posted - 2007.06.05 02:33:00 - [5] Originally by: Ionia Originally by: TornSoul May dividend : 2.641.355.000 ISK ... Worth noticing is that this is the 6th month in a row with dividends in the 3B range. Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :) Anything above or equal to 2 000 000 000.01 ISK is considered 3b :) that is the BIG way
Hennry Fromer Gallente radiated space gerbils	Posted - 2007.06.05 06:55:00 - [6] Is it a policy to not release the names of defaulters - I have followed a few threads and notice that names of people that default are absent from all of them?
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.06.05 08:50:00 - [7] Originally by: Hennry Fromer Is it a policy to not release the names of defaulters - I have followed a few threads and notice that names of people that default are absent from all of them? Yes, it is policy not to release defaultors names at present. Originally by: Ionia Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :) Well, anywhere between 2.5b and 3.5b as displayed by the dividend amounts for the last six months below : DEC 2,481,280,000 JAN 3,538,240,000 FEB 2,913,108,600 MAR 3,119,294,000 APR 2,778,252,200 MAY 2,641,355,000 \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.06.05 09:30:00 - [8] lol Ray, you know I was only joking, but since you responded I felt the urge to do the same Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Ionia Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :) Well, anywhere between 2.5b and 3.5b as displayed by the dividend amounts for the last six months below : DEC 2,481,280,000 JAN 3,538,240,000 FEB 2,913,108,600 MAR 3,119,294,000 APR 2,778,252,200 MAY 2,641,355,000
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.05 10:17:00 - [9] Originally by: Ionia lol Ray, you know I was only joking, but since you responded I felt the urge to do the same Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Ionia Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :) Well, anywhere between 2.5b and 3.5b as displayed by the dividend amounts for the last six months below : DEC 2,481,280,000 JAN 3,538,240,000 FEB 2,913,108,600 MAR 3,119,294,000 APR 2,778,252,200 MAY 2,641,355,000 Oops --23 Member--
Rusom Rokath Amarr 1m95	Posted - 2007.06.05 10:31:00 - [10] Originally by: TornSoul EDIT : Whoops - Forgot to remove the value of the 30B default from last summer This may have been answered in a different thread already, I'm not sure. I think it belongs in here regardless. Is the isk made off the production from the defaulted prints included in the ~83 billion of capital?

Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.06.05 13:17:00 - [11] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Ionia stuff Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Ionia other stuff further stuff more useless drivel I hate you both, wire me 18.72m immediately so I may fix this error. And I'll remove the excess 38.24m from Jan's figures. How do you do a negative dividend now... \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.06.05 13:33:00 - [12] Originally by: Rusom Rokath Is the isk made off the production from the defaulted prints included in the ~83 billion of capital? Yes. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Bluebeard LoneStar Industries	Posted - 2007.06.05 14:57:00 - [13] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Ionia lol Ray, you know I was only joking, but since you responded I felt the urge to do the same Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Ionia Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :) Well, anywhere between 2.5b and 3.5b as displayed by the dividend amounts for the last six months below : DEC 2,481,280,000 JAN 3,538,240,000 FEB 2,913,108,600 MAR 3,119,294,000 APR 2,778,252,200 MAY 2,641,355,000 Oops You missed one
Rusom Rokath Amarr 1m95	Posted - 2007.06.05 17:01:00 - [14] Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Rusom Rokath Is the isk made off the production from the defaulted prints included in the ~83 billion of capital? Yes. Thanks for the fast reply. Keep up the good work
SonOfAGhost Minmatar Minmatar Munitions and Tactical Assets Repository	Posted - 2007.06.05 21:34:00 - [15] Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Hennry Fromer Is it a policy to not release the names of defaulters - I have followed a few threads and notice that names of people that default are absent from all of them? Yes, it is policy not to release defaultors names at present. In a prior thread you asked for reasons to change thispolicy. You were given several. Not only is this policy contrary to RL practice, it is also illegal in most jurisdictions. Even if it weren't SOP for lenders in RL, witholding the name in Eve is still contrary to both good-business sense and common sense. You have confirmed the dates of the loan/default were far too close to each other and the Skiff changes to be a coincidence. Therefore it is not a question of the borrower being un-able to pay. He didn't default, he sold you some magic beans and kept your CASH. Therefore you were robbed. Therefore you are continuing to be an accessory to the crime. Perhaps it is time for you to offer a good reason NOT to change this policy since there are so many reasons why you should. Each of which, to me at least, is enough reason on their own. Ignored en-masse, really makes people wonder who you could possibly be protecting against the interests of both your shareholders, and of restoring the reputations of you and your corp. Privacy for clients, while a good policy, is NOT a good reason for protecting the identity of a thief who is NOT your client. Lag? GTFOOJ!
TornSoul BIG Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.05 23:15:00 - [16] Edited by: TornSoul on 05/06/2007 23:14:54 And if it's not a theif? And how do you for certain distinguish between them? Not to mention, why is it so damn important for you to know? I mean, if he truly is a professional theif, he wont care one bit about the "damage" to his name. He'll either relish it - Or simply buy a new char and ditch the old one. End effect is that the only one who risks getting hurt, unjustly, is the poor guy, who for some reason simply couldnt manage to pay back the loan for perfectly legit reasons. I see no reason to hang this kinda person out to dry. It will serve no purpose. It will "protect" no one. If this reason is not good enough for you - Then we will simply have to agree to disagree. Sofar I have seen nothing that would convince me otherwise. But by all means - Keep at it. But you will have to convince me that it's a good idea to hang out, an unfortunate but honest person, to dry. BIG Lottery [url
SonOfAGhost Minmatar Minmatar Munitions and Tactical Assets Repository	Posted - 2007.06.06 01:26:00 - [17] Originally by: TornSoul And if it's not a theif? Please tell me your entire post was an attempt at humour. I sincerely hope that someone entrusted with so many billions of other people's isk is not a gullible fool of such staggering magnitude. However, on the chance that you might, in fact, be just that big a sucker, I'll carry on. Originally by: TornSoul And how do you for certain distinguish between them? Honest people pay their debts. Period. Your business is built on this fact so not sure why you don't seem to know it. Circumstances might mean the odd borrower can't pay on-schedule or as much interest. They would at least make an effort to start paying the principle ON principle. At the time of default the thief had approx/ 30 B or assets of that value, plus whatever assets/income they already had that made you think they could afford the loan. You'd have to work at it pretty hard to lose that much that fast and never again have a single isk you could start to pay back, especially after playing for so long after the theft. Originally by: TornSoul Not to mention, why is it so damn important for you to know? You have elected to run a public corporation and list it on an exchange. The thief is still out there. You are helping them get away with the scam. It is not important for me to know as an individual. That the right thing to do isn't blatantly obvious to you or Ray tells me all I need to know about ever trusting either of you with anything. It IS important for me to know as someone that owns shares in other corps. Scandals hurt the market, it has still not recovered from the last bank scam and ISS collapse. Your irresponsible inaction can only hurt investor confidence in the market at large and encourage more scam IPOs. It is important that those who made the mistake of trusting you know who stole THEIR isk. Originally by: TornSoul I mean, if he truly is a professional theif, he wont care one bit about the "damage" to his name. Of course not, but everyone that deals with him will. With 30 B in seed money he can set up some pretty legit looking operations to scam even more. Something your are in a position to prevent but are choosing not to. Originally by: TornSoul He'll either relish it - Or simply buy a new char and ditch the old one. In the process he'll pick up the trust-stigma of being an alt that can't name his main. Not perfect, but better than the current situation. Originally by: TornSoul End effect is that the only one who risks getting hurt, unjustly, is the poor guy, who for some reason simply couldnt manage to pay back the loan for perfectly legit reasons. He's got 30 bil of the public's isk, plus whatever profits he's made on it that time, whatever effect revealing his name has, that is justice. There is no reason to think there is anything legit about this. The only 'poor guys' are the folks out isk because they trusted you, that is unjust. Originally by: TornSoul I see no reason to hang this kinda person out to dry. It will serve no purpose. It will "protect" no one. I agree IF the thief was the kind of person you describe. There is absolutely no reason to believe they are, just the opposite, so different rules apply. Originally by: TornSoul So far I have seen nothing that would convince me otherwise. Then you are completely lacking in any sense of morals or ethics, wilfully blind, or both. Originally by: TornSoul But by all means - Keep at it. I'm not the one in a position to make the issue go away. I'm also not the one effectively driving the getaway car from the 30 B bank heist. Originally by: TornSoul But you will have to convince me that it's a good idea to hang out, an fortunate but dishonest person, to dry. Fixed! Why do you even try to put one over on your shareholders by propagating the fallacy that this situation is something less sinister than it so clearly is? You fooled them for a while hiding the loss. That went over well. Why continue to treat them as fools? Lag? GTFOOJ!
Marodi Julita Sublime Captial Investments	Posted - 2007.06.06 01:33:00 - [18] eh.. TS will never change and BMBE will just be merely average in dividends. And THAT is why i've dropped all investments in BMBE since october/november
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2007.06.06 03:22:00 - [19] Originally by: SonOfAGhost Please tell me your entire post was an attempt at humour. I believe that you are debating the loan that defaulted last year not the loan that defaulted in this reporting period. Your thoughts, along with everyone else's thoughts, on that matter have been well posted, heavily posted, in a multitude of previous threads. This thread is, I believe, regarding this month's activity. I, quite frankly, would probably think it wise if you started your own thread regarding whatever lingering issues you have and try to resolve that there. It would be more on topic not to mention you could gather those who actually care to hear your continued ranting. It would sparing the rest of us, who don't give a damn, the minutes we've lost reading what you type. Do the community a service and don't hijack threads. PS: No need for the name calling either. The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it. ElweSingollo> Eve is P v P not P v GM.
Rthor Gallente Smugglers Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.06 12:08:00 - [20] Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: SonOfAGhost Please tell me your entire post was an attempt at humour. I believe that you are debating the loan that defaulted last year not the loan that defaulted in this reporting period. Your thoughts, along with everyone else's thoughts, on that matter have been well posted, heavily posted, in a multitude of previous threads. This thread is, I believe, regarding this month's activity. I, quite frankly, would probably think it wise if you started your own thread regarding whatever lingering issues you have and try to resolve that there. It would be more on topic not to mention you could gather those who actually care to hear your continued ranting. It would sparing the rest of us, who don't give a damn, the minutes we've lost reading what you type. Do the community a service and don't hijack threads. PS: No need for the name calling either. I rather enjoyed his post and I think that it was on topic and want to thank him for taking the time to write it.

Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.06.06 12:50:00 - [21] Originally by: SonOfAGhost Originally by: TornSoul I see no reason to hang this kinda person out to dry. It will serve no purpose. It will "protect" no one. I agree IF the thief was the kind of person you describe. There is absolutely no reason to believe they are, just the opposite, so different rules apply. And who judges this person's intentions? \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Rthor Gallente Smugglers Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.06 13:31:00 - [22] Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: SonOfAGhost Originally by: TornSoul I see no reason to hang this kinda person out to dry. It will serve no purpose. It will "protect" no one. I agree IF the thief was the kind of person you describe. There is absolutely no reason to believe they are, just the opposite, so different rules apply. And who judges this person's intentions? You do. Then everybody else judges you based on your decision.
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.06.06 14:39:00 - [23] Originally by: Rthor You do. Then everybody else judges you based on your decision. Yeah, that's gonna happen. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
TornSoul BIG Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.06 18:23:00 - [24] Originally by: SonOfAGhost Originally by: TornSoul I see no reason to hang this kinda person out to dry. It will serve no purpose. It will "protect" no one. I agree IF the thief was the kind of person you describe. There is absolutely no reason to believe they are, just the opposite, so different rules apply. Well thanks for agreeing with me. There is no surefire way of knowing however. So I take the stance of rather seeing 10 guilty men go free than punish one innocent one. While you obviously would like to see it the other way around. This is where we differ. BIG Lottery [url
SonOfAGhost Minmatar Minmatar Munitions and Tactical Assets Repository	Posted - 2007.06.06 21:27:00 - [25] Shar Tegral :, my post is about important information for shareholders and the market which should have been reported months ago. Since the coverup was exposed BMBE management owned up to part of it. The remainder still needs to come out. Until it does get included in a report, asking why the information that should be included isn't will always be relevant questions for every report until then. Ray McCormack: The culprit judges himself every day they make no reparations. All you and TS have to do is open your eyes. TornSoul: My standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Reasonable is the word you seem to be omitting from your benchmark. There is absolutely no information to support your hypothesis that this player could be even remotely honest. The only doubts are of your own fabrication and have no basis. Lag? GTFOOJ!
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2007.06.06 21:59:00 - [26] Originally by: SonOfAGhost Since the coverup was exposed BMBE management owned up to part of it. The remainder still needs to come out. Until it does get included in a report, asking why the information that should be included isn't will always be relevant questions for every report until then. Mind you I agree that the name of the person who cheated BMBE should come out. This is not a new position for me at all. However the truth of the matter is that BMBE has stated that they are open to the idea if, and only if, someone can express a valid reason for disclosure. Yelling, moaning, and any other form of coercion is not only failing to work... it's just plain being an ass. And please, let's be real here, the shareholders and marketplace is well aware of this entire situation. You are not protecting either with this campaign. You are just waging a public relations griefing. Rthor not withstanding, most of us pretty much couldn't be bothered any longer with this pointless drama and thread jacking. The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it. ElweSingollo> Eve is P v P not P v GM.
Rthor Gallente Smugglers Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.06 22:21:00 - [27] Originally by: Shar Tegral BMBE has stated that they are open to the idea if, and only if, someone can express a valid reason for disclosure. But who is there to judge if an idea is valid? I would rather say that 10 ideas are not valid than find one valid idea that disagrees with me.
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.06.06 22:47:00 - [28] Edited by: FastLearner on 06/06/2007 22:46:36 I'd have thought that there's two rather obvious reasons why naming defaulters should happen: 1. So Investors can be sure the loss actually happened - and wasn't an in-house job, 2. So everyone can be made aware that individual X isn't trust-worthy when large sums of money are invovled - whether through a lack of ability or a lack of morals is a side-issue. Fundamentally, when someone defaults they've broken the contract - and lose all entitlements they had while they kept their side of the deal (including the privacy element). Were it to occur in RL in the UK, they'd likely end up with a CC judgment against them - which would be a matter of public record. If the intention is that individual taking loans were intended to be allowed to opt for non-repayment and forfeiture of collateral (as a contractual right) then you should be calling yourself a pawn-shop, not a bank.
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2007.06.06 23:12:00 - [29] Originally by: Rthor I would rather say that 10 ideas are not valid than find one valid idea that disagrees with me. Coming from the forum troll... I'm not in the least bit surprised at your lack of moral fiber. Gladly the only decision within your realm is whether or not to continue posting drivel. Sadly, you are predictable even in that. The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it. ElweSingollo> Eve is P v P not P v GM.
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.06.06 23:48:00 - [30] Time for the rubbish to stop I think. There really is no need to have a policy of disclosing the names of defaulters. In the original skiff scam case, you could justify it because it was obviously an intentional act, but at the end of the day, it was the BMBE evaluation that was incorrect that led to a loss. BMBE has a model that stops the bank losing isk in the case of a default, so it doesn't matter who defaults. This remains true as long as BMBE has due dilligence in their collateral valuations.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.