SencneS
Amarr
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
   |
Posted - 2009.02.25 15:52:00 -
[1]
Speaking as a BSA Director:-
Feel free to ask any questions about this. The proposal is something which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been attempted before.
Speaking from my experience with dealing with BSA and EBANK, this would be something of a hybrid of both, this is important to keep in mind. You can at any time "Cash out" for 100% of your value as long as the investment has been over one month. (1% service fee for anything under a month). The two are different in many ways and similar in the most basic form. BSA deal with mineral almost exclusively, a majority of the ISK generated from the corporations activities happen with Mineral Trade. EBANK deals with many aspects of EVE, however I do not consider it the master one any single activity.
BSA is the master of minerals, no one else has given evidence to indicate hundred of billions of ISK in minerals trade. While I agree people deal in tens of billions, I doubt anyone deals with 300B worth of minerals, this would add another 200+ billion making it the second largest secondary market corporation. (BSA Is already larger then DBANK, a lot of people forget this. These indexes remove all doubt of it's size.)
There are pros and cons to each style of investment. EBANK has an ability to turn over more profit, however uses that profit to cover losses made in other areas. BSA is very steady, and not subject to the ups and downs as violently as EBANK. While both can turn a loss in a month, BSA's loss is lower then the potential loss EBANK can experience. BSA is at the whim of miners choosing to sell their minerals at a higher or lower value then BSA's predicted prices, EBANK is subjected to simple demand. Making the two very opposite ends of the spectrum. Demand for minerals is always there and only steady increase, it's the supply that effects BSA more then anything else. EBANK is all about demand, it can supply whatever is needed but the lack of demand effects EBANK more easily.
From an investors point of view, they look very similar, I deposit ISK, I get Interest, I withdraw and get 100% of my deposit and interest.
Which one is better off from an investors point of view? Difficult to say, my experience in both have lead me to believe both are viable structures, it comes down to which one has the ability to tank their weakness the best.
As for the last question - "Can I change funds whenever" I'll have to leave that one for Block, it's not a question I am able to answer. Well I can give a solution, you can cash out of one fund and buy into another. However you would need to make sure you're over one month invested, otherwise you'll get hit with the 1% fee.
However, I'll let Block answer that one as, I believe an investment is converted to minerals, so it's difficult to answer how that would happen.
A few notes that people should also keep in mind.
It's 3% expected return.. This does not mean the particular index could experience a 20% return in one month. It also doesn't mean the index could crash and experience a -20% return. Obviously BSA doesn't want that the latter to happen, however on average a 3% is highly doable.
BSA does have a Board of Director's enforce "law" or regulation that stipulates that no one person/entity can hold any more then 20% of any fund.
This means that the index's in their current proposed have the following limitations:-
Pyerite Index Fund - 8,000,000,000 ISK
Mexallon Index Fund - 4,410,000,000 ISK
Isogen Index Fund - 4,600,000,000 ISK
Nocxium Index Fund - 3,120,000,000 ISK
Zydrine Index Fund - 10,860,000,000 ISK
Megacyte Index Fund - 11,760,000,000 ISK
Amarr for Life |