EVE Search - Titans For You IPO

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Market Discussions

Titans For You IPO

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2009.06.26 09:12:00 - [1] This is a historic opportunity. Reserve 3 (three) shares for me please! FREE! jumpclone service: Forum thread\|Podlog
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2009.08.01 08:13:00 - [2] isk sent FREE jumpclone service: Thread\|Podlog
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2009.08.20 23:23:00 - [3] Originally by: Moya81 This might seem like a stupid question, but what happens if one of the major investors or maybe a few want their money back because they are quitting the game or whatever other reasons? With the current system you will never have the liquidity to pay them out You should've stopped there. All that 'worst-case-scenario'-thinking is making a very simple thing seem very complicated. No liquidity to pay out = no pay out. FREE jumpclone service: Thread\|Podlog
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2010.03.23 01:09:00 - [4] Edited by: Estel Arador on 23/03/2010 01:09:23 Breaker77, Varo Jan is asking about the 500M in costs which has been deducted before dividends were paid, not about the management fee. Instead of posting an (apparantly) knee-jerk and defensive answer to a question which wasn't asked, you're probably better off letting the manager answer the question. I'm sure he can provide a satisfactory answer (I think even I could, but I don't think it's my place). Free jumpclone service\|924 stations - 6000+ users
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2010.03.25 13:09:00 - [5] As a shareholder (with 3 shares) I fully support the continuation of the project. So far the business has been in a startup phase, and it will only reach it's full potential with all the BPOs at ME1. It's difficult to predict what the BPC market will do, but considering the timescales involved I believe it's best to give the business at least a full year of operation before (re-)considering liquidation. Free jumpclone service\|924 stations - 6000+ users
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2010.03.25 16:59:00 - [6] Edited by: Estel Arador on 25/03/2010 16:59:35 The 'owner' of the thread is allowed one bump per day. Only the owner is allowed to bump. This not enforced very strictly though. (Potential) buyers/users can post questions or feedback regardless of bumping rules, the owner generally can also reply to questions without it counting as a second bump. Originally by: Breaker77 http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=882525&page=13 http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=939710&page=43 Even though those are services and not ingame items, just use some common sense Those are services where feedback is posted, as I mentioned feedback does not count as bumping. I my thread (the second one linked to) you can see that I bump exactly once a day, usually around midnight. (Occasionally I break the letter of the law by posting just after midnight one day and just before midnight the next day (or the same day, for literalists), but that hasn't been a problem so far - I guess because it's obvious that I'm just bumping once a day.) Note that I could post a 'thank you' after every single post with feedback, that most likely would be considered excessive bumping though. Free jumpclone service\|924 stations - 6300+ users
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.07.26 11:34:00 - [7] Originally by: Xenuria The statistical chances of somebody war declaring the right corp and then somehow finding the hidden pos in high sec is extremely low. And yet those same statistics say it will happen, given enough time. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.08.14 15:14:00 - [8] Edited by: Estel Arador on 14/08/2010 15:16:01 Originally by: Scaevolla How does one become involved in this investment ( be kind im new ) All shares have been sold, so the only way to get involved is to buy shares (usually at a premium) from a current shareholder. Titans4U might expand occasionally and issue more shares, but in such cases existing shareholders will get the right the buy the shares before non-shareholders. Usually that means that all new shares will go to existing shareholders. Edit: just to be clear, I'm not involved in Titans4U (other than as a very minor shareholder) and do not represent Titans4U. I simply knew the answer to your question. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.08.22 23:17:00 - [9] Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Do you have a specific BPO in mind to be purchased with this expansion, and if so, what is it? This one, perhaps? Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.08.23 19:44:00 - [10] Originally by: Kell Braugh The 63% comes from the fact you are increasing the total amount of stock by 108k. (...) and 63% of their potential future dividends-- its a hard pill to swallow. Walk me through this, because I don't get it. I own 3 shares in T4U. With the current 342000 existing shares, I get 88k isk from a 10B dividend. After the expansion, with 45000 shares, I'll get 67k isk from a 10B dividend. By my count that's a 24% decrease in dividends (which makes sense after 32% expansion, given that 100 is 76% of 132). Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!

Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.08.23 21:07:00 - [11] Edited by: Estel Arador on 23/08/2010 21:10:18 Originally by: Kell Braugh Originally by: Estel Arador With the current 342000 existing shares... After the expansion, with 45000 shares Currently: 68,000 Shares Post proposed expansion: 176,000 shares Those are the numbers attached to reality that I am using. Those numbers are incorrect. The ingame corp details only show how many shares were created in the last share creation vote, it does not list the total number of shares. The correct numbers, with dates, are: Titans For You [T4U] shares date -created - total 20-06-09 - 1000 - 1000 18-09-09 - 203000 - 204000 24-04-10 - 70000 - 274000 01-07-10 - 68000 - 342000 22-08-10 - 108000 - 450000 (note the 'date' is the date the vote started, not the date the vote ended) So this is expansion is not as big (relatively) as you've made it out to be. Also with every expansion so far, all shares have gone to existing shareholders. That makes the start-up costs (initial and for the expansion) less of an issue, though it does not eliminate it completely. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.08.23 22:53:00 - [12] Originally by: Kell Braugh Are you not taking into account that the shares are buying and selling for 1.25-1.3 mil/share atms so offering new shares @ 1mil each devalues current shares? The fact that expansions with shares at face value might take place at irregular intervals is not new information. Anyone buying their shares at an auction has taken (or should at least should have taken) that information into account. There are 342000 shares, they have a face value of 1M each, (nearly) the full value is secured in BPOs, dividends amount to 1 to 1.5% per month, and shareholders get preferential treatment during expansions. That is what you paid 500 times 1.26M for. That you've never heard of due diligence and perhaps valued the shares wrongly is entirely your own fault. Get over it. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.08.24 00:15:00 - [13] Originally by: Kell Braugh If people (enough people to clear the market) are wiling to pay $1.30 for widget X but the makers of widget x sell them for $1.0, then widget x by definition (in the economic sense) is being under valued by the makers. Same is true with stocks. (...) basic basic economic principles and concepts (...) All nice theoretical basics, but there are two factors complicating it: 1) It's 108000 shares being offered at once, whereas the price of ~1.2M has been set at auctions offering only a few thousand shares. 2) The fact that there's a difference between the sell price and the resell value increases interest in the shares, which offer only a minimal return in dividends. Increasing the sell price would bring down both the ROI and the opportunity for profit at resale, making it very unattractive to invest. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.08.25 15:05:00 - [14] Here's an idea I just had and haven't thought through fully yet: doing expansions as an auction and let people bid on shares. Instead of fixing the amount of shares, fix the total amount raised - so the higher the bids go, the less new shares will be issued. This way anyone can get in on the expansion at a price they deem fair. The benefit for existing shareholders would be that less new shares are needed and dividends per share will be higher. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.04 00:26:00 - [15] Originally by: Bad Bobby AC155 hasn't got it exactly right. I removed all roles from the trustee alts prior to starting the vote to create 600 new shares (at around 06:57 on 29/08/10) in order to prevent them from taking the shares from the wallet, which they would have been able to do if I had left them with director roles. The vote to create the 600 new shares passed (at 06:57 on 30/08/10 with 100% approval) and I took the 600 new shares. I combined those with my 200 shares and the 200 shares of one trustee to give me 1000 shares of voting power (an overall majority) out of the total of 1800 shares. I only kicked the trustee alts out this morning (around 06:54 on 03/09/10) before starting the unlock votes on the 5 Titan BPOs. How did you get the 200 shares from a trustee? I guess this is just another scenario which has to be taken into account when securing future offerings. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.04 10:13:00 - [16] Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 BB was CEO of the Titan corp. This meant that regardless of shares he could have booted everyone and not been stopped. Sure the trustees could vote down any unlock votes but he would never have to give the bop's up and there's nothing that could have made him due to game mechanics, something I didn't consider and I guess no one else considered. Any corp member with 5% or more of the shares cannot be kicked from the corp without a vote. I've known this for quite some time and thought this was widely known (at least among those with an interest in share mechanics like MD regulars). I assumed that any people with alts in holding corps (not just this one, but everywhere) would keep at least 5% of the total shares on the shares on the alt (even if it's inactive, you'd still have 15% to vote with). Apparently this is not the case. Anyone who is currently securing any other offerings should take measures immediately. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.04 10:34:00 - [17] Originally by: Bad Bobby Kicking them out of the corp wasn't strictly needed though. In this case, since you had a controlling amount of shares it wasn't. There was a short exchange above discussing the deadlock which would result from the alts being kicked if the manager doesn't have more than half of the shares. Such a deadlock does not need to occur, ever. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.04 12:27:00 - [18] I bought 3 shares just to be a part of EVE history. Boy did I get my money's worth Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.04 12:32:00 - [19] Originally by: RAW23 Quote: These trustees will hold shares in the secret corp and will have un-subbed trial account alts with director roles within the corp. This statement seems to make the trustees responsible for general monitoring. Of course, it doesn't explicitly say "for the prevention of scams" as opposed to "for their amusement" or something else but that is pretty clearly implied. If I remember correctly it was explicitly stated that the alts would be for liquidation after a hit-by-a-bus incident only, and would not be able to prevent a scam. The fact that the proposal mentions "un-subbed trial account alts" should leave no ambiguity as to the amount of monitoring going on. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.04 19:30:00 - [20] Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Estel has explained that the trustees can indeed prevent a stalemate: In my previous post on this matter I was cautious and mentioned only any corp member with 5% or more of the shares 'cannot be kicked' from the corp. I can now confirm that any corp member with 5% or more of the shares can run for CEO, regardless of current roles. This can be done by right-clicking the shares in the wallet, selecting 'votes', and clicking the 'run for CEO' button. You will get an error if you try this with less than 5% of the shares. (To be clear, "5% or more" is the exact description of the amount of shares needed, it is not "more than 5%" - exactly 5% will do.) Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!

Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.04 21:01:00 - [21] Edited by: Estel Arador on 04/09/2010 21:05:10 Originally by: Breaker77 Damn. It could have worked perfectly if this had been known beforehand. Apparently the controls are there from CCP, but it just wasn't followed. I knew about it from second-hand information, I only never bothered to definitely confirm it myself. I assumed it was widely known, certainly among people who regularly secure businesses. Perhaps I should've been more vocal about it. This mechanic is the reason why I only made 4.99% of EACS shares available to the public last year. Originally by: Breaker77 Now the next offering of this type will know how to secure it. Indeed, but it's been quite an expensive lesson to learn. However, as RAW23 has pointed out this doesn't matter if the CEO has a majority of the shares. Originally by: RAW23 I don't think this would have helped, would it? Bobby couldn't kick them but he could still have passed the unlock with the extra 600 shares plus his 200 plus Cosmo's 200. Any vote to kick the ceo would have completed after the unlock completed (I assume the timeframes for each are the same?) Correct. Bobby managing to get a controlling amount of shares is what went wrong here. The CEO replacement will only work if the trustees keep a majority of the shares. The vote for CEO replacement takes one day at minimum. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.04 23:15:00 - [22] Originally by: cosmoray The trustee shares are held on the main characters so they can actually see votes occuring. This still means that the investors and the trustees are trusting BB not to kick the directors from the corp. The only way around this would be fully subbed director alts who would be required to log in every day to see if votes are taking place. This is expensive and un realistic. That's a false dichotomy, the shares can spread among multiple characters. Seeing votes occurring only requires 1 share, preventing getting kicked takes 50 (assuming 1000 total shares); with 5 BoD members, that leaves 149 shares to spread as you like among as many of your characters as you like. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.05 00:10:00 - [23] Originally by: cosmoray Bad Bobby is the thief, end of. I completely agree. Everything I posted so far has been to analyse the situation and see what can be done to prevent it in the future. One thing that could change is the share distribution. Originally by: cosmoray That would assume that if a trustee saw a vote they would have to log on the director ALT. Not necessary at all. A trustee with 200 shares could leave 50 on the unsubbed alt and 150 on his main which he can use to vote. If four trustees did that, there would be 600 active shares on the trustees, 200 with the CEO and 200 on inactive shares. Three people are needed to take over CEO position (as with a straight 5 times 200 distribution) and any two trustees can block a vote proposed by the CEO (assuming no one else votes). If you'd like any one trustee to be able to block a vote by the CEO (as with the straight 5 times 200 distribution), give each of the trustees 210 shares (including 50 for the alt) and the CEO 160 shares. That makes 200 inactive shares, and 800 evenly distributed shares. As you can see it is possible to make this work, without encountering any of the issues you've brought up. Of course Bad Bobby is a thief and the blame lies squarely with him, but that doesn't mean that you and I and everyone else can't examine the situation and see what, if anything, can be improved. If you see any real problems with the share distribution as I've described (other than an out of hand dismissal as 'unrealistic' and 'not practical') I'd love to discuss them. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!
Estel Arador	Posted - 2010.09.05 07:07:00 - [24] Originally by: Kapila Parthalan I think that this is a completely reasonable solution. If we had understood these mechanics, that would have improved the security. However, you can't just call the shares inactive because directors could sub their alts and combine those shares with others, potentially making it easier to pull off a malicious vote. The great thing is, if you work through all possible permutations of subbed/unsubbed alts, you will always need 3 BoD members for a controlling amount of shares. 2 times 210 shares are still beaten by 3 times 160. Free jumpclone service\|1092 stations!

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.