Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 13:46:00 -
[1]
Ok so on my way home from work I had a long train ride to think (forgot to charge my PSP battery so had nothing else to do). I want to merge all of my services into one business. They all basically have some correlation between each other.
This is how things will work:
C-R-A Purchase price was 10k per share back when C-R-A opened it's doors. When it expanded it sold shares at 14,500 per share. I will be offering a share buyback price on all C-R-A shares at 17,500 isk per share. This is in line with current C-R-A Nav.
TCCS Recently TCCS had a reduction in NAV via extensive dividends. This puts TCCS NAV at 14,400. I will be issuing a TCCS buyback at value 15,000 isk per share.
CPH My failed project. Thus far around 3.5-4b remains in the public domain (hasn't yet been bought back). That is about to change. CPH has had only 3% dividends now for a good 6 months and many clients have been happy to accept this. I am not. Initial CPH buyback was set at 12k per share. I will be increasing this to 14k per share to compensate those who happily held onto their poorly performing stocks in a defunct corporation.
This constitutes around 32 billion isk in OMG Enterprises being paid out for the purchase of these three corporations. I will be converting OMG Enterprises to a total sum of 125 billion isk. Only those who reserved up to 100b in the other thread will be given their shares. The remaining 25b raised here will be offered to those who have entrusted me with their isk via the other three ventures. Basically I will allow these individuals the option of exchanging their shares for these new OMG shares. If there's any spare shares left over at the end of all this, the remaining reserved shares in the OMG reserve thread (above 100b) will be honored.
Why are you doing this?
For starters it drastically reduces my requirements to separate everything. I can have my good researchers back in their corps and not holding ones, and I can ultimately (when OMG corp privatises) buy back all my operations. TCCS and C-R-A have been proven as money making corporations and the overall integration allows a seamless conversion of similar operations into one entity.
When?
I will honor the next batch of dividends before I begin this buyback. C-R-A, TCCS, and CPH will pay one final dividend.
[b]How will the buyback be structured? [Important]
C-R-A will institute a buyback per share. I will be available to facilitate this buyback and take on a helping hand if need be
TCCS has a lot more shareholders and the TCCS corp will be closed down pending this merger. Therefore a complete buyback dividend will be paid. Your TCCS shares will become worthless after this occurs.
CPH - CPH will handle a buyback on shares. There are few shares left in circulation mostly owned by a small handful of people. This will be done as CPH is a holding vessel for a slightly different project (that isn't public)
None of this will take place until after the next dividend. I will endeavor to get it paid out asap to begin facilitating these transactions right away. I expect many to action a transfer of shares and OMG won't be ready for this for at least another 30 hours.
As for existing C-R-A locked down assets, they will remain so unless their owners want them removed (well secured ones won't of course). Once all/most C-R-A shares have been returned I will choose a group of approximately 10 people I feel to be trustworthy and split C-R-A shares amongst them. This will ensure the continual security of C-R-A as a holding vessel for other (and OMG) business ventures.
Please feel free to ask questions, I may have missed some things.
|
Mr Horizontal
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 13:56:00 -
[2]
Well I've bid 500m for OMG. I have 202m of C-R-A, and so I'll bid another 48m to make a round 750m total.
Mr H's current reservation is therefore 548m.
|
Inertial
Blood Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 14:21:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Mr Horizontal Well I've bid 500m for OMG. I have 202m of C-R-A, and so I'll bid another 48m to make a round 750m total.
Mr H's current reservation is therefore 548m.
Wait, what about other people who made reservations, hoping that someone would not follow up on their commitments?
On another note, I would be willing to buy two stocks from you, making it a even more round 700 million.
|
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 14:28:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Mr Horizontal Well I've bid 500m for OMG. I have 202m of C-R-A, and so I'll bid another 48m to make a round 750m total.
Mr H's current reservation is therefore 548m.
Yeh you can't change your reservation
|
Iskabal
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 14:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe Edited by: Ricdic''s Hoe on 29/01/2008 14:35:07
TCCS Recently TCCS had a reduction in NAV via extensive dividends. This puts TCCS NAV at 1,400. I will be issuing a TCCS buyback at value 1,400 isk per share.
Hmm that buyback fell fast in value, was at 17000 ISK now its 1400, shouldnt it have been 1700 to represent a devaluation of 100x ?
|
Mr Horizontal
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 14:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe
Originally by: Mr Horizontal Well I've bid 500m for OMG. I have 202m of C-R-A, and so I'll bid another 48m to make a round 750m total.
Mr H's current reservation is therefore 548m.
Yeh you can't change your reservation
I misunderstood. I thought you were releasing an extra 25b of shares, in which case my extended offer based on reservations to date would have made the running total at 113.86b.
|
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 15:14:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Iskabal Hmm that buyback fell fast in value, was at 17000 ISK now its 1400, shouldnt it have been 1700 to represent a devaluation of 100x ?
Thanks for saying something about this. Made me take a look at my last TCCS dividend announcement to see that I was in fact incorrect.
TCCS Nav is at 16 billion isk as can be referenced above. I believe in that thread I said it shouldn't be traded above 1,700 isk per share so I will honour that and issue the dividends to that value.
Thanks for bringing that up Iskabal
|
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 15:16:00 -
[8]
The extra 25b is there to facilitate existing shareholders in my closing corps, so they have the option to exchange their shares for the new ones. If there's anything left over after that, then you can buy in
|
Atherin Gaius
Caldari Domini Umbrus VENOM Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 16:01:00 -
[9]
If there are any shares left over I definately want to buy some. I've been hopeing to get in on a Ricdic operation for some time.
Let me know.
|
Kasia Pelarar
Caldari Eve Share and Market Authority
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 16:16:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe
Originally by: Iskabal Hmm that buyback fell fast in value, was at 17000 ISK now its 1400, shouldnt it have been 1700 to represent a devaluation of 100x ?
Thanks for saying something about this. Made me take a look at my last TCCS dividend announcement to see that I was in fact incorrect.
TCCS Nav is at 16 billion isk as can be referenced above. I believe in that thread I said it shouldn't be traded above 1,700 isk per share so I will honour that and issue the dividends to that value.
Thanks for bringing that up Iskabal
Actually you said;
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic To clarify in case people don't read the wall of text above, TCCS has dropped in value (goods on hand) from 20b to 16b. So corporate value is 4k lower. Keep this in mind if/when buying these stocks, personally (due to likely closure over 3-6 months) I wouldn't suggest buying above 17,500 per share.
(From here.)
So can we have a fully audited, independent review of the NAVs of all three corporations (before buyout)? At the least as an example of how to do a buyout correctly (as I am sure you would ask while wearing your EBANK hat). Eve Share & Market Reporting Eve Share & Market Analysis graphical sig required |
|
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 16:19:00 -
[11]
Nah will keep it at 1,700. Consider it a nice treat above NAV especially considering there could be a big fat final dividend for TCCS. And there's no point on auditing the other 2. C-R-A hasn't grown at all, and CPH has zero assets so I would save money buying back shares at NAV.
|
Daria Twist
CruiserCorp
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 16:27:00 -
[12]
This is all very interesting. Since you're consolidating all of these businesses under one share name, are you planning to run this as a proper business? Are you planning to compartmentalise each of these businesses within OMG Enterprises and publish accounts on each of them and as a whole? I would be interested in reading them.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 17:26:00 -
[13]
If this is genuinely a take-over bid, then isn't the OP getting slightly ahead of itself?
Before any buy-back can be instituted, surely the share-holders have to vote on whether to accept the take-over or not? They may choose to hold out for a higher price - particularly as what they're being offered in return is shares which only have a life-time of an estimated 3 months.
Unless the original IPOs included an option for involuntary privatisation (i.e. without share-holder approval) then this seems, at best, a rather dubious course of action. The share-holders own the companies - not the individual who launched the IPO.
|
K'dararle
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 17:43:00 -
[14]
The IPO offers 7B interest payments per month on the 100b share offer. Presumably the extra 25b offers the same interest rate making a monthly repayment rate of 8.75b. Can the OP provide any detail on how this money will be earned? And can the OP provide any assurance that his rl commitments allow him the time to devote to the game to guarantee this kind of return for the forseeable future?
|
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 18:15:00 -
[15]
Originally by: FastLearner Unless the original IPOs included an option for involuntary privatisation (i.e. without share-holder approval) then this seems, at best, a rather dubious course of action. The share-holders own the companies - not the individual who launched the IPO.
Well people are welcome to keep hold of their shares if they want but they won't be recieving dividends any more. Yeh it might not be conventional but I have offered investors the ability to exchange their existing stocks for those of the new corporation. The change is going ahead with or without shareholder approval. It's a way for me to compile my commitments into one venture, it saves me a lot of time, and I would like to think it's ultimately in the shareholder's best interests to work with me on this (easier to focus on providing high income on one venture rather than 4)
|
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 18:18:00 -
[16]
Originally by: K'dararle The IPO offers 7B interest payments per month on the 100b share offer. Presumably the extra 25b offers the same interest rate making a monthly repayment rate of 8.75b. Can the OP provide any detail on how this money will be earned? And can the OP provide any assurance that his rl commitments allow him the time to devote to the game to guarantee this kind of return for the forseeable future?
You are correct. Except that the 7% isn't guaranteed. It's an IPO. I expect dividends to be between 7-20% per month. The only guarantee is that I will not accept a salary unless I can pay out at least 7% to investors.
In regards to how the money will be earnt. It's in relation to blueprints and research services. In terms of assurances well I have been in this game for a long time, and dealt in a lot of public ventures. I have always made time for my ventures or restructured to suit (kinda like what I am doing now)
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 19:23:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe I would like to think it's ultimately in the shareholder's best interests to work with me on this (easier to focus on providing high income on one venture rather than 4)
How is it in the shareholders' interests to convert a permanent stake in a company into a three-month long stake in a different one? If their shares aren't going to be bought out by an EBank loan then I'd tend to agree with you - but nothing in your other post indicates that their shares will be treated any different to the other shares.
And shouldn't the defunct company be bought out by a private loan - rather than dumping the debt into the new company? I guess the size of it compared to the rest is fairly trivial - but in theory the new corporation is buying out non-performing stock, sharing the profit from the new venture needlessly with shareholders in a previous failed venture.
|
Marie deMedici
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 19:24:00 -
[18]
This seems a bit nasty...
1. if a company is folded into another corp like this, there should be a vote for friendly merger or private buy orders to buy enough shares to force a vote to succeed, and then forced buybacks of the shares. 2. if these corps are merged , there should atleast be an option to exchange them for shares of the new corporation AND keep those shares for the lifetime of that corp instead of just 3 months.
What you are now effectively doing is developing a business with investor money then stealing it to yourself. We have taken that risk, so we should also reap the benefits. (minor shareholder in TCCS via EETF)
How would people like it if I started a company which builds thingamajigs for huge profit. I offer 15% per month and i need 100B. Once i have earned enough money i will tell them that sorry the corp will now go private, i will buy you all out with the original invested sum.
This is robbing for two reasons. 1.we have taken the risk to build the business so we should have some say. 2.the business is built, so the share value should be more than when it was bought and surely above its NAV
|
Kasia Pelarar
Caldari Eve Share and Market Authority
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 20:23:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe
Originally by: FastLearner Unless the original IPOs included an option for involuntary privatisation (i.e. without share-holder approval) then this seems, at best, a rather dubious course of action. The share-holders own the companies - not the individual who launched the IPO.
Well people are welcome to keep hold of their shares if they want but they won't be recieving dividends any more.
So you should pay out a final dividend of the independently verified NAV per share, rather than (for example) the 3% dividend that CPH does at present on a pracctically non-existent corporation (Quote; "CPH has zero assets" from here). Why? BTW Especially if waiting for people to return their shares turns into the protracted process that CPH and ISSO are. Also, if the corporation has a zero NAV per share, you should be offering a lower price for the CPH shares (zero really), not a higher one, especially as those with the shares have been receuiving a dividend from a corporation that does not create a revenue. (Zero NAV, remember? How to make money with nothing?).
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe Yeh it might not be conventional but I have offered investors the ability to exchange their existing stocks for those of the new corporation. The change is going ahead with or without shareholder approval. It's a way for me to compile my commitments into one venture, it saves me a lot of time, and I would like to think it's ultimately in the shareholder's best interests to work with me on this (easier to focus on providing high income on one venture rather than 4)
But as previously mentioned, these are IPO launched corporations, and I do not think that you can arbitrarily offer them for sale without at least a corporate vote. Especially more so with those that you do not have a shareholders controlling interest in, where you can do a vote knowing you vote would win it.
The offer of shares in the new corporation means nothing if it is likely to only exist for three or four months; the long term receiving of dividends being given up for what?
I feel that, at the least, a good premium should be offered on all the shares seeing as the buyout(s) are for the seemingly sole purpose of enabling a privitisation (management buyout) of the corporation(s) in the very near future. Eve Share & Market Reporting Eve Share & Market Analysis graphical sig required |
Dougalar
Imperium Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 21:30:00 -
[20]
I would like to transfer my 200,000 shears in TCCS and my 10,000 in C-R-A into the new shares in OMG please
So Long And Thanks For All The ISK Join M8S Racing Team sponsored by Frontier Technologies!
|
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 21:33:00 -
[21]
Just so I'm clear, do we get this month's dividends as part of the cashout of NAV from TCCS and the other corps?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Block Ukx
KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 21:43:00 -
[22]
Ridic, Whether you issue a shareholders vote or not, the proper way to do the merger is to first determine the corporation NAV thru an audit.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Myrdyr
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:13:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Marie deMedici What you are now effectively doing is developing a business with investor money then stealing it to yourself. We have taken that risk, so we should also reap the benefits.
How would people like it if I started a company which builds thingamajigs for huge profit. I offer 15% per month and i need 100B. Once i have earned enough money i will tell them that sorry the corp will now go private, i will buy you all out with the original invested sum.
This is robbing for two reasons. 1.we have taken the risk to build the business so we should have some say. 2.the business is built, so the share value should be more than when it was bought and surely above its NAV
I find this particularly of interest since I face a similar circumstance in the near future. If someone running an IPO wants to quit running the IPO, and they have no replacement, what's the equitable solution? The argument you put forth brings strong merit to the idea of permanently hitting ctrl-q.
I'm of the position that investor isk in an IPO does not entitle IPO-holders to a share of the business, and that assets held by an IPO are collateral against the isk paid in. A liquidation, either in fact or through isk-reimbursement for a value of the goods, should be sufficient to repay the obligation held by the individual running the IPO, IMO, and I've run into some pretty serious disagreement with my (private) shareholders about this.
Basically; Is a 3rd party audit of NAV and distribution of isk unfair to the shareholders, regardless of if the business-owner intends to continue operations or not? Please post constructively. ~Saint |
Icarus Carlyle
Gallente Streel Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:49:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Icarus Carlyle on 29/01/2008 22:50:19
Originally by: Myrdyr
Originally by: Marie deMedici What you are now effectively doing is developing a business with investor money then stealing it to yourself. We have taken that risk, so we should also reap the benefits.
How would people like it if I started a company which builds thingamajigs for huge profit. I offer 15% per month and i need 100B. Once i have earned enough money i will tell them that sorry the corp will now go private, i will buy you all out with the original invested sum.
This is robbing for two reasons. 1.we have taken the risk to build the business so we should have some say. 2.the business is built, so the share value should be more than when it was bought and surely above its NAV
I find this particularly of interest since I face a similar circumstance in the near future. If someone running an IPO wants to quit running the IPO, and they have no replacement, what's the equitable solution? The argument you put forth brings strong merit to the idea of permanently hitting ctrl-q.
I'm of the position that investor isk in an IPO does not entitle IPO-holders to a share of the business, and that assets held by an IPO are collateral against the isk paid in. A liquidation, either in fact or through isk-reimbursement for a value of the goods, should be sufficient to repay the obligation held by the individual running the IPO, IMO, and I've run into some pretty serious disagreement with my (private) shareholders about this.
Basically; Is a 3rd party audit of NAV and distribution of isk unfair to the shareholders, regardless of if the business-owner intends to continue operations or not?
I guess it all depends on if you are talking about a company going out of business or being sold as a going concern. In this case it appears to be more of the latter which means valuations may not necessarily be on just the flat book value of the company. In your example, which is more like the former, you are closing the business so a return of the book value of the corporation would likely be more appropriate. However, none of these are perfect, what is the actual value of a business as a going concern based on current value and future earnings/value ala similar to a real world stock market (PE ratios etc.)? If a business is being ended and sold off what if the amount raised from the sale of assets does not cover the initial amount invested by the investors/bond holders?
And therein lies the problem with the Eve investment market. It is what we make it. Is it mob rule or an even-handed collective making sure someone running a corporation remains honest? In the end you have no clean way getting restitution like a real world legal entity. We only have forum villification and ingame means via wars or other nefarious means.
Sorry for the derail. Back to the topic at hand....
|
Block Ukx
KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:51:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Myrdyr I find this particularly of interest since I face a similar circumstance in the near future. If someone running an IPO wants to quit running the IPO, and they have no replacement, what's the equitable solution?
Only solution is to liquidate the company and do a final dividend.
Originally by: Myrdyr I'm of the position that investor isk in an IPO does not entitle IPO-holders to a share of the business, and that assets held by an IPO are collateral against the isk paid in.
Incorrect, shareholders own the bussiness, unless is a bond offer.
Originally by: Myrdyr A liquidation, either in fact or through isk-reimbursement for a value of the goods, should be sufficient to repay the obligation held by the individual running the IPO, IMO, and I've run into some pretty serious disagreement with my (private) shareholders about this.
A liquidation involves selling ALL the corp assets and delivering a final dividend.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Myrdyr
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 23:51:00 -
[26]
Right, so what's the difference if they're sold to a 3rd party or to the original IPO CEO as long as it's at fair market value? Please post constructively. ~Saint |
Chiralos
Merchant Princes
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 00:26:00 -
[27]
I will keep an eye out for coming announcements to take the appropriate action, but in case I miss it, I'd like to roll my TCCS shares over into OMG. Amarr Victor. |
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 01:12:00 -
[28]
After having taken it from both sides by the board of EBANK and by the customer's for other reasons I have decided this isn't gonna work. The reason I done this was to push all of my services into one far more manageable one. Anyway for whatever reason it's unlikely to go through so I am announcing the latest changes:
1) C-R-A will go up for auction. It will start at a price of 10 billion isk and sell for whatever price it reaches. C-R-A shareholders will then recieve final dividends based on this.
2) TCCS will liquidate after this next dividend and repay it's investors based on liquidation numbers.
3) CPH I will continue to run as normal slowly buying it back as I have been doing.
OMG Enterprises won't be happening as the key element of it was my ability to privatise it over a few months so I could reduce my public liabilities. Anyway it has been made quite clear to me that EBANK won't have anything to do with this so OMG will not be created. Those who sent funds will get them back. If OMG is re-opened at a later date I will honor those reservations first made.
|
Macon Squaredealer
Squaredeal Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 01:33:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Macon Squaredealer on 30/01/2008 01:46:24 Edited cuz I missed Ricdic's announcement above
The crux of the issue is many people are confusing "fair market value" with "net asset value". They're almost never the same thing.
The "fair market value" of shares in a corp that has been proven to be a money maker, and is not a scam, is almost always greater than the net asset value of the corporation. In other words, TCCS (like any other publically owned real world money making corporation) is worth more than its liquidation value (book value).
It is possible that more money might be made for the shareholders by selling TCCS as a going concern to somebody than by liquidating it. I would request that at least an attempt be made to see if someone would be interested in aquiring TCCS. If there is no interest, an audit would be nice before you liquidate it. ___________________________________________ Watch for the Squaredeal Enterprises IPO in the coming months. |
Astorothe
Aperture Science Industries
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 03:47:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe OMG Enterprises won't be happening as the key element of it was my ability to privatise it over a few months so I could reduce my public liabilities. Anyway it has been made quite clear to me that EBANK won't have anything to do with this so OMG will not be created. Those who sent funds will get them back. If OMG is re-opened at a later date I will honor those reservations first made.
Well crap. Double crap. Just crap mmkay.
Ze logs show NOTHING! ~ Eve Corp and Fansite Web design, development and hosting services
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |