| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Curzon Dax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
   |
Posted - 2009.10.22 23:54:00 -
[1]
Couple of recurring themes I see in threads that I'm not quite sure I understand, so I thought I'd ask:
1. Why do people/bond holders/fund seekers seem to cap individual investment opportunity? I feel like more often than not, when I read a thread where someone is looking for ISK, they cap how much individual people are allowed to invest in their IPO. What's wrong with having one person or a couple people snap up the whole thing?
I can *somewhat* understand wanting to gain publicity and having many involved people in hopes of creating future bonds for more ISK, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem to matter much, and as such - I don't understand this mentality. Could someone explain this to me?
2. I forgot my second question.
--------------------------------------------------
Eve-Online Parodies: Music To Laugh To |
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.10.22 23:59:00 -
[2]
I never did it, and I am personally against the cap, its annoying to say the least.
People do it to allow more investors in their IPO/BOND.
Some justify it with saying, they do it for the small time investors.
Which is bull**** :D
Remove the cap.
Latest example is Proton Powers IPO, which was capped at 1.75B and i wanted to throw 5B at it, but couldnt... :(
Think about the large investors please :(
We never get special treats.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:06:00 -
[3]
Edited by: SetrakDark on 23/10/2009 00:06:25
you answered your own question i believe.
any other answer will likely be untrue, whether a conscious lie or a self-deception
|
Graic Valente
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:09:00 -
[4]
Well to a certain extent you've answered your own question. It never hurts to have a list of happy investors who may be able to provide future funding.
My funding is always private and usually just one or two investors. However, if they aren't interested/liquid enough it's easier to go to another person privately than launch a public offering all the time. Maybe that drives the behavior.
It's also is a double edged sword IMHO as well. Large investors *could* invest through alts etc. I think there is also a MD prestige requirement demonstrating they have large chunks of ISK to throw at offering that become winners hence improving their own publicity. ;)
|
Haskell
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:10:00 -
[5]
In a recent thread (has anyone got a link?) the following reason was given that I found quite insightful: If a business has only a single investor, it's easy for that investor to make false claims, e.g. not having received dividends. If there are a couple of investors, it's much more difficult for an individual to ruin the reputation of the business owner.
Another reason I could imaging is, when someone runs another business later, the probability of one of the original investors still being around and expressing his trust (and investing again) becomes much higher the more original investors existed. |
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:10:00 -
[6]
My guess is that a cap tends to make it sound exclusive, so it is a marketing gimmick, although not necessarily an intentional one. Some people might just do it because it seems like the thing to do.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:16:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Haskell
In a recent thread (has anyone got a link?) the following reason was given that I found quite insightful: If a business has only a single investor, it's easy for that investor to make false claims, e.g. not having received dividends. If there are a couple of investors, it's much more difficult for an individual to ruin the reputation of the business owner.
If I recall correctly, this was in the discussion thread for my bond. I think the point was made by Cista.
|
Stardust CEO
Stardust Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:18:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Stardust CEO on 23/10/2009 00:18:23
Originally by: SetrakDark
you answered your own question i believe.
any other answer will likely be untrue, whether a conscious lie or a self-deception
It's about exposure. I'd rather have 10 happy investors than 1. That's neither a lie, nor self deception.
|
SetrakDark
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:21:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Stardust CEO
It's about exposure. I'd rather have 10 happy investors than 1. That's neither a lie, nor self deception.
...that's what he said, so your post is pointless.
|
Curzon Dax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:27:00 -
[10]
Interesting insights and thanks for the responses. Perhaps memory clouds with time, but when I was heavily investing back in the day, I didn't participate in MD, or buy shares - the investments (with one exception) I made were complete. If someone was looking for 5 billion ISK, and I liked the idea, I'd cover the whole thing and it never made it to a public IPO. If someone wanted 50 billion ISK....same thing.
I just didn't understand why someone would want to garner so many shareholders for a small venture. I think I understand at least some reasons now.
And for audits....anyone?
--------------------------------------------------
Eve-Online Parodies: Music To Laugh To |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:48:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Curzon Dax
Interesting insights and thanks for the responses. Perhaps memory clouds with time, but when I was heavily investing back in the day, I didn't participate in MD, or buy shares - the investments (with one exception) I made were complete. If someone was looking for 5 billion ISK, and I liked the idea, I'd cover the whole thing and it never made it to a public IPO. If someone wanted 50 billion ISK....same thing.
I just didn't understand why someone would want to garner so many shareholders for a small venture. I think I understand at least some reasons now.
And for audits....anyone?
1) Multiple investors are useful to avoid a concentration of power, expecially when shares / votes get used.
2) Audits came up as a first tier ward against the gross scams. While not insuring a 100% reliability and honesty, they are useful to check obvious claims, like the ability to do what's stated, a decent financial covering, a passable business plan, collateral holding / lockdown / management, past performance statistics and forecast about possible developments.
-
Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and
http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Alice Celadon
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 00:53:00 -
[12]
Audits:
I'm about to be a huge ****mongler, so let my apologize in advance to all the great auditors in MD and all the great work they do (seriously).
Here's where Imma spit the truth:
Audits are done for the SOLE purpose of making investors look and feel less stupid when a large venture turns into a scam. "I did due diligence and there was an audit!" is the customary mantra. Audits don't actually make investments any safer. In fact, an audit which returns absolutely no red flags from an UNKNOWN IPO starter is to me a red flag in itself (they planned for the audit).
There's a punishment for having invested in something unaudited ("you invested in THAT without an AUDIT???"). On the other hand, there is no communal adulation leveled at investors who make successful investment decisions without an audit. Hence, AUDITS.
|
Haskell
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 01:08:00 -
[13]
An audit serves many purposes today, one being to prevent a legit investee to overestimate his entrepreneurial capabilities. There are many people who just want to try and "give it a shot" without actually putting much thought into their idea or having done anything similar before. They would eventually fail and would then have to scam if they don't want to end up in a big red minus.
Historically, AFAIK, the first audits were performed because of Reithe: "Reithe was so dispised for his scams that IPO's launched after that required an audit to prove you weren't Reithe." [1] |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 01:13:00 -
[14]
Quote:
Audits are done for the SOLE purpose of making investors look and feel less stupid when a large venture turns into a scam.
You are a bit mistaken.
First or all, the audits (unlike RL) are commissioned by those who propose the investments, not by investors.
Second, *I* perform audits to provide information otherwise unavailable.
I don't even have the excuse "to make money with them", because I earn more by setting my freighter on autopilot with some courier contracts or by parking my 2 hulks to mine totally AFK for a long time.
Quote:
Audits don't actually make investments any safer
Never meant to. Just to provide information.
Quote:
In fact, an audit which returns absolutely no red flags from an UNKNOWN IPO starter is to me a red flag in itself
At this point, you'd have to link some of such audits.
-
Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and
http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 01:31:00 -
[15]
I never did care about limits per investor I just needed the money.
Audits
One of the first major audits was done on me in May 08.
A few reasons for audits:
1. To prove my ALTS weren't known scammers (Riethe caused so much animosity it had to be proved I didn't have a Riethe ALT)
2. To prove the person has the skills required to do the task stated (if person is doing cap production they have cap construction I with pre-requisites)
3. A person has a previous history of doing that job or being successful
4. To prove a person has the assets they state.
Audits are best for production IPo's/bonds as they is need to prove and qualify things. Production IPO's/bonds are also safer investments allowing asset lockdown.
Trader bonds are generally newer and audits won't help as much.
Now audits are only 1 of many tools to aid an investor on whether to invest.
A good business plan, good data, good answers to questions, character, reputation and audit should be used to determine investment criteria.
Audits don't stop scamming but they give investors more information.
I used to collect stats and provided a report of all the bonds/IPO's launched in 2008. It had a lot of information about reputation, audits etc..
Linked for your enjoyment:
Raising Capital in 2008
|
Xetal Maelstrom
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 02:11:00 -
[16]
1.) Building a list of satisfied clients for the future. If I need a 10 billion ISK loan and 1 investor fills all 10B, then the next time I need a loan you know 1 person (who may or may not be able to invest or still playing) who has a history with you. If you have 10 people that each invest 1B, then you have 10 people who have personally had good success investing in you.
Capping the amount a single investor can invest is a method for someone who isn't yet well established and is looking to both have a successful business venture as well as build report with people for the future.
2.) Auditing is one of the many safety nets. It isn't perfect, it isn't the only safety net, but it helps.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 13:46:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Xetal Maelstrom
1.) Building a list of satisfied clients for the future.
I didn't even think of this when I thought of limiting investors. Rather, I agree with Cista, and having one investor gives that investor too much power (to ruin rep, or other crazy, stupid things I've known Eve players to do).
|
Kim McCormack
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 13:50:00 -
[18]
The only reason I do it is to avoid feeling like I'm slaving away for a limited set of individuals. The more people in the mixing pot, the more anonymous the faces of those I'm returning an income to.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 14:02:00 -
[19]
Another thought. This didn't occur to me before, but with a single investor people could easily claim that I was using my own alt to "invest" in me as a stage to manufacture history of successful bonds. Or the single investor could screw with me in a similar way.
|
Roguehalo
Caldari
Kimoto Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 14:09:00 -
[20]
My next bond is likely to be in the 10b range. Although I won't have a maximum holding rule I will warn investors that there won't be a 'hit by a bus' strategy and that they should therefore only invest what they could afford to lose.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 14:20:00 -
[21]
I will repeat this here, a single investor cant ruin your rep!
everything can be verified through the api.
only place where you might get in trouble is when transfering the shares, dont think that get logged.
but to avoid this, simply dont issue shares, if there is only one investor it isnt needed anyways.!
|
Cista2
Jita Direct Sale
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 14:31:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ji Sama
I will repeat this here, a single investor cant ruin your rep!
everything can be verified through the api!
I am not doubting that, however I haven't handed over my api yet and I am not planning to either. So in my case the argument is valid that a single investor could actually harm me, and hence I have put on a cap.
I might hand over my api for an audit if it seemed necessary but I don't much fancy an auditor looking at what I am investing in for Dominion.
|
Stardust CEO
Stardust Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 14:38:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Cista2
Originally by: Ji Sama
I will repeat this here, a single investor cant ruin your rep!
everything can be verified through the api!
I am not doubting that, however I haven't handed over my api yet and I am not planning to either. So in my case the argument is valid that a single investor could actually harm me, and hence I have put on a cap.
I might hand over my api for an audit if it seemed necessary but I don't much fancy an auditor looking at what I am investing in for Dominion.
Jeezus Peezus, as if you're the only one. You're either very arrogant or you need to come up with a better excuse for not wanting people to find out you're Riethe.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 14:57:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Cista2
Originally by: Ji Sama
I will repeat this here, a single investor cant ruin your rep!
everything can be verified through the api!
I am not doubting that, however I haven't handed over my api yet and I am not planning to either. So in my case the argument is valid that a single investor could actually harm me, and hence I have put on a cap.
I might hand over my api for an audit if it seemed necessary but I don't much fancy an auditor looking at what I am investing in for Dominion.
Ie. translation.
I have illegal contacts i dont want my investors finding out about.
There is not 1 single excuse not to get a respected auditor to look at your logs, not one.
Well there is one; You have something to hide.
Also the reason you dont see me investing in your ventures.
Sure trust can be earned without an audit, but saying openly that you dont trust auditors with your api, is really shooting yourself in the foot :D
|
Cista2
Jita Direct Sale
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 15:15:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ji Sama
Sure trust can be earned without an audit, but saying openly that you dont trust auditors with your api, is really shooting yourself in the foot :D
Whoa now Mama, I am not trying to start a riot here, just saying that so far I haven't found it necessary to use my api, and that privilege is part of my view on things.
And being called arrogant in this forum is the sort of thing that makes my day just a little better.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 15:52:00 -
[26]
never said you where arrogant.
though you are :D there now ive said it.
you really think your data on your account is worth anything to an auditor?
you just showed that you have something to hide.
what ever that is i dont know.
but its not something that makes me want to invest in you.
glad we had this little talk :D
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 16:02:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Ji Sama
never said you where arrogant.
though you are :D there now ive said it.
you really think your data on your account is worth anything to an auditor?
you just showed that you have something to hide.
what ever that is i dont know.
but its not something that makes me want to invest in you.
glad we had this little talk :D
No, she didn't say that. If you reread her last post very carefully, she said she just hasn't need to give an auditor her API yet, and actually said she probably would for the next bond or whatever that she does.
Just because she hasn't needed an auditor to acheive her investments doesn't mean she's inherently hiding something and/or arrogant.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 16:08:00 -
[28]
Quote:
haven't handed over my api yet and I am not planning to either
The arrogance is in saying indirectly that she doesnt trust the auditor.
As stated each to his/her own, i stated what i think, thats all.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 16:21:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ji Sama
Quote:
haven't handed over my api yet and I am not planning to either
The arrogance is in saying indirectly that she doesnt trust the auditor.
As stated each to his/her own, i stated what i think, thats all.
I see. She did say she "didn't much fancy the auditor" seeing what she was investing for Dominion.
|
Cista2
Jita Direct Sale
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 16:28:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Cista2 on 23/10/2009 16:32:44
Originally by: Ji Sama
The arrogance is in saying indirectly that she doesnt trust the auditor.
As stated each to his/her own, I stated what i think, thats all.
This is an idiotic discussion that somehow turns out to be a little interesting.
1) I didn't say I didn't trust the auditors. I said I'd prefer not to share my api info with anyone if I didn't need to. And I didn't need to so far.
2) I clearly said I have something to "hide", namely my possible investments, so there's no reason to go all AHAAA!!111!!! on that subject. "you just showed that you have something to hide. what ever that is i dont know." lmao!
3) I also said that I might use an auditor next time, if there is to be a next time.
---------
4) Now that we ARE here, let me then say that of the auditors I see currently active, I would only trust one of them. I have seen an auditor go out of his skin to ridicule an investee to the whole of MD based on private conversations, just 3 days ago. And that's not the least trustworthy of them. Actually I would much rather have Ji Sama as auditor. And that's a problem.
(edited with some line shifts :))
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |