| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SetrakDark
   |
Posted - 2009.10.22 10:49:00 -
[1]
There is also the possibility of paying a small fee for someone who can find a buyer for the BPC, perhaps as a percentage of sale price above 10b (1% fee -> 11b sale -> 1% of 1b -> 10m fee). Just throwing a 10-15b item on the sell forums for a week isn't exactly making the best of its potential.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari
DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 16:37:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Dzil
In my opinion...
wut dis gai sed ^
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 14:33:00 -
[3]
As a disinterested outsider, the current poor market for BPCs is relatively the same market for the BPOs. Deciding to liquidate now would result in a huge capital loss. However, it might be wise to come up with a price at which you would liquidate a researched BPO, should the opportunity arise and the BPC market forecasts remain gloomy.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 05:07:00 -
[4]
I've been watching the titan bp market for a few months now, and things have picked up substantially. In addition, there are cheap researched bpos out there right now. An expansion into avatars or erebuses (erubusi?) would be reasonable.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 02:28:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gulnack
...
Your numbers are way off, but the basic idea is sound. People will pay a premium on the face value to buy into a successful company.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 05:06:00 -
[6]
Ya, upon further reflection it's not a good idea. You would have to sell them all at a premium and cancel the current shareholder window for it to work. The way Bobby describes privileges the rich, but that's the advantage of being rich.
Also, wtb 1 T4U share so I can buy and resell half the new offer. 
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 06:59:00 -
[7]
Edited by: SetrakDark on 25/04/2010 07:00:06
Originally by: Gulnack
The par value is arbitrary. The worth is what someone will pay for it which in turn determines the ROI. No? I have been viewing the T4U shares as a passive income stream with an ownership interest in a corporation. When I want my investment back I sell off my shares at whatever the market will bear. However, it seems as though the shares are treated more like callable bonds... this is perhaps because the short life cycle of virtual companies keeps valuations close to book value?
You are absolutely correct in your questions and conclusion. There is a reasonably foreseeable end to this venture, when the shares will be redeemable for a unit worth of assets.
What you're describing could work, but, as I mentioned above, would require a completely open sale. This kind of equity expansion may be possible, but it would be risky without solid secondary market institutions like widely used exchanges and underwriters. What Bobby is suggesting instead is that current investors are given the opportunity to act as underwriters and reap the reward.
Long story short, you're right, but I don't know if the secondary market is sophisticated enough to handle it.
This is pretty theoretical stuff, so if you're unsatisfied with the answer by all means say so. I love discussing this crap.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 13:57:00 -
[8]
Uh...how isn't Ray 100% correct here?
"I will be CEO of an additional corp whose identity will remain a secret for security reasons. This additional corp will be monitored by four trusteess:
These trustees will hold shares in the secret corp and will have un-subbed trial account alts with director roles within the corp."
This implies that at least 1 person with shares in the hidden corp is online to stop unauthorized unlocks. Why have have the shares to stop an unlock but not have it arranged properly?
More importantly, why trust someone with X00b ISK when there are simple ways to avoid the situation using game-mechanics?
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 14:41:00 -
[9]
Ok, here's what I understood:
Hidden corp made up of trustees with unsubbed alts as directors and shares held by mains.
Therefore, in the event of an unauthorized unlock of BPOs, someone will vote it down. In the event of a liquidation, alt accounts are subbed. This is what is possible with the current arrangement.
However, there are legitimate concerns that the current trustees are not able to perform the first task adequately. Therefore, investors need to weigh the risk of having 1 or more new trustees know the corp name, pos locations, etc, against the fact that Bobby can walk away with he BPOs at any time. If it was always intended to be merely for liquidation, then the aforementioned area of the plan needs to be rewritten because it is extremely misleading.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:14:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Titans 4U
If you have concerns, please explain them. If you have suggestions for improvements, please explain them. Simply saying that I have misslead investors with regards to security is not only unhelpful but, I feel, it is also quite wrong!
I want to make it abundantly clear right now that I am not accusing anyone of anything; I'm merely seeking clarification on a confusing issue.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 15:57:00 -
[11]
I'm sorry you're getting frustrated, and this once again seems like a situation where busybodies are getting up in some manager's **** while actual investors could not care less. I was confused by your conversation with Ray and was seeking clarification from conflicting statements.
However, the effectiveness of the trustees is a reasonable question. If this investment is based on complete trust, fine; if it is based on active trustees securing the titan bpos, fine; if it is based on liquidation security but questionable unlock security (which seems to be the present case), fine; but the current state of the actual security is a reasonable and legitimate topic.
Once again, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, nor do I necessarily think changes should be made. However, I saw someone who was asking a perfectly legitimate question being shot down with both ad homs (not by you) and "if you don't like it, don't invest". That's the kind of reaction that leads time and again to the disasters and months of bitter recrimination. People taking the time to hash this out leaves a clear record of the exact state of this investment, something that there was not before.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 18:35:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Claire Voyant
I would agree that the current security methods are about as good as you could get working within the current ingame system. I have thought quite a bit about security for locking down BPOs and aside from issuing another block of shares to Cosmo, the only other thing I would recommend would be an out-of-game system to notify directors of upcoming votes. Basically a "heads-up" e-mail 24 or 48 hours before the start of a vote to notify them that the vote is coming and why. If a vote was started without the prior e-mail, red flags would be raised and the directors could at least contact each other to find out what was up and take the necessary action.
Agreed. AC155 seems active and has already demonstrated his willingness to act when something fishy is going on, and cosmoray is of course competent, trustworthy, and seems like he at least checks in once a day, so I think between just the two of them having shares the bpos will be reasonably secure. Furthermore, I can't think of anyone who the huge and diverse investor population would agree is trustworthy enough (considering the damage a trustee could do) to bring in to help control for a theft by one of the most trusted people in MD.
Along with Claire's suggestion, at 1-stop I've committed to letting the other trustees know in advance when I will not access my character for more than a day or two, so we don't have a security breach that could be easily avoided.
Lastly I'd like to apologize for my initial post on this subject, as it was hastily done and caused more confusion, which quickly breeds acrimony, than was necessary. Just because we can say whatever we want, doesn't mean we don't have to consider what we're posting or be empathetic to someone who's "on the spot".
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 20:19:00 -
[13]
Edited by: SetrakDark on 07/05/2010 20:19:22
Again from my experience watching the BPC market, since it takes so long to produce a BPC, there are billions to be made from market smoothing. Furthermore, there is really only room for 1 maybe two players in that market, and T4U is in a prime position to be that player. If Bobby is willing to play that role with shareholder money, they should pounce on the opportunity, as both price control for produced BPCs and revenue in its own right.
I've got a lot on my Eve plate right now, but I'll try to track and contribute to this topic as best I can.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 16:50:00 -
[14]
Edited by: SetrakDark on 25/08/2010 16:55:04
A share is an equity stake in all assets and income of a corporation. If the value of a share rises or falls after the purchase date according to changes in the value of assets or income streams, that is the benefit/loss of those who bought shares. If a new share issuance sells above asset value, that is because people believe they will pay dividends sufficiently that they will profit after an asset liquidation or they will no longer be holding the shares because they sold them for a profit.
My comment from the last expansion:
"What you're describing could work, but, as I mentioned above, would require a completely open sale. This kind of equity expansion may be possible, but it would be risky without solid secondary market institutions like widely used exchanges and underwriters. What Bobby is suggesting instead is that current investors are given the opportunity to act as underwriters and reap the reward.
Long story short, you're right, but I don't know if the secondary market is sophisticated enough to handle it.
This is pretty theoretical stuff, so if you're unsatisfied with the answer by all means say so. I love discussing this crap.
Edit: Upon further consideration, I realize what was wrong with your suggestion. An equity expansion in real-life would be for a target amount of money, in this case 70b, and would be based on the market value of the shares. It was the premium and special dividend ideas that were wrong.
This is where a vibrant equity exchange and investment bank (underwriters) would come in. The investment bank would use the market information to estimate the number of shares needed at post-expansion market price (plus their premium) to raise 70b. They would then buy all the new shares for 70b, then sell them on the market at a premium. The advantage to existing shareholders is that they are able to bring in assets which will have a greater value than their cost in share dilution.
Without the equity market to help price and distribute the shares as well as the technical expertise and risk-shouldering of the investment bank, the company would shoulder all the risk of overpricing shares and falling short of the 70b, when they should be concentrating on their core business.
We do have an equity exchange, but there just aren't enough companies to justify an investment bank, and the exchange is also underused because of a lack of public companies. However investment banks are probably the next phase of advanced market institutions, if the number of public companies does grow, and they actually make economic sense in Eve, unlike this bastardized deposit model people keep trying."
Long story short, a proper issuance is possible, but comes with risks due to the the lack or weakness of supporting institutions in the investment market. The restriction of the issuance to current investors is an imperfect yet viable solution; it is, however, a solution that could be improved upon if investors feel that they are not all reaping the benefits, which they are not.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 21:26:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
I'm interested to see if anyone can come up with a better solution than this when all parties are considered.
It makes me nervous because it's unorthodox, but I can't see any serious faults. Furthermore, it is far more fair than letting a few rich investors dominate all the gains that other shareholders earned as well. The biggest issue is picking the correct price that still fills the target amount.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.09.03 23:18:00 -
[16]
buying t4u shares 1 isk
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 00:42:00 -
[17]
Originally by: SetrakDark
buying t4u shares 1 isk
Offer withdrawn.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 16:44:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Proton Power
4. This was a flawed system from the start, it was pointed out by many, argued by many, but CCP created the system flawed.
If you thought the system was fatally flawed from the start, why did you lend your name as in some way securing the IPO?
I questioned this several times during the lifetime of this offer. I was either trolled out of town because of my lolbank ties or dismissed out of hand by said trustees (Shar specifically). Ultimately all they ended up doing was enabling this whole mess. Why they agreed to be the name behind securing an infallible offering is beyond me.
All I care is that they learn from this and don't make the same mistake again. They're all basically good people and shouldn't bear the brunt of people's misdirected anger for their own stupidity.
^
|
| |
|