| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
manufacturing disaster
   |
Posted - 2010.06.25 18:14:00 -
[91]
I agree, the long term plan of the fund, was a community chest of thoughts! This is still possible! Currently though, we voted against expanding capitol of the fund, and we are also currently paying excess funds, back to the contributers, instead of reinvesting, or diversifying our portfolio. However I have not have the time to put anything fourth, at the present time, and currently Setrak is doing all the work in the fund, with the rest of us just riding along! (throwing an educated vote from time to time)
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 05:58:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 26/06/2010 06:03:24
I knew I'd move the stagnant MD waters for those five minutes.
 Quote:
Maybe you should start by explaining how the free market managed to provide you an adequate compensation for your auditing services before the loser welfare committee advertised in this thread came around.
Scammy alt or not, your statements are actually more in depth than some of the other prevedible reactions.
It did, for several months.
To someone who had 2M SP, 20-30M per audit were not bad, expecially since it helped the 2M SP guy also learn things about the game as collateral consequences.
Then both audits and pay increased over time, up to a ceiling. The ceiling is determined by the maximum payment expectancy. The majority of those needing an audit are not the 100B bond issuers, they are more of the 500M-8B crowd.
This means audits have some upper constraints due to the low-ish amounts involved. Outliers would be those fat operations but as I posted days ago, the fat operations are in the hands of a quite restricted number of people who are "Just Trusted" and thus little money can be made with them.
Therefore, once you get to like 100M, it becomes increasingly harder to keep up auditing revenue with YOUR "other ways" own earning income capability. This becomes expecially true in periods where good investees are less around and all you get are low-value and low-hope-to-make-it offers.
So, to cut it short, the free market yielded adequate compensation (not just in "bare ISKs") up to a point and then it ceiled. This is a pattern I can recognize in most "were-auditors".
Quote:
Your nice little payment scheme gives the auditor reason to want the offering getting filled, no matter what he discovered while looking through the information available to him.
Demand and offer, greed and fear aka market, or didn't you notice what happened to whom "passed" too many investees and got a string of scams and got flamed and dissed well and round?
Quote:
but you should never expect to see him trying to grab the attention of his readers while reporting "red flags".
This is what happens with several "public" activities IRL, there's a choice between short term profit and staying in the field because of being universally recognized as honest and reliable.
I don't believe in the existance of 100% no downsides, all good solutions, the above is something that is less subsidized than what we got.
As of now - and I am surprised you missed it - we get what instead? Auditors who are "paid anyway" (edit: this is regardless of this fund) who get less kick to deliver a quality work. There's not a feedback between pay and outcome and see how it works well in IRL.
Quote:
"doing something beyond BoD clerk makes less directors want to quit".
How many directors 'want to quit'? How many cited 'BoD clerk' as the reason?
Feel free to stop lying to yourself, in the meanwhile enjoy how it's nice to have done criticism on you since you usually impose it on the others and yet don't invest to put your wallet where tongue is.
Quote:
Profits are pathetic in most cases. 2B at 5% would barely give the auditor fair compensation, if he got all of the profits
Then something is wrong with "2B", "5%" or "fair compensation". Does not mean it deserve protectionism. Milk producers at least got the excuse they often do it since generations and invested lifetimes in their operations. Internet spaceship gamers who can switch at day's notice? No.
If the pay is too low it is because of market:
- current auditors income capabilities outgrew the small new investments sizes.
- no one gives a toss about it.
- their role is not seen as "worth enough" to grant an higher price.
=> Auditors close down shop. Some have the gonads to cut it.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 05:59:00 -
[93]
You are damaging auditors by (failing to tbh) keeping their numbers high and their game low value. You are just doing the game of lazy and investors who don't want to pay for risk information and who ALWAYS believe larger investments = 10000% safe investee and therefore auditors have little hope to see scaling up income off a 40-50B operation.
Auditors will be fixed the day they can say: "I could have <missioned | ratted | whatever> in these 4 hours, but an audit came up and mere convenience pushes me to do it instead of the above activities".
Failing the above is failing the profession. Auditors are not "zero day miners" who don't have a clue and therefore work at a sensible loss. After a while of being talked "responsibility" and "be useful for the community" they do learn they are being USED and underpaid.
The fact you see "2B, 5%" or whatever, does not mean a toss, for the SAME reason a trader won't give a toss on a tiny volume, tiny spread market. He just switches over to something better.
Quote:
This would be an entirely different organization. I encourage you to let loose the power of competition and create this organization yourself. Then we can let the free market decide between the two
The rest was obvious, so I skip your little wall like you skipped mine. About this quote, it shows you are acting out of reality like RL Bruxelles "institutions".
No. One. Gives. A. F***.
Except me, you and possibly an handful of other delusional people over MD.
Your fund is being ignored until it's time to get some clearly out-of-market investment rolling, then you are called to subsidize an audit on it.
What's wrong is exactly that: you are the "NPC insurance of investments", when one is not good or strong enough they resort to you.
Did Julian Koll need to be subsidized to show off he had the 'nads to be trusted?
Did James Tundra?
Did Brock Nelson?
Did Priue Nvidess?
Or a large number of others? No, they just HTFU and by doing that they shown they were worth the trust.
By catering to the lowliest all we got in the last months are pathetic, bad made little bonds with no care.
By subsidizing all you got is that instead of a professional customer => auditor relation we got to the point of getting bulk mailed for "just a quick and cheap audit" like we are commodities.
Now, listen to Breaker77 and Ji Sama, they can give good advice and they are "interns" therefore will want to spend kinder words with you than I'd ever want to.
Quote:
if you want to change the entire organization, as in VV's case, it would be easier to just start a new one
There are fantastic attorneys and fantastic law firms. Not every fantastic attorney is due to be any good at being a CEO and organize others.
I neither have the time, nor the motivation to start a new organization, this is why I am spending time to write here instead of doing it.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 10:29:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
"doing something beyond BoD clerk makes less directors want to quit".
How many directors 'want to quit'? How many cited 'BoD clerk' as the reason?
Feel free to stop lying to yourself, in the meanwhile enjoy how it's nice to have done criticism on you since you usually impose it on the others and yet don't invest to put your wallet where tongue is.
You made a statement, I asked you to support it. If a personal attack is all the 'support' you can give for the statement, the statement probably is the BS I thought it was.
Free jumpclone service|1092 stations! |
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 15:27:00 -
[95]
Actually the main point of the audit fund was to increase pay for auditors.
As VV pointed out most of the people needing audits are in the low offering range (5 bil or less). For someone needing an audit for a 1 billion offering, sometimes 100 million is tough to come up with. This was supposed to subsidize that payment to get more offerings (hopefully better offerings) available.
It's not our fault that when an auditor is contacted they just tell the guy, hey I'll do it for 50 million. They should make a quote that will cover their time, within reason. Obviously most people, or the fund, won't payout 200 million for a 1 billion offering.
The biggest issue, which it has always been, is that no matter what, auditing takes a lot of time and is low paying.
No one wants to do an audit that covers 3 accounts, verify all those transactions, and takes 10 hours for 50 or even 100 million ISK. On the other side though is no one can really afford to pay the 50 million, or more, and hour for the actual time spent doing an audit.
TLDR version: Everyone wants audits, no one wants to pay the real value for them.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 15:35:00 -
[96]
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.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 17:51:00 -
[97]
Quote:
It's not our fault that when an auditor is contacted they just tell the guy, hey I'll do it for 50 million. They should make a quote that will cover their time, within reason. Obviously most people, or the fund, won't payout 200 million for a 1 billion offering.
I see you went beyond my terrible writing style and got to the juice.
And you are right! And even encomiable!
But... there is a problem at hand: demand for auditing vs offer. It's JUST that.
Auditing has a base price, offerings have a ceiling price for paying audits.
Auditing is long to learn, puts you on the fence every time you post and audit *AND* when you post for anything else (as people will be quick replying how you being an auditor <insert here freedom-cutting sentence about what they think an auditor should or should not do / think / say>).
It's also long to perform, in case you do a less than brutally primitive investment.
Then we have an "NPC price" alike support level: auditors are supposed to know the game well enough to know how to earn their own income.
I mean, if I audited 10 traders, I am kinda expected to have a clue about how to find a profitable market, a good station and so on. So, on paper, his cost of opportunity has a baseline determined by popular money making activities.
In my case, even resorting to brainless missioning (I often get home after 14h+ of work + car travel, too tired to do something above amoeba IQ difficulty >_<), my bounty "ticks" are 6-8M each, that is 24M to 32M per hour without even considering the mission reward (2M+), the implants given almost every 16th mission (15-20M), the huge LP (7k per mission, it maps to 3.5M in the most horripilant inefficient toss-dumping articles up to 7M and above - I don't run oversupplied CN) and the loot + salvage, ever present if you loot & salvage on the run (2-4M up to 10M and above per mission).
This means in the worst possible case I make 24 + 2 + 1 + 3.5 + 2 = 32.5M per hour and in the best 32 + 2 + 1 + 7 + 10 = 52M.
I don't even mention "mission blitzing" (or trading or 0.0 plexing) because it'd yield even more.
So, anything below 32M *super safe, never bothered, left in peace* per hour is a bad choice for me or any other 1+ year old player.
Therefore that would be my demand.
Now, on the other side, let's see the offer: for the investee and the investors:
- Auditing is seen as commodity, a sort of "accounting employee", "just copy pasting numbers down", "just looking at the API and reporting the values".
- It's also seen as a bother... as a sort of "we wish it was not needed at all". Moreover, dealing with people like me or Shar can be a shocking experience (!) which only adds to the uncomfortable feeling of having the "tax police at home" checking your drawers.
What can a 500M-4B investee realistically afford anyway? IIRC I have yet to see a single investee with only 1 account. Even minor "actors" have a story of character sales, ship losses. Even the most minor investee has a performance to check (and the number of API entries is the same as the 100B turnover trader) and usually the smallest they are the more intricate their alts: one is in a noob corporation with privileges but just i.e. 1/3 of the stuff is his so you have to manually fiddle with the balances and so on...
Then there's the fact that I'd not accept delivering an audit without an interview with the guy, it tells more than any number will do.
Result? 3-4 hours are really a minimum plausible audit duration, some took me 20+ hours *including the investee explaining and describing why or what stuff happened for the full 20 hours*.
Is the model practicable at all?
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 17:52:00 -
[98]
Is a 500M audit meant to be done with lower standards leading to the hilarious consequence of making it riskier than a 20B bond? The guy losing 250M on a 500M bond is exactly losing 250M like if he participated with said sum on the 20B bond.
Now, how do you subsidize that?
How does having a fund help with having a 500M bond taking maybe 3-4 hours and thus a 100-150M fee?
In this case is working at a severe loss "just to get the bond running at all costs".
Is this a business savy thing to do?
We are meant to do business here, not to lose (generous) investors hundreds of millions so that someone new investee feels RP tychoon regardless of the costs imposed on others.
The "artificial, unreal setting" of all of this matter is what boggles me. It's just not healthy.
Quote:
(I would bother if anyone else agreed with you but since these errors are so localised they are essentially inconsequential).
Thought established people would "get" the obvious provocations tossed to try and liven up the current obitory peaceful state of MD.
(Besides Breaker and Ji Sama who seem brilliant at taking the ball ,as usual), I clearly overestimated them tbh.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Dagny Bronstein
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 18:12:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Dagny Bronstein on 26/06/2010 18:12:38
Neither investors nor business managers seem to be willing to pay a reasonable price for audits.
A few MD regulars, however, have a strong interest in seeing as many offerings as possibles getting audited before launch and they are willing to pay for this. They might not have an interest in each individual offering but they have an interest in the atmosphere of MD as a whole and in order to make this part of the (meta-)game more enjoyable to them they decide to subsidize audits.
The investors & the business manager are glad because they don't have to pay the full price of the audit.
The auditor is glad because he can charge more than he would without the subsidies.
MD regulars are glad because there are less scams cluttering up their beloved forums.
VV shows up and wants to spoil the fun.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 21:45:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 26/06/2010 21:47:38
Quote:
edit: what really annoys me about your posts is that you describe some (perceived) problem (fees are still too low and you don't want to feel like living off welfare) but you don't even try to come up with a solution
The pars construens comes after the pars destruens.
Quote:
If the elders of MD were to say...
The elders of MD were self promoted "MD elites".
There's a new gen of them slowly forming up though, neither the first nor the second ever impressed me a lot.
Quote:
you would again complain about other auditors not charging high enough rates, about investors not demanding audits at any cost (i.e. about small offerings getting not audited at all), about less qualified people entering the scene providing audits at cheap rates so investors can feel comfortable while still making a reasonable profit, ...
I'd just remind them that they get what they are paying for. If they want to waste much money in a scam, in order to save some millions upfront it's not my business nor care.
The fact I often type like a dork does not relate with how I really feel about it.
You could see an apparent rage post while in reality I barely care, this is the price of my ignorance  about good English.
Quote:
but full-scale audits the way you like them so much would only be an option for the big offerings (and those don't tend to get audited, anyways).
Big offerings can be a PITA, they yield more income though. The fact people out there are lemmings who always fall for "REP" savy investees, is not a new factor and it's indeed a great failure both of MD and of us auditors who don't seem to find a relevance beyond small investments.
It has to be said that being on the "wrong side" of the deal (that is being the scary "police" that also takes the investee hard earned cash) makes for a vastly less appealing role.
When one of us speaks, immediately the "well, he got an agenda" comes up, including in this thread.
Quote:
So what is your constructive proposal for change? How would the free market achieve your desired results?
I posted one (for medium investments) in a previous post. For the rest the free market decides, not my "desired results".
My only desired result is that free market remains free, because given the abysmally small size of this whole niche, it's extremely easy to crash or inflate the related market. Exactly like it's easy to manipulate a very low volume item.
Quote:
edit2: one of the premises contained in your posts was that the audit fund is pretty irrelevant to begin with (the stuff about the thread almost getting locked, etc.) - that doesn't fit well with the fund having such a distortive effect on MD that this discussion would be warranted.
As per the above, the effect can be distortive because all it takes is 2-3 individuals teaming up to drive this niche to the sky or to the ground.
Imho, if this is to die, let it die. Don't make zombies.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 01:08:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Ok, time to post some long piece of garbage of mine.
That was excellent, and totally true. You should have stopped there.
Quote:
You could see an apparent rage post while in reality I barely care, this is the price of my ignorance about good English.
That was garbage. You're perfectly capable of stringing short and lucid sentences together. You simply prefer outpourings of verbal diarrhoea.
The fund serves a useful purpose by assisting first-time offerors to pay for audit fees. It's really that simple.
Your multiple rants, on the other hand, served no useful purpose.
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2010.06.29 10:27:00 -
[102]
It is still possible to nominate people.
Free jumpclone service|1092 stations! |
flakeys
DRAMA Inc
|
Posted - 2010.07.01 17:58:00 -
[103]
Just like Mme pinkerton i will not accept the offer unfortunatly.
I have the same reasoning as he/she has.I do not want a seat in any board of directors.I have been offered such a position 3 times over the last year and have declined all of them for the same reason so do not think it has anything to do with where that position comes free but the position itself is what i object to.
Same goes for holding collateral , i have done it once to help out but it was an exception wich will not happen again.
There are enough people on MD who will be glad with such a position and who can have general trust so i am sure the spot get's filled.I am an investor , that is my spot on MD but i thank you for the offer and the trust placed with it and hope you understand my reasoning.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 04:52:00 -
[104]
Taram Caldar has generously offered to spare some of his time to help us out with the Fund. I'm very happy he accepted his nomination as he has shown a keen and unique judgment in evaluating offers. He is an excellent addition to the board in terms of both quality and diversity.
I would also like to thank Estel for his equally sound and diverse opinion, especially during the delicate formative months.
Once again I apologize for the weak presentation, but I just spent my entire Canada Day reinforcing south western Pure Blind, so my brain is mush.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 04:58:00 -
[105]
July Activity Tracker
Surplus Interest disbursed to donors pro rata - July 1st
Taram Caldar elected to a Director's seat - July 1st
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 05:11:00 -
[106]
Originally by: SetrakDark
I'm very happy [Taram Caldar] accepted his nomination as he has shown a keen and unique judgement in evaluating offers.
This.
Quote:
I would also like to thank Estel for his equally sound and diverse opinion, especially during the delicate formative months.
This too.
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 06:45:00 -
[107]
I'll be sending this month's 500m later today.
Can you update me on who I am sending withdrawn isk to and how much? I've liquidated 2.5b in readyness.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 12:32:00 -
[108]
In case of subsidy denial, is it possible to browse / inquire somewhere to learn why? Or what are the rules set used to decide yes or no?
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 12:37:00 -
[109]
500m sent to MD Financial Services.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 15:45:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
In case of subsidy denial, is it possible to browse / inquire somewhere to learn why? Or what are the rules set used to decide yes or no?
You are welcome to question any of the Fund's decisions. In all structural matters the Chairman is obliged to, at the very least, outline the dominant reasoning and the vote tally, if it came to that. He may also elaborate on the argument in-depth, and other directors can always add their personal reasoning.
In the case of actual subsidy and auditor decisions, we reserve the right to keep our vote and reasoning a secret. This arrangement is designed to allow directors complete freedom, autonomy, and comfort of judgment. However, people are welcome to inquire, publicly or privately, and all directors are welcome to discuss their own decision to whatever depth they choose. I personally am open to discussing my reasoning, but reserve the right to not do so.
There are no set rules for personal decision-making. The Fund is designed to operate as five individuals, which is why representative diversity is so important.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 15:59:00 -
[111]
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.
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 17:33:00 -
[112]
Thanks Setrak and Varo, it was nice to be involved in setting this up 
Congrats Taram, and good luck 
Free jumpclone service|1092 stations! |
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
Warped Aggression
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 23:47:00 -
[113]
Thanks guys. Glad to be aboard.
Market Alerts Mailing List
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
manufacturing disaster
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 14:27:00 -
[114]
Welcome abourd mate, glad you decided to tag along :)
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 06:51:00 -
[115]
400m sent to MD Financial Services.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 12:22:00 -
[116]
August Activity Tracker
400m disbursed from Executor to Chairman - August 2nd
Surplus interest disbursed to donors pro rata - August 2nd
|
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 13:59:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Breaker77 on 02/08/2010 13:59:20
Originally by: SetrakDark
August Activity Tracker
400m disbursed from Executor to Chairman - August 2nd
Why did we lose 100 mil interest? The last 3 months was 500 million?
I don't recall receiving a vote on the terms of out investment with him?
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 14:34:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: SetrakDark
August Activity Tracker
400m disbursed from Executor to Chairman - August 2nd
Why did we lose 100 mil interest? The last 3 months was 500 million?
I don't recall receiving a vote on the terms of out investment with him?
2.5b of investment was withdrawn reducing the principle from 12.5b to 10b and the interest from 500m to 400m per month.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
manufacturing disaster
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 14:36:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: SetrakDark
August Activity Tracker
400m disbursed from Executor to Chairman - August 2nd
Why did we lose 100 mil interest? The last 3 months was 500 million?
I don't recall receiving a vote on the terms of out investment with him?
2.5b of investment was withdrawn reducing the principle from 12.5b to 10b and the interest from 500m to 400m per month.
confirming this :)
|
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 14:37:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Breaker77 on 02/08/2010 14:37:30
Originally by: Bad Bobby
2.5b of investment was withdrawn reducing the principle from 12.5b to 10b and the interest from 500m to 400m per month.
Thanks. I'll have to yell at Setrak for not letting us know 
edit: nevermind, I just now found it 
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |