| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
RAW23
   |
Posted - 2010.03.04 20:35:00 -
[1]
Patience Ji - the thread has only been up for 2 days.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 00:55:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Skarii TuThess
You could cover the amount for now, and have any further donations up to 2.35bn outstanding replace this cover?
This is an excellent idea to get things going. In my opinion it is desirable that we have as many donors from outside the board as possible to ensure that the fund does appear as a public institution and not a toy belonging to the directors, so it would be great, and very generous, if you could provide what's needed to get things started quickly but without abandoning or prejudicing the drive. People need to know that the fund does still need their donations and that investors can't expect to have an indefinite free ride on TMPI's back.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 11:44:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Originally by: Ji Sama
Edited by: Ji Sama on 17/03/2010 09:49:07
I would say 60-100M per audit*! Not counting continious pay for perfomance audits etc.
edit: * per account
60-100M per account? And this is further paid by the fund? 
As Estel and Setrak have emphasised, the fund will decide its contribution on a case by case basis. But Ji's estimate seems in the right sort of range.
VV - One of the purposes of the audit fund is to help subsidise these costs so as to make auditing a more attractive career option. Supporting bargain basement fees would be counter productive from this perspective. That's not to say we would cover the full cost for expensive audits, only that we can help to make a lengthy and involved audit something other than charity work on the auditor's behalf.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:26:00 -
[4]
Edited by: RAW23 on 17/03/2010 13:27:16
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 17/03/2010 13:09:35
Quote:
VV - One of the purposes of the audit fund is to help subsidise these costs so as to make auditing a more attractive career option. Supporting bargain basement fees would be counter productive from this perspective
Well, look at another perspective: all those not helped by the fund are going to have to ask for bargain basement fees.
The investee is going to shell basically nothing, the auditor is getting paid quite well. The other auditors instead would have to have the investee spend much more (the whole thing actually) and thus cannot compete with subsidized costs by far.
Hmm, this is going to be an hairy thing in the long term.
"The auditing profession is not valued enough".
Two possible answers:
- european way (staples to artificially keep agricolture alive)
- pure economy (everyone quits till the profession becomes so rare that people will pay enough to make it worthwhile).
Ah, the dilemma. And it sounds like a long term lose / lose situation.
I take your points but I think the situation here is slightly different. The audit fund does not try to subsidise an economically pointless industry for political and/or social gain. Rather, the idea here is just to ensure, through a voluntary mechanism, that both the parties who gain from audits, the investors and the investees, pay their shares. The fund is funded by donations from the investor community and, as such, does not provide a subsidy but, rather, provides a mechanism for that community to pay for a service that is valuable to it. Of course, there will be free-riders who get the benefit withhout donating, so there is some charitable aspect to the donations (donors are shouldering a slightly larger burden than they would, all things being equal). But as a donor I don't see my donation as simple charity - I am buying a service for myself as my own investment opportunities would suffer in the second scenario you identify (auditors become very rare). Basically, the fund is just a creative attempt to provide market value for a service that is logistically difficult to support due to the multiple beneficiaries involved. The willingness to pay more has the same motivation as upping a buy order for trit in the hope that it will fill quickly, rather than upping a buy order for trit out of a desire to subsidise the mining profession.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.05.01 01:14:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Machete Visor
I would like to apply for an audit. please see my thread at
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1309874
I would like to request an auditor NOT engaged in station trading. Clearly there would be a conflict of interest for anyone engaged in that business.
Wrong criteria for selection. In this case the auditor will need to be at least competent at station trading to evaluate whether your trading patterns match your claims or not. If you want to reject an auditor you need to do it on grounds of trust, not on grounds of access to certain info. If an auditor can't be trusted with this info he can't be trusted at all.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 15:35:00 -
[6]
VV - There is a great deal of abject nonsense in your posts here. You presume to know better than the individual concerned why he is moving on from the fund (even going so far as to say that he is lieing to himself when he corrected your initial incorrect conclusion!!). The flaws in your reasoning are so many as to make the time required to correct you not worth spending (I would bother if anyone else agreed with you but since these errors are so localised they are essentially inconsequential). Your misrepresentation of simple facts is also staggering. Please stop posting such crap as it simply wastes peoples' time to have to read it and puzzle over how to make sense of it, before coming to the conclusion that it is, in fact, largely senseless.
On the upside, yes, the fund could also do other things. Good catch there. Well spotted. I'm sure no one else would have reached such an insightful conclusion without your prompting.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 15:59:00 -
[7]
Personally, I'm willing to make my vote public whenever asked, as long as doing so would not automatically make clear what someone else's vote was against their will.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.08.22 15:43:00 -
[8]
Thanks for carrying the fund this far! As the others have said, wheels are in motion. If you want to check in on the fund board any advice you might want to offer would be gratefully received.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 07:10:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
400m sent to MD Financial Services and all investment has now been returned.
 Nice gesture. Is there any reason you chose to save the fund from collapse? |
| |
|