| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
   |
Posted - 2010.06.07 16:34:00 -
[1]
The general problem with such discourse is that you often end up spending way too much time justifying or qualifying your statements, which are often taken out of context or misinterpreted for various reasons.
There is really no contention with the case SencneS was highlighting; the assets were worth around 20b at empire mineral prices, they were valued at 18b on the balance sheet at the time. We received initial offers of 5b and rude demands to gtfo by local residents. The assets eventually sold for 18b after 6 days. They were valued fairly.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 16:59:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
constructive suggestion to EBANK: don't blow your customers' ISK on T2 BPOs.
Obviously T2 BPOs are great assets for a bank because they bring great returns and can be liquidated at a moment's notice if serving withdrawals requires it.
Take asset appreciation into account. Liquid assets aren't a requirement at the moment.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 17:06:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Varo Jan
suggestions
Liquidating under-performing assets is of course a sensible suggestion. However we're currently not looking to return that capital to depositors and thus need to compare the performance of those assets against the performance of other potential investments. Something we do, of course; we recently sold a titan blueprint and ended up investing that ISK into an asset that will out perform it considerably in the mid- to long-term.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 17:53:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Something else - if you were able to sell the 4 Titan BPOs at realistic market prices, would you use the funds generated to repay depositors?
If we could invest within a reasonable period at an acceptable return (being a return higher than that generated by blueprint copying), then no.
Could you tone down the emotive aspects of your replies a bit? Stating that someone is being 'silly and emotional' is bound to get their backs up, especially when they're just stating their reasons for assuming a new stance. Take it for what it is and avoid going down the route we've been down before.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 18:10:00 -
[5]
The task of analysing our various assets, as well as recommending alternative, superior investments falls within the scope of the Knowledge Officer. If you feel you could take on this role, please feel free to forward AC155 or myself a motivational letter.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:09:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
I notice you still haven't answered my comment rgd T2 BPOs
Check again.
For the record, EBANK owns the following T2 Blueprints, and their respective purchase prices:
Helios Blueprint - 60b
Lachesis Blueprint - 40b
Damnation Blueprint - 72b
Nighthawk Blueprint - 75b
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:14:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Varo Jan
What if you converted deposits into shares?
I would be lying if I said that this wasn't a very strong possibility, for reasons I won't get into just yet.
But if you're looking to gear up for some future debates, start thinking along the lines of catering for easy liquidity and a dividend structure that provides for returning the capital write-off to those that remain invested.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:45:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Varo Jan
That's 247B. Why aren't they reflected on the balance sheet? Ventures only amount to 102.8B
Well, as mentioned previously in the question thread, they are, but on the internal version that hasn't been finalised and pushed out to the public set.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 05:30:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Varo Jan
247B for 4 T2 blueprints is another matter. It's a one line entry.
The problem is it isn't, it's several entries as funds were made available from the other ventures as well as sourced through loans.
Originally by: Kalrand
I think they should unironically sell the AATP shares.
AATP have been the best performing asset out of all our investments, dividends are nothing compared to the price growth we've seen in them. T4U we've slowly been selling, and welcome offers at intrinsic or better on the 7.5k we have remaining.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 16:51:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Varo Jan
You'll ease the burden on yourself, have up-to-date finstats to help with decision making, and you'll gain external credibility.
I don't believe those benefits are currently worth the expense and time investment of integrating an external auditor into our operations. Eventually, sure, but not just yet. What we have, with some changes, suits our current requirements.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 09:41:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
banks in Eve will not work.
I agree with you whole-heartedly there.
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
It's really that simple.
It really isn't. I had everything you're stating as my reasons for doing this before I took on the challenge of lolbank.
Originally by: SetrakDark
2) To cut through their bull**** and obfuscation for casual players/readers in an attempt to limit the scope of their next implosion.
I'd be interested in having further constructive dialogue with you. Your posts used to be very upbeat and engaging; until something very quickly caused that to change in the last thread - and I can't put my finger on what it was.
Originally by: cosmoray
Why doesn't EBANK publish the account holder list with their current balances
That won't happen, ever.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 17:14:00 -
[12]
Originally by: cosmoray
What is your realistic timeframe for getting the money back?
Does it matter what my realistic time-frame is? I've always stated that I don't care how long it takes.
However I've also said we'll reassess the situation closer to the original milestone we set of one year, and that if it appeared we were nowhere near achieving the goal we set steps would be taken to rectify that.
And let's face it, we're nowhere near that goal, so steps are being taken.
Fake Edit - I typed more, but realised I might be saying more than I was mandated to, updates will be forthcoming once myself and AC155 manage to get together, and then afterwards over a cigarette discuss the future of lolbank.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 17:20:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Appoint a team of liquidators
EBANK will never, ever liquidate. Let's clear that from the board of constructive suggestions now, so that we might focus on other aspects.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 17:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: RAW23
Will this be the case even if you issue shares (a possibility alluded to in one of your earlier posts in this thread)? I.e. any share issue will be of non-voting shares?
That's a question best saved for future discussion should we go down that route, it has no bearing on the current situation.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 18:32:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Fact is, you're not a functioning bank any more.
Correct. So we adapt.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 16:30:00 -
[16]
Originally by: SetrakDark
Unfortunately, you guys have continued to doddle along showing no real progress except in more make-believe bank structuring and flashy yet contentless presentation.
We never intended the post in question to be such, although I can see how it may be construed that way. When the decision to adjust internal positions was made it was deemed prudent to formalise the structure in some way, especially considering the public nomination process introduced. So what was meant to be just an informative post had some fluff added to it.
Originally by: Jackie Fisher
One suggestion for Ebank ū either keep the public financials up to date or remove them. In their current form they donĘt appear to have much function except as troll food.
Yeah. They'll be changed so that the useful parts remain in some form, and periodic updates will be made to static financial statements.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 16:03:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: RAW23
To say to depositors that it makes a difference to even one director is to encourage them to put in such requests. But Athre has posted literally begging people to stop putting in withdrawal requests, AC has said they are pointless and has also indicated that they are periodically zeroed by Ray.(extremely confusing).
Which reiterates my point: A coherent, consistent, and transparent policy regarding means by which depositors can gradually untangle themselves from this morass.
The policy has been explicitly outlined in previous announcements. The advisement was that depositors would be informed when they can begin liquidation withdrawals, nothing has changed since then.
If people want to easily confuse themselves by reading too much into a director's discourse then that is their prerogative, it certainly isn't mine to keep stating that unless something is in an official announcement it is nothing but that director's opinion.
If it is contradictory, then refer to the announcement.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 16:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: RAW23
Actually, if you check AC's most recent announcement, the policy is now that liquidation withdrawals have been shelved completely.
I missed that, assume it never happened. /me waves Jedi hand.
There have been a few slips in this thread that I am responsible for, AC155 was just pre-empting the inevitable change with that statement.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 16:43:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
Could it be communication fault, oblivion or unthoughtful speaking, but those are discrepancies that should not arise or amended when they do.
Discrepancies are bound to occur, taking the time to publicly amend each and every one is unproductive. If SencneS is measuring something with a curved stick, then so be it; it certainly isn't official bank policy. If it came up in an internal discussion regarding the formulation of official bank policy then it would be corrected.
So once again, unless it is officially announced as policy it is merely opinion, which is bound to differ between individuals.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 16:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jamie Banks
Instead of dealing with Reliable, but capital heavy investments which are very hard to liquidate profitably and quickly (Read Titan BPOs and T2 BPOs in my opinion, the Bank should slowly move towards more easily resaleable options. For example, why doesn't the bank do some economic forecasting and speculate with mineral prices and whatnot. I don't care what you do, but you are in a phase of liquidation. You need to move away from the very expensive but hard to move assets into lots more very easily liquidated assets. This would probably involve much more effort, so has to be taken into account.
Your suggestions are perfect, except we're not in a phase of liquidation. For what the board has decided as its long-term strategy our current investment focus is well suited.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 11:52:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Varo Jan
So you tie depositors (aka shareholders in New EBVentures) down with around 500B in illiquid and possibly overstated assets. I suspect your share conversion proposal and business break up proposal will not go down well. Just a feeling.
Hardly illiquid and overstated. Titan BPOs are illiquid, T2 Blueprints aren't as hard to sell as people suggest (and appreciate rather than depreciate over time).
And yeah, whilst some parts of the new proposal will be welcomed there will be much to vilify me over.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.06.16 14:37:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Varo Jan
When will you be announcing the new proposal?
I need to check some things with AC, then get it down on paper, have the board review, put it through a peer review process, board vote, post.
|
| |
|