EVE Search - The Alternative EBank Financials

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Market Discussions

The Alternative EBank Financials

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tiberizzle	Posted - 2009.12.07 22:18:00 - [61] Edited by: Tiberizzle on 07/12/2009 22:21:28 At 3% per month interest, a depositor sees 42% growth in a year. At a 50% depositor attrition rate, the bank's NAV should see 100% growth in a year. With some simplifying assumptions the bank could pay 5.9% interest monthly and fulfill all withdrawal requests at p=0.5 with no other activity that year. The bank could pay 3% interest monthly, skim around 29% of the deposits, and fulfill all withdrawal requests at p=0.5 with no other activity. Doesn't E-Bank pay 1.5% on most accounts?
Kalrand Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.12.07 22:21:00 - [62] Originally by: Tiberizzle Edited by: Tiberizzle on 07/12/2009 22:20:06 At 3% per month interest, a depositor sees 42% growth in a year. At a 50% depositor attrition rate, the bank's NAV should see 100% growth in a year. With some simplifying assumptions the bank could pay 5.9% interest monthly and fulfill all withdrawal requests at p=0.5 with no other activity that year. The bank could pay 3% interest monthly, skim around 29% of the deposits, and fulfill all withdrawal requests at p=0.5 with no other activity. Doesn't E-Bank pay like 2% on most accounts? Welcome to How Banks Work In Eve. The only thing that trashes them is a bankrun or burnout.
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2009.12.07 22:23:00 - [63] Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 I was trying to avoid contributing to the misinformation that is this thread but I guess its time to jump in a little. If there is misinformation in this thread, it stems from EBank¦s own misleading and inaccurate financial statements. Nice try, no cigar. Quote: Yes EBANK's balance sheet is under valued in regards to assets because we are still gaining access to them and sorting through them. ** I've still got some stuff from the old ventures that hasn't been moved and valued yet so it isn't listed on any spreadsheets. You expect me to believe that in nine months you¦ve been unable to value EBank¦s assets? Any more fairy tales? Quote:** If salaries are being paid then someone better send me my cut because the last time I checked we were putting in time, effort, and our own isk to right a wronged situation. You were part of the old inept regime. It¦s too late for you to play the martyr.
Marcus Baltar	Posted - 2009.12.08 00:25:00 - [64] Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 1. Yes EBANK's balance sheet is under valued in regards to assets because we are still gaining access to them and sorting through them. ** I've still got some stuff from the old ventures that hasn't been moved and valued yet so it isn't listed on any spreadsheets. That has given me a little insight into the amount of work Ray has yet to do (or hw little he has done), and a greater disrespect for EBANK in general as things are still not being accounted for 15 weeks after the account freeze, let alone the Ricdic's departure (6 months) or EBANK's start in general. Originally by:** Amarr Citizen 155 2. If salaries are being paid then someone better send me my cut because the last time I checked we were putting in time, effort, and our own isk to right a wronged situation. The salary I think Varo Jan was referring to was the fact that the 88 billion ISK ventures, which Sencnes said Ray was manager of ("Ray the venture manager and chairman of EBANK"), only have to pay EBANK 5% (and are currently still reporting no return) when most people agree that a 5% is easily achieved - so unless all venture income is paid to EBANK, someone is getting a salary, indirectly, from EBANK. Were you one of the BoD that put in their "own isk to right a wronged situation" before the account freeze, and was allowed to withdraw it after the freeze? Post here More details About the characters EBANK "owns" - Are they on one account? - How is this being paid for? Or on BoD/other players spare slots? - What collateral does EBANK hold that nothing untoward happens to them, or EBANK assets they have access to? I think Varo Jan's Investment page is very accurate based on the information supplied by EBANK, except it still lists a dividend income from AATP and the AATP NAV was last listed at 23,067.82 ISK per share. Although, if the various shares were to be valued at achievable sales figures, I think a few shares might have a lower portfolio value. --
SencneS Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks	Posted - 2009.12.08 01:14:00 - [65] I think a lot of people are choosing to read what they don't want to hear.. Read carefully... Venture Managers are only obligated to return 5% of the capital provided, they CAN return more. Ray has said he is making his ventures fully integrated into EBANK. This is all still within policy, Venture managers can do what they like with ventures and Ray has indicated he is returning 100% of profits to EBANK. (Which I appears to be the case at least for the in-game corp I am in) Don't confuse policy minimal requirements with what is being done, and that's the hangup I've been trying to relay in the last couple of posts. Policy is still current, but Ray has said that all ventures are held to a much higher standard, and are fully integrated into EBANK. Which he has every right to declare. As for Characters, Characters do not hold collateral from the accounts main, they are spread across accounts of BoD, they have Directorship access to in-game corps. They are all on accounts that known mains are regulars of MD. Amarr for Life
Amarr Citizen 155 Nordar Innovations.	Posted - 2009.12.08 02:54:00 - [66] Originally by: Varo Jan If there is misinformation in this thread, it stems from EBank¦s own misleading and inaccurate financial statements. Nice try, no cigar. Just because you don't get to see it all, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't an EBANK thread, this is a thread you created to toss your own opinions and guesses around. I replied to it in an effort to be a little bit nice and fill a couple holes. I won't make the mistake again. Originally by: Varo Jan You expect me to believe that in nine months you¦ve been unable to value EBank¦s assets? Any more fairy tales? I don't expect you to believe jack ** and I won't lose any sleep on whether you do or don't. I will admit that I haven't made Ray's job that much easier because I've been really busy with real life obligations. Considering I was the one who grabbed a large portion of the EBANK assets or was contracted them during the Ricdic incident, it makes it tough for Ray and others to value it if I've got it or more importantly if a lot of it is stuck in space that is hard to get to. Originally by:** Varo Jan You were part of the old inept regime. It¦s too late for you to play the martyr. I think you have me confused with someone else. I wasn't a part of the "old regime". I was a venture manager with no voting rights and no say. My job was first to help Ricdic and Proton run their venture and then when they both got too busy I took a venture over. Get your facts straight, I know that one has been talked about before but I guess I should give you a little bit of cushion considering there have been way too many threads and way too many trolls in those threads. Perhaps you simply got confused or didn't get a chance to read it all. Titan BPC Auction Thread
Tiberizzle	Posted - 2009.12.08 03:04:00 - [67] Originally by: Kalrand Originally by: Tiberizzle Edited by: Tiberizzle on 07/12/2009 22:20:06 At 3% per month interest, a depositor sees 42% growth in a year. At a 50% depositor attrition rate, the bank's NAV should see 100% growth in a year. With some simplifying assumptions the bank could pay 5.9% interest monthly and fulfill all withdrawal requests at p=0.5 with no other activity that year. The bank could pay 3% interest monthly, skim around 29% of the deposits, and fulfill all withdrawal requests at p=0.5 with no other activity. Doesn't E-Bank pay like 2% on most accounts? Welcome to How Banks Work In Eve. The only thing that trashes them is a bankrun or burnout. A bank run such as might be caused by Unholy Rage? I found this, yes dubious, but also interesting and pertinent anecdote in one of the other E-Bank threads: Quote: EBANK was never planned to be solvent. The idea was simply to "fly free" in eve at others expense, and make some isk doing it.. via something no quit a ponzi scheme. The early investors where in fact a part of this, and knew exactly how this was going to turn out, although the later investors where never told in order to keep it going. The problem was they all never expected Unholy Rage, so when they got bitten by it it just happened to be at a low point in the cycle.. Is it just the ******ed carebears who were originally too hopped up on rep-balls to notice that the whole thing was a house of cards trying to run the show now, or are we looking at another round of Ponzi? In either case, who cares about their self-reported finances?
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2009.12.08 03:48:00 - [68] Originally by: SencneS I think a lot of people are choosing to read what they don't want to hear.. Read carefully... Venture Managers are only obligated to return 5% of the capital provided, they CAN return more. Ray has said he is making his ventures fully integrated into EBANK. This is all still within policy, Venture managers can do what they like with ventures and Ray has indicated he is returning 100% of profits to EBANK. (Which I appears to be the case at least for the in-game corp I am in) I have read carefully. I¦ve also noticed the discrepancies over months between words and actions. Which do you think speak louder? Your turn now to read carefully. 1. EBank is bankrupt. It owes nigh on two trillion to depositors. It ought to be taking every action in its powers to return said trillions to depositors ASAP. In nine months or so, it has done nothing except to prevaricate, obfuscate and throw up smokescreens. 2. EBank¦s sole avenue for earning significant sums of money is its ventures. EBank¦s past and present policy was/is to run ventures as cheap 5%, unsecured loans to venture managers who also are EBank directors/managers. For all the talk about Ray returning 100% of profits on ventures to EBank and not the min 5%, higher standards, yadeyadeyade - his own financial statements for EBank do not show a cent in actual or anticipated profits from ventures. And that amounts to intentionally hiding information which could/should have a positive impact on the balance sheet - making deposits worth more than they appear to be now. 3. The correct course of action - the fair and honourable course - is to consolidate all ventures into EBank¦s accounts and show a true picture of the financial health of the bank. That¦s not all. Those financial statements need to be audited by an independent party in order to assure depositors that everything has been properly accounted for. Financial statements issued by the bank now have zero credibility. 4. Conning depositors into cashing in their deposits for 30% when they¦re worth at least 40% is a shabby move, to put it mildly.
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2009.12.08 06:18:00 - [69] Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Originally by: Varo Jan If there is misinformation in this thread, it stems from EBank¦s own misleading and inaccurate financial statements. Nice try, no cigar. Just because you don't get to see it all, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't an EBANK thread, this is a thread you created to toss your own opinions and guesses around. I replied to it in an effort to be a little bit nice and fill a couple holes. I won't make the mistake again. I¦m not quibbling about your right to have internal accounts which are more detailed than published accounts. That¦s perfectly understandable. However, any set of accounts is meant to represent a true and fair view of a company¦s financial health. Your public accounts fail to do that on two counts. First, they¦re a mess - and my objective in starting this thread was to clean up that mess. More importantly, failing to disclose assets and profits is a no-no.
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2009.12.08 07:07:00 - [70] Originally by: Tiberizzle A write-off would be unfair to the depositors with little advantage for E-Bank. On the contrary, it has huge advantages for EBank. Why do you think the greatest effort is being expended on devising ways of writing off deposits? Assets - Liabilities = Equity + Retained Profits/(Losses) If you take the adjusted EBank finstats as they are, you get: 642B - 1,909B = 0 + (1,268B) If you write off deposits that reduces the losses by the same amount. That¦s just the stroke of a pen - compared to sweating assets for 13 years max. A degree of write-offs is inevitable in a bankruptcy situation. What¦s not acceptable is tactics designed either to unfairly sequester deposits or tactics designed to deceive depositors into accepting less than their deposits are worth.

Tiberizzle	Posted - 2009.12.08 08:09:00 - [71] Originally by: Varo Jan Originally by: Tiberizzle A write-off would be unfair to the depositors with little advantage for E-Bank. On the contrary, it has huge advantages for EBank. Why do you think the greatest effort is being expended on devising ways of writing off deposits? Assets - Liabilities = Equity + Retained Profits/(Losses) If you take the adjusted EBank finstats as they are, you get: 642B - 1,909B = 0 + (1,268B) If you write off deposits that reduces the losses by the same amount. That¦s just the stroke of a pen - compared to sweating assets for 13 years max. A degree of write-offs is inevitable in a bankruptcy situation. What¦s not acceptable is tactics designed either to unfairly sequester deposits or tactics designed to deceive depositors into accepting less than their deposits are worth. Yes. That was intended to be read as "A write-off as defined in the preceding text has little advantage as compared to the alternative I present in the following text." I thought that was implied by structuring the paragraph with the offending sentence in the middle, but I suppose not. I was specifically referring to the notion that both alternatives discussed in the post cited intended a better approximation of their liabilities, and both would achieve that to some extent, but one would provide a more accurate valuation and required neither awareness nor activity on the part of the depositors.
Marcus Baltar	Posted - 2009.12.08 11:50:00 - [72] Originally by: Marcus Baltar I think Varo Jan's Investment page is very accurate based on the information supplied by EBANK, except it still lists a dividend income from AATP and the AATP NAV was last listed at 23,067.82 ISK per share. Although, if the various shares were to be valued at achievable sales figures, I think a few shares might have a lower portfolio value. Bit more; Varo Jan's Investment page is also missing the C-R-A paid dividend that I previously mentioned (" C-R-A made a dividend payment 2009.11.03 of 150 ISK per share according to my wallet"). While I would not completely write-off CCMS2 and CCMS3 just yet, I feel it is correct to enter it in the books as written off at this time. --
Amarr Citizen 155 Nordar Innovations.	Posted - 2009.12.08 16:44:00 - [73] Originally by: Varo Jan Conning depositors into cashing in their deposits for 30% when they¦re worth at least 40% is a shabby move, to put it mildly. Originally by: Varo Jan A degree of write-offs is inevitable in a bankruptcy situation. What¦s not acceptable is tactics designed either to unfairly sequester deposits or tactics designed to deceive depositors into accepting less than their deposits are worth. I know I've said it before and others have as well, but the withdraw option is a ****ty one that people shouldn't take unless they aren't willing to wait for things to get better. No one is conning anyone into taking advantage of the withdraw option. No one is trying to deceive depositors into withdrawing their funds and taking the loss. People asked for a withdraw option and the best possible one given the current situation was given. As far as "unfairly sequester deposits", we are still working on how to avoid hurting the innocent and nothing is set in stone. There's more to it than just reading some threads and coming up with your own opinion that must be right because its yours. But again there is information that we are operating on that you don't have access to. Perhaps you have submitted an application for one of the open positions? Titan BPC Auction Thread
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2009.12.08 23:56:00 - [74] Originally by: Marcus Baltar Originally by: Marcus Baltar I think Varo Jan's Investment page is very accurate based on the information supplied by EBANK, except it still lists a dividend income from AATP and the AATP NAV was last listed at 23,067.82 ISK per share. Although, if the various shares were to be valued at achievable sales figures, I think a few shares might have a lower portfolio value. Bit more; Varo Jan's Investment page is also missing the C-R-A paid dividend that I previously mentioned (" C-R-A made a dividend payment 2009.11.03 of 150 ISK per share according to my wallet"). While I would not completely write-off CCMS2 and CCMS3 just yet, I feel it is correct to enter it in the books as written off at this time. I¦ve adjusted the forecast monthly dividend income from C-R-A. I¦ve not changed the AATP figures provided by EBank as they¦re Ray¦s own shares. Mind, you¦d think he¦d know the initial price of his own shares. There are still a few blanks to fill in on initial share prices. Considering the personal circumstances of Calgorac, and the time since he last posted, I doubt that EVE figures in his life any more. I agree that a number of investments are likely to have a lower current sales value. However, given the small size of the portfolio in the balance sheet, I didn¦t feel that any changes were likely to be material. One shareholding, Ihatalo R&D Bond, provides 50% of forecast dividend income. Most of the others provide less than 5% per month, a return that EBank ought to be able to better with its ventures. My personal view is that they should all be sold.
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2009.12.10 17:15:00 - [75] Ricdic stole 250 billion, according to Ebank¦s financials. I know some of his assets were put up for sale in the Sell forum. How much has been made to-date on those sales and where is that reflected in EBank¦s financials? Or have the profits been taken by a venture and so don¦t appear on EBank¦s financials? Did he steal from EBank proper, or did he steal from a venture? If the latter, why is EBank shouldering the loss? I take it Ray is still banned from the forums. Was his account also banned? If so, has this affected his ability to run EBank?
RAW23	Posted - 2009.12.10 18:17:00 - [76] Originally by: Varo Jan I take it Ray is still banned from the forums. Was his account also banned? If so, has this affected his ability to run EBank? His account is definitely active and he has been in-game today.
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2009.12.11 00:33:00 - [77] Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 I know I've said it before and others have as well, but the withdraw option is a ****ty one that people shouldn't take unless they aren't willing to wait for things to get better. 1.9 trillion total deposits. 147 billion annual profits, assuming 5% from ventures, loans remain at current levels , and a couple of other things. No one is conning anyone into taking advantage of the withdraw option. No one is trying to deceive depositors into withdrawing their funds and taking the loss. People asked for a withdraw option and the best possible one given the current situation was given. As far as "unfairly sequester deposits", we are still working on how to avoid hurting the innocent and nothing is set in stone. There's more to it than just reading some threads and coming up with your own opinion that must be right because its yours. But again there is information that we are operating on that you don't have access to. Perhaps you have submitted an application for one of the open positions?
Marcus Baltar	Posted - 2010.01.26 15:21:00 - [78] Varo you need to update these "alternative" stats. EBANK has sold 2,500 of their Titans4U holding, and increased their Cosmoray bond holding by 4,500, all at 1,000,000 ISK per share/bond. EBANK have managed to enter the BIG bonds on the P&L "forescast", but still not managed to cancel the forecast income on several others (although they have zeroed the share values). --
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2010.01.26 15:33:00 - [79] So someone is still looking at them. :) Sure, no problem. I¦ll update them at the end of the month, or thereabouts. I¦m a bit busy with the One Stop buyout at the moment. Mind you, it would be far simpler if Ray made his own official accounts more accurate, and that isn¦t a big job. Need some advice, Ray?
Marcus Baltar	Posted - 2010.01.26 15:40:00 - [80] Originally by: Varo Jan So someone is still looking at them. :) Sure, no problem. I¦ll update them at the end of the month, or thereabouts. I¦m a bit busy with the One Stop buyout at the moment. Mind you, it would be far simpler if Ray made his own official accounts more accurate, and that isn¦t a big job. Need some advice, Ray? Actually, I am using my own version. They have pretty graphs too. Although what the graphs show is not so pretty. Asset to Liability Ratio: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=ty4kmZCn8bXiZ2_JXcO0l-w&single=true&gid=1&output=html --



Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.