|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 19:17:00 -
[1]
There is 485b worth of assets that could be liquidated (or are already liquid) and 325b in outstanding loans or other ventures. Add the fact that mass liquidation would lower asset value and you have a < 485b for any "super" recovery fund, whatever form that takes.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 06:29:00 -
[2]
Edited by: SetrakDark on 10/09/2009 06:33:59
Originally by: stnylan
Prove that the majority of people want your option cosmoray.
You can't.
To be fair, the burden of proof isn't on cosmo. Someone made a direct quantifiable statement, which he demanded proof for. There's no onus on him to prove the opposite.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 13:13:00 -
[3]
Well I'm not going to get into a ****ing contest over word mincing, but he never asserted that his view was the majority view, only alluded to the possibility. However, someone else did assert that his view was in the minority, which requires proof. "Let people sell their deposits" isn't exactly an idiosyncratic point of view.
To be clear, my only concern is when ebank claims to know what people want, when they in fact have no significantly better idea than anyone else. When they talk to a substantial and representative share of their depositors, then they can call someone a minority. For all we know 51% of people's opinions coul be, for all intents and purposes, the sama as cosmos.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:30:00 -
[4]
The purpose of this post is to present a short and accessible version of my solution to the Eve Bank crisis, which can be found here http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1173715.
If you have any specific comments, please make them in the original thread. Any general comments of approval or disapproval are welcome here, but I donÆt want to hijack this thread.
1)Since EB is insistent that liquidation is not an option, this solution represents a compromise between maintaining EB as a functioning institution and doing what is in the depositorsÆ best interest.
EB intends to use its remaining assets to generate revenues which will be used to pay depositors back. This is good for those who have no other plans for their deposits, but bad for people who could put that money to better use themselves or those that no longer trust EB with their money.
2)My solution is to distribute shares that represent a claim to these remaining assets and their revenue. This way everyoneÆs remaining deposits are turned into items that can be bought, traded, or sold depending on their personal situation.
If you want your money right away, you sell all of your shares; if you want to leave your money, you hold all of your shares; or any combination you prefer. EB would make estimates of various ways to price the shares (which others will review), so depositors arenÆt overly vulnerable to bad deals.
3)I have worked this out in much more detail, but this is the general idea. Please read the original and revised solutions before criticizing or complementing specific aspects, and keep them in the original thread ("bankruptcy" in 2nd and 3rd post of page 1 + "revision" in 5th and 6th post page 2).
Thanks for your time.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.12 12:45:00 -
[5]
The 1 year mark is important because it represents the limit of a reasonable time frame for even long-term-minded Eve players. To force gamers into a year long plan with no tangible milestones (no benefit to being halfway)is pushing the limits, while suggesting some indeterminate period longer than 1 year is farcical.
As more time passes more people will leave the game and more accounts can be closed or ignored. One day in the indeterminate future EBank will declare a miraculous recovery, but no one will care because they will know it was based on a massive waste of depositors' isk.
It is far more likely that this period of irrational exuberance at EBank leads to burnout and greater failure anyway.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 21:58:00 -
[6]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Of course. But the long run is quite different from the short run.
In the short run, everybody ought to get the ISK that is owed to time. When EBANK has fully recovered, it can easily be forced to liquidate if everybody takes their ISK out. And I find that to be a likely scenario.
Don't confuse long run with a period of time though. In the short run, the current plan does what it needs to do. That's the whole idea of a short run, where all variables are fixed. When you start discussing long run, you inherently start discussing changes in variable. At that time, the variables are quite likely in favor of liquidating EBANK. But those are two completely different things and neither should have effect on the other.
Just in case anyone was going to be duped by this attempt at economic analysis: it makes no sense. Not as in "it's a bad argument", rather as in "it is nonsense".
Just a heads up for all you TL;DRers out there who might think it is valid at a glance.
If people really care, I'll elaborate. However, it'll probably be longer than the original post, and I'm just not in the mood
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 02:07:00 -
[7]
Originally by: isevele please someone correct me, because i pray im wrong......will someone review the financial statement and tell me if the debt has gone up another .1 trillion or no....i thought it was 1.2 trillion and now its 1.27 trillion......what the hell are you people doing?
Crash and exotic dancers.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 03:08:00 -
[8]
Edited by: SetrakDark on 15/09/2009 03:09:23 This
Originally by: isevele please someone correct me, because i pray im wrong......will someone review the financial statement and tell me if the debt has gone up another .1 trillion or no....i thought it was 1.2 trillion and now its 1.27 trillion......what the hell are you people doing?
I believe is referring to this
Pending Withdrawals226,919,577,200
which is a new addition to the sheet.
Edit: and has nothing to do with APIs.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:21:00 -
[9]
Pinkerton is mostly correct, and this is why I didn't want to elaborate because now you're in an internet peeing match with someone who has no idea what they're talking about.
Short and sweet so people can just move on and ignore lavista: -In the long run, NO variables are fixed; in the short run SOME are. -Labor is almost always an unfixed variable, and it definitely is in this case -Decisions in the long and short runs do apply to one another, the only difference being that fixed costs shouldn't affect short run decisions -The possibility of a future bank run means that since the only reason EB is holding deposits is to try and stay open, then it might as well close now because it will close when it unfreezes deposits anyway. That has nothing to do with the short/long run division -The variable cost for EB is interest and salaries. The fixed cost is the fixed assets. The fixed assets become a variable cost as soon as they can be sold, and the short run ends (1-2 month range imo) -A proper short/long run analysis is that EB should continue to manage the fixed assets until they can be sold -Pikerton was on the right track with cost of capital, but it seems unnecessary to get into it, as there is plenty here to demonstrate that lavista's post(s) should be ignored
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 13:43:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Dzil
This statement is interesting, and brings an opportunity to steer this 27 page thread back onto some kind of constructive turf (Hey, I like driving on and off the sidewalk).
Ray, you stated ebank will never liquidate. What are your motivations for keeping the bank open?
to be clear, that's my presentation of the statement that prompted lavista's response. I do believe something along those lines, but i dont care to gt into it
|
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 23:00:00 -
[11]
It's different for everyone depending on what they'd be doing with the money if they had access to it.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 23:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Solisk
No no, it's always the maximum amount of profit that can be generated from the isk, whether the person would actually use it or not.
I respectfully disagree, and leave it at that.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.22 23:47:00 -
[13]
ahhhh ok. nice background btw
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 03:33:00 -
[14]
Originally by: nemmes
While investor confidence may be shaken by the current bank issues, I for one am confident, from hearing what ray and Lavista have been commenting on, that a solution to this problem can be found.
I think other depositors could use some of this reassurance. Could you please direct everyone to the comments whose penetrating insights into this problem helped put your fears at ease? Thanks.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 17:52:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Where do we vote for option A? On the website? I think most people would take 40%, a lesson learned, and a line drawn under the whole affair.
Given that 280 mill, the player could probably make his 700 mill back in a couple of weeks, rather then waiting 2 years for someone else to make it back for him (if they don't **** it up again)
EBank is suggesting there will be some type of cash-out option in their next announcement, or at least that's what I've interpreted from various statements.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.10.15 01:54:00 -
[16]
Originally by: nemmes Looking forward to this announcement. If it appears today
hmmm...have they sold the titan BPCs yet?
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 03:48:00 -
[17]
I don't think the poor BPC sales change much. There's still going to be people who want EBank to attempt to get their money back, though maybe less people now, so the BoD will continue to keep this going.
The real issue with the next announcement is the quality of the buyout option for those who want out. The BPC sales may affect the buyout price, but I'm far more concerned with the proposed mechanism(s) of the buyout option.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 03:11:00 -
[18]
Don't tell me I put on my fancy lynchin pants fer nuthin
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 21:15:00 -
[19]
Linkage
Selling a Titan BPO?
Perhaps they are just going to do the right thing and liquidate.
Hungover and bored, watching bad movies, stirring up MD trouble.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 04:25:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel Why has a deadline been set and missed and people are still kissing Ray's backside?
Lol. Who? Where?
Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel I hardly think he cares if they do, but a stronger response to a blatant breach of promise is warranted IMO if anyone dares to do it.
What's getting mad going to do? It hasn't made an impact since this whole thing started.
Missed deadlines and ****ty pr is just par for the course.
|
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 04:43:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel Why has a deadline been set and missed and people are still kissing Ray's backside?
Show me where this happened. I haven't seen a single positive post since the deadline was missed.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 05:15:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel Why has a deadline been set and missed and people are still kissing Ray's backside?
I asked you to show me where. You can't. Now you're deflecting with a bunch of irrelevant stuff.
Unless you can show me where, don't bother responding anymore because I don't care.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 23:41:00 -
[23]
Originally by: cosmoray
Please look at the title of this whole post:
"Next announcement October 15th - Nov 1st, wait patiently or whine in here" or something like that.
Then AC stated on this post that there will be a slight delay because more stuff is coming out of the audit.
Just sit back and wait for the announcement. I would rather see a post with ALL the facts than a half hearted stab that keeps a few people happy.
Not sure who you're responding to here...If it's me, I was asking to see where people were "kissing Ray's ass" after the deadline, not whether there was a deadline or not.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:15:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Breaker77 It's empty!! Now is the perfect time to close up, take what assets and ISK are left, call in what loans you can, write it off, and start over with a clean slate. You can reuse the infrastructure and start off with full auditing and reports so everyone knows about every last 0.01 ISK. It would be a lot easier than trying to fix this mess and raise hundreds of billions of ISK.
Most of the problems were caused by people that are not even involved with EBank anymore, so your hands are clean.
Of course there is the slight problem of probably very few people even wanting to touch a bank again, but thats another story.
This is bang on. Unfortunately it's already been stated in various forms yet rejected.
Respectfully, I think criticizing the decision to stay open as well as the resulting mess is a waste of time.
All that's left is to examine policies in light of the fact that they are staying open, and not weigh them against the alternative of closing. That's why I don't think the deadline is a big deal: given that they're staying open, fixing everything will be difficult and establishing a solid timeline even more so.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.16 17:16:00 -
[25]
My theory, hardly a radical one, is that many depositors get as far as the flashy website and nifty coding, and then fill in the rest with conceptions of real-life banks. I'm sure most of them still believe the "recovery from a single-person betrayal" story, that some EBank members continue to sell, despite the evidence of institution-wide negligence and incompetence that we got to see on this forum.
That's why there will always be room for at least one bank in Eve...because people simply don't bother to understand how weak these institutions really are. Not that I can blame them, however, as this is only a game.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 15:11:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Breaker77 EBank would be better off either closing down or getting someone who knows what they are doing to run it.
I don't think they'd let Ray close it down even if he wanted to, and they definitely won't bring someone else on who would (and it's what any sensible manager would do). So the question is how long Ray will grind away at a pointless task for vainglorious wannabe internet spaceship bankers who can't even manage their own disastrous failure, but don't have the common sense and decency to close it down.
|
|
|
|