| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hippopotamus Rex
   |
Posted - 2009.12.02 15:57:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Confirming the dramatic increase in NAV, and the absence of any large unexplained donations.
Can you please explain what is included in the NAV? ie How it is calculated? (Not interested in how things are valued or the tools used, just the formula)
Thanks
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 17:31:00 -
[2]
Thanks Kazuo, Cista.
Cista, you really shouldn't be including the share proceeds in your NAV. At the very least you should be deducting the obligations you have on them, namely your buyback offer of 36m per share (3.6bn total). Your NAV is supposed to be "net" of liabilities. This goes for all your subsequent share offerings as well.
For what its worth, I think changing the terms of your agreement without unanimous investor consent (or buying out objectors) is really going to hurt your credibility.
My advice: Drop the November dividend by 3.6m each. If it was already paid, then consider that extra 3.6m as advanced payment on the next dividend. This is entirely fair as it was quite clear that your dividends were based on profits and the 4bn invested is NOT profit. THEN propose the 10m cap and a reasonable buyout offer to any equity investor that does not want to convert to a fixed income.
This whole thing is a bit of a mess, but how you handle the mess says a lot about your credibility. Will you honor your agreements as "fair" as possible, or will you pull an EBANK and say "I hold the ISK therefore its MY rules"?
Bite the bullet, fix this now in an equitable fashion, and both you AND your investors will be better off in the long run.
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 18:18:00 -
[3]
Unwise.
Why don't you ask them what they want rather than telling them they want stability?
You are tainting all your future MD offers with the clause "I reserve the right to change this terms of this agreement at any time without investor approval."
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 22:00:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Llu
All Cista has done is...
All Cista has done is renege on her promises. Lets cut the spin here. Perhaps her investors are fine with the new deal, but that is besides the point. She should have gotten their ok first. If they do agree with this, well then thats just a happy coincidence, because she
Did she out and out scam? No. But she is not honoring her agreements and this will affect any long-term agreements she is a part of. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the whole "Yeah but I didn't know things would turn out like this when I made that agreement" argument.
She sold equity but gave them bonds. If she does it again next time, well then, I don't really care. Now everyone should know that the terms of her agreement are irrelevant, but the original investors did not know that. And to offer them 90% of their money back if they're unhappy at the changes to the terms? I don't think thats right either.
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 22:59:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Cista2
Originally by: Hippopotamus Rex
And to offer them 90% of their money back if they're unhappy at the changes to the terms? I don't think thats right either.
*Sigh* The value of shares has been 150 % of auction price (60 mil/40 mil) since November 18. No investor has chosen to sell.
*Sigh* Your standing offer to repurchase the shares is 36M, hardly 150% of the auction price.
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 00:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ballet
...to further increase my holding from the original issue.
What holding from the original issue? Unless I'm missing something, I don't see where you've purchased any shares. Could you please elaborate?
Originally by: Investment Alt
I realize my last minute bid and resale may look fishy, so I am willing to have my account audited (but only by an established auditor) at your cost.
Why would you care if it looks fishy? Especially to the point that you are willing to be audited - I assume the whole point of the alt is to keep your main anonymous. Cista should be the only one who cares if the auction looks fishy. To be honest, the fishiest part is that statement.
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 02:59:00 -
[7]
Originally by: SetrakDark
Because I was being considerate of how it appeared? Regardless, an alt is a pain in the ass, so i've dispensed with it.
Well thats good to know. The potential for alt bidding (on Cista's part) was the biggest flaw I saw in this auction-type, so its comforting to see that the bids were legit especially when there was the greatest incentive to cheat.
|
| |
|