EVE Search - reserved

All Channels

Market Discussions

reserved

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bad Bobby The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels	Posted - 2010.03.05 08:47:00 - [31] Originally by: Keyser Kahn Sent an additional 2.35B to Bad Bobby Unless my reading comprehension fails that should bring the fund up to full operational capacity. Have fun o/ Confirmed. 500m sent to Baldr Odinsson.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries United Corporations Of Modern Eve	Posted - 2010.03.05 10:43:00 - [32] Originally by: Keyser Kahn Sent an additional 2.35B to Bad Bobby Unless my reading comprehension fails that should bring the fund up to full operational capacity. Have fun o/ Here he comes to save the day :)
Keyser Kahn Stellar-Parallax Corp	Posted - 2010.03.05 12:29:00 - [33] Originally by: Ji Sama Originally by: Keyser Kahn Sent an additional 2.35B to Bad Bobby Unless my reading comprehension fails that should bring the fund up to full operational capacity. Have fun o/ Here he comes to save the day :) nah just couldn't resist the juicy ROI... Fake Edit: doh just re-read OP - lols
Bad Bobby The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels	Posted - 2010.03.05 13:42:00 - [34] Originally by: Keyser Kahn just couldn't resist the juicy ROI... Fake Edit: doh just re-read OP - lols I'm promissing nothing, but if the enterprise that I am investing this isk into does well enough to justify it I will consider raising the interest payment and directing the extra percentiles to the donor's pockets rather than the auditor's.
SetrakDark DarkCorp Holdings	Posted - 2010.03.05 14:31:00 - [35] Originally by: Keyser Kahn Sent an additional 2.35B to Bad Bobby Unless my reading comprehension fails that should bring the fund up to full operational capacity. Have fun o/ Wow...dude...amazing generosity. Thanks.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries United Corporations Of Modern Eve	Posted - 2010.03.05 15:02:00 - [36] Originally by: SetrakDark Originally by: Keyser Kahn Sent an additional 2.35B to Bad Bobby Unless my reading comprehension fails that should bring the fund up to full operational capacity. Have fun o/ Wow...dude...amazing generosity. Thanks. Yea he is like that ;)
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2010.03.05 16:14:00 - [37] Sweet :) Free jumpclone service\|874 stations - Truly Universal
SetrakDark DarkCorp Holdings	Posted - 2010.03.05 16:17:00 - [38] We are now active. A huge thanks to everyone who contributed input, time, money, anything.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries United Corporations Of Modern Eve	Posted - 2010.03.08 06:21:00 - [39] Yes, a huge thank you to all the donators for making this happen :) Fund is now LIVE. Clients and Auditors, apply now :)
Magnu Stormhawk Stormhawk Enterprises	Posted - 2010.03.08 12:30:00 - [40] Congrats on the launch - It's a great initiative.
SetrakDark DarkCorp Holdings	Posted - 2010.03.11 02:43:00 - [41] Edited by: SetrakDark on 11/03/2010 02:43:44 Originally by: SetrakDark Edited by: SetrakDark on 11/03/2010 01:24:54 March Activity Tracker ->500m disbursed from Executor to Chairman - 5th ->Troy Industries - 10th -Participation confirmed; approval vote started - 10th -Approved; auditor selection started - 10th For those interested parties, this will be the nature of the transparency effort tracking all the Fund's activity.
Ave Volta Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2010.03.11 07:06:00 - [42] Nice to see the fund being put into action, I wish it the best. I'm curious, since it sounds like there will be multiple auditors working on the Troy Industries offer, will the all the individual auditors release their own results / report? Or will they be combined into a comprehensive report highlighting key points and standouts from each audit? Reading through detailed audit results can be time consuming even for a single audit so it might be nice to get a summary if it's feasable. Just my 0.02 isk -------------------------------- chown -R us:us /yourbase
SetrakDark DarkCorp Holdings	Posted - 2010.03.11 12:43:00 - [43] No, there will only be one auditor.
Drachiel	Posted - 2010.03.13 01:44:00 - [44] I would like to apply for an audit in relation to my bond at http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1283788
SetrakDark DarkCorp Holdings	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:31:00 - [45] Originally by: Drachiel I would like to apply for an audit in relation to my bond at http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1283788 From reading your thread as of 5 minutes ago, it seems you no longer require our services. Please let us know if this is not the case or if circumstances change.
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:52:00 - [46] Originally by: Drachiel I would like to apply for an audit in relation to my bond at http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1283788 One flaw in your proposal is that you want to use the loaned isk for station trading and buying a ratting ship. It seems you've already managed to get the requested amount, but an improvement to your offer would've been to use all the loaned isk for trading and funding the ratting ship from your own cash. In that case it's also clear what an audit should show (that you're making money actively trading); the ratting ship would complicate things, as the audit would not only have to show that you're making money trading and ratting but also that the trading and ratting are a sensible combination (could you have made more isk just trading, or just ratting?). Since you don't seem to need the audit to get the cash, I'd suggest you run your loan and arrange for an audit near the end, to confirm that you did with the cash what you said you'd do. As far as I'm concerned you could apply to the fund for such an after-the-fact audit, but the decision on whether or not to grant it is up to the BoD as always. Free jumpclone service\|924 stations - 6000+ users
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries United Corporations Of Modern Eve	Posted - 2010.03.16 09:13:00 - [47] 60M sent from Baldr Odinsson to Lord Arbalest! Reason: Audit Approved
Abervest	Posted - 2010.03.17 05:01:00 - [48] what is a reasonable price for an audit? I have not contacted any auditors for a price check, nor am i attempting a fund/bond/loan at this time, Im just curious how much an audit would cost. What kind of range is there? I know its most likely based on how many characters/accounts are in need of auditing, but theres a baseline somewhere. and if this isnt an appropriate place to ask, point me in the right direction please.
Ji Sama Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries United Corporations Of Modern Eve	Posted - 2010.03.17 09:49:00 - [49] 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
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.03.17 10:16:00 - [50] 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? - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Estel Arador Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services	Posted - 2010.03.17 10:27:00 - [51] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha 60-100M per account? And this is further paid by the fund? The BoD decides on a case by case basis how much the fund will contribute. The price of an audit will depend on the complexity of the offer and on the number of accounts involved. I'd say it'd be about 50M for a simple offer involving one account and 150M for a complex offer involving multiple accounts, which is more or less in line with what Ji said (his assessment might be a bit higher). Free jumpclone service\|924 stations - 6000+ users
SetrakDark DarkCorp Holdings	Posted - 2010.03.17 10:50:00 - [52] Originally by: Abervest and if this isnt an appropriate place to ask, point me in the right direction please. For lack of a better place, besides maybe it's own thread, here is fine. However, I'll stress that you're asking the opinion of 5 individuals who agree on a price or an acceptable price range on a case by case basis, and only from the demand side. We don't set a fee schedule institutionally, and it would violate our mandate if we were too attempt to control audit prices. Furthermore, other people are welcome to weigh in here with their own opinions on prices. As to my personal opinion, a fact-verification audit can g as low as maybe 5-10m. However, I think a basic background check and plan verification/evaluation should run from 40m-150m, depending mostly on the number of accounts but also on numerous other factors.
RAW23	Posted - 2010.03.17 11:44:00 - [53] 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.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.03.17 13:09:00 - [54] 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. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
RAW23	Posted - 2010.03.17 13:26:00 - [55] 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.
SetrakDark DarkCorp Holdings	Posted - 2010.03.17 15:19:00 - [56] It's a case of market failure. Unfortunately, we have no mechanisms for intervening except charitable subsidies, either from auditors in the form of unpaid/underpaid service or from a charitable trust subsidizing audits. Therefore, instead of relying on the charity of auditors to keep things running, we're relying on the charity of donors who either identify some self-interest or pleasure from helping others. I strongly believe that it's better to rely on the generosity of a few patrons and support some semblance of a auditing profession than to rely on the generosity of those willing to do unpaid or underpaid audits. With the Fund we've just laid the incentive for more auditors and better auditing; next we have to remove some of the informational barriers and defunct conventions that impede interested people from auditing. As far as "pricing out" audit buyers, everyone was already "priced out", we're actually opening access up to people.
Varo Jan Caravanserai Consulting	Posted - 2010.03.18 12:04:00 - [57] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha All those not helped by the fund are going to have to ask for bargain basement fees. Rubbish. I performed two audits for newish players recently. The bonds were sub-one billion. Both paid the fees requested without demur, one paid for a performance audit too. Quote: 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. Ah, the dilemma. And it sounds like a long term lose / lose situation. Please. Enough with your usual overly-complicated alarmist stuff. Why can't you drop the hair shirt and ashes approach for once and try a more constructive approach?
Liberty Eternal	Posted - 2010.03.18 12:19:00 - [58] Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 18/03/2010 12:19:22 Charity is good - even the most hardened capitalist will tell you that, so long as it is for a worthy cause. Nothing is more worthy than the pursuit of profit and the creation of new wealth and capital. VV, your moral equivocations need to be reigned in - you are approaching the borderline that separates the strong, morally upright people from the degenerate and the confused. When it comes to the pursuit of profit, there is every reason to have faith in the charity of the wealthy - so have faith
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.03.18 14:39:00 - [59] Quote: Please. Enough with your usual overly-complicated alarmist stuff. Why can't you drop the hair shirt and ashes approach for once and try a more constructive approach? Now, look at who broke balls left and right about auditing for months, before others jumped on the bandwagon, and look at the effects (this very fund is a derivation of months of crying and pushing people into awareness, because I don't know how to do it different). Finally, you are going to have an easy life with new people asking for audits because all those who are asking me, I tell them to go and ask at you anyway.
SetrakDark DarkCorp Holdings	Posted - 2010.03.19 04:49:00 - [60] After completing our first test as a working institution, we'd like to propose a small change resulting from our experience. The BoD will no longer be selecting auditors; rather we will be approving or disapproving a manager's auditor selection. This approval will take the form of ensuring that the donors' money is not wasted on clearly unqualified or under-qualified audits, leaving the rest in the hands of the person to whom it matters the most. The impetus for this change is primarily procedural. The original auditor selection method was put in place for its straightforwardness. However, it requires a lot of back and forth both internally and externally, especially with subsidized audits, to ensure that a mutually satisfactory arrangement is made. By allowing the manager to make his own decision within the Fund's acceptable limits, we prevent the Fund's participation from becoming a burden to those we try to help. Our standard is to ensure that our donors' money isn't wasted, everything else should be at the manager's discretion, as it is his offer. Thematically, this change represents a lessening of the Fund's centrality in auditing, which was an almost unanimously supported position in the discussion of and formation of the Fund. Relevant changes: Managers The managers of eligible offers will be contacted by a Director to confirm their interest in receiving a free or subsidized audit, or managers may contact the Fund in advance of an offer. The Directors will then confirm or deny the offer's eligibility after reviewing the offer and a brief Q&A period. Approved offers will be quoted the Fund's contribution, which is predicated on the BoD's final approval of the manager's auditor selection. Managers are encouraged to inform themselves of the nature of audits and this Fund before making any decisions. Auditors The Fund's contribution will be quoted to the manager for each approved offer. It is then at the manager's discretion to negotiate the terms of the audit. However, the Fund's contribution requires final approval of the auditor selection by the BoD. Auditors with no experience are encouraged to perform voluntary fact-check audits (under the 001 Audits Program (link)) on very small offers to hone their skills and create a public record of their work. Mandate To approve a manager's auditor selection and provide payment for completed audits Process An audit contribution will be quoted for the offer. The BoD will then approve or disapprove of the manager's auditor selection

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: 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.