| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
RAW23
   |
Posted - 2010.06.06 19:23:00 -
[1]
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/06/2010 19:34:30
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/06/2010 19:31:08
I have been reflecting on the principles of diplomacy a bit in the past week due to various international events, including the recent election and the resultant coalition government in the UK. One approach that has struck me as being an extremely useful tactic in discussions between parties who fundamentally disagree over important issues is to separate those issues out and deal with different topics in isolated contexts so that conflict in one area need not poison discussions in all other areas too.
It seems to me that this might be a useful approach for furthering the exchange of views between EBANK and the public. There is already a thread called Some Polite Questions in which interested parties can ask factual questions about EBANK's financials. So far EBANK staff have been very forthcoming in answering questions that are posed politely and I would like to keep that thread that way if at all possible. So, the purpose of this thread is to corral public suggestions about the way forward for EBANK's operations in one place. Please post here if you have any constructive suggestions for the EBANK board on how to recover as efficiently and quickly as possible. This might also be a good forum for anyone who wants to publicly set out their stall for the Chairmanship of the bank.
Please remember, this is not an official EBANK thread. You cannot post here in the expectation of getting a response from one of their staff members. However, I do hope they will at least peruse the suggestions whether or not they respond to or comment on them.
This is also not the place to discuss the moral rights and wrongs of EBANK's decisions. For those who wish to discuss these very important questions, I would ask you to please do so in a third thread. Such discussions are likely to be the most contentious and it would be a shame to mix them in with issues that are more likely to be resolvable and thus undermine the possibility of dialogue in all areas.
One suggestion has already been made in the other thread but I would ask that any further discussion of it be carried on here please. Obviously, everyone is free to do as they please but I hope at least some people will see the logic of keeping things compartmentalised in this way and will play ball.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 19:48:00 -
[2]
When the issues first came to light last August (iirc), I was a firm believer in liquidation.
The reason was because I thought it would take about 3 years to earn the money back for depositors, during which time a high proportion of the players would have left the game so would not benefit.
At the time return on some of the good investments was about 7-10% per month which made the 2 year time frame possible.
Moving forward to June 2010.
IMO the EBANK financial situation has gotten worse
I believe this IS NOT EBANK'S fault.
I think EBANK's recovery was based on possible return available to the BOD at the time, and most of the investments that were made were solid.
Since last August the returns achievable on a large amount of ISK (if NOT actively traded) are under 5% per month, and usually under 4%.
Also since last August more of EBANK's businesses are suffering as a result of the previous administration which will result in further write downs.
If EBANK's position is about 750B it has not significantly moved in a year, and even compunded 4% return per month would take a further 28 months to reach 2T. History has shown that compound growth on this sort of scale is almost impossible. If we double that time frame full solvency won't be reached for 4 - 5 years and that would benefit no one.
If EBANK seriously thinks full solvency can be reached quicker I would like them to share how this is possible.
My position I think is still in favor of liquidation, but I am not sure what the BOD are really trying to achieve or what was their thought processes on keeping the bank alive vs liquidation. This brings me back to my questions from 2 months ago which EBANK promised it would answer:
1. It is important to restore full solvency, rather than liquidate?
2. Does BOD think current approach is best for customers?
3. If turnaround is long term, how that benefits people leaving game?
4. What happens to capital when people have clearly left at the turnaround point?
5. Why haven't some large customers been asked their opinions on future?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 19:57:00 -
[3]
Re: Varo's suggestion that all underperforming assets should be liquidated to allow for withdrawals at a % based on the current asset/liability ratio, this strikes me as having merit for a number of reasons. First and foremost, at current returns these assets will take a phenomenal amount of time to generate the c. 200% profits that will be needed overall to get back in the black. But if liquidated and withdrawn they would instantly turn that profit by removing a huge amount of liabilities from the books (assuming people take up the withdrawal option).
This also has a secondary effect: whilst the remaining asset/liability ratio will initially remain the same, the remaining assets will provide a much greater % rate of return than the current assets taken together. The remaining debt will thus be recovered far more quickly. Those who wish to stay in for the long haul will, then, not only be protected from a run destroying the bank and any chance of recovering all their money but will, in fact, be benefited greatly by the improved returns. Those that want out are happy and those who want to stay in are also happy. Anyone who doesn't want out but doesn't manage to get a withdrawal processed will also still be better off than before even if they aren't exactly happy.
|
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 20:27:00 -
[4]
Edited by: TornSoul on 06/06/2010 20:28:29
One of the things I have always wondered about is why people are so upset about the time frame (years) of recovery.
Currently the ROI on an expensive T2 BPO is around 3 years - This is pretty much the defacto "industry standard" for these.
The kind of people who would have a significant amount of ISK stuck in EBANK is likely to be exactly the same people who would not blink at the prospect of a 3 year ROI on a T2 BPO.
(Yes I'm sure theres the occasional exception - But thats what they are - Exceptions)
Personally if I had 10B stuck in EBANK (I don't) I honestly wouldn't have a problem waiting that time frame to receive *all* my ISK rather than 40% (or whatever is the current estimate)
It sucks yes - But so does getting only 4B out of 10B.
And now, almost a year later, the impact of the "loss"/"lack of access to" the ISK surely must have been reduced to being negligible, and thus can't be influencing whatever day to day business is being conducted.
Now granted, there's likely to be an enormous majority of people *not* falling into the above mentioned category.
But for them it must be even more true : The current impact of not having access to their (relatively small amount of) ISK surely can't be felt.
So what's the BIG Deal with waiting for a full pay out?
Is it about "the principle of the thing" or what is it? (A principle I'm not sure what would be)
Or simply "b.itching for b.itchings sake"?
Genuinely curious and not pointing fingers or anything, it has just always puzzled me.
BIG Lottery |
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 20:37:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: TornSoul
One of the things I have always wondered about is why people are so upset about the time frame (years) of recovery.
Suspense1,187,742,101,598
|
Mme Pinkerton
United Engineering Services
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 20:41:00 -
[6]
Originally by: RAW23
One approach that has struck me as being an extremely useful tactic in discussions between parties who fundamentally disagree over important issues is to separate those issues out and deal with different topics in isolated contexts so that conflict in one area need not poison discussions in all other areas too.
Stripped of all EVE-related context that idea would not work really well in practice - the result of diplomacy is usually trading concessions in one area against favors in another one.
This can only work if the different topics are viewed as parts of one big picture, if you just go for isolated negotiations on each single topic you might end up with the majority of these negotiations ending to your disadvantage (and you don't consider the relative priority between different topics while negotiating the terms for each single one) - and that's something no politician would ever settle for.
If there are heavy differences between parties trying to negotiate a cooperation IRL the general procedure is to follow your proposal BUT (a) the people doing these (pre-)negotiations are often officials or politicians from the 2nd/3rd row, they are not the people who have escalated the conflict in the first place or those who have the power to make any binding agreements and (b) the different topics and results of these discussions are at the end of the process (or each stage of the process in longer negotiations) weighted against each other by the leading heads of the parties in negotiation -- and at that point more or less every agreement from the pre-negotiations can be overthrown (sending the officials into panicky frenzy) if that seems to be feasible/or necessary to reach some sort of over-all balance.
Discussing isolated topics certainly is a good idea to get some feeling for the position of the other side and for its general willingness to make concessions - but this approach will never lead to satisfactory results unless overridden by "big-picture" negotiations and bartering.
|
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 20:48:00 -
[7]
Originally by: SetrakDark
Originally by: TornSoul
One of the things I have always wondered about is why people are so upset about the time frame (years) of recovery.
Suspense1,187,742,101,598
If that somehow answers my question I'm afraid I don't get it.
Could you elaborate? (or is it just a troll?)
BIG Lottery |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 20:54:00 -
[8]
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/06/2010 20:56:32
Originally by: TornSoul
Genuinely curious and not pointing fingers or anything, it has just always puzzled me.
I don't really want to get into the rights and wrongs of their decisions in this thread but very briefly, the time concern comes from the fact that the attrition rate in eve, as in all games, is fairly high. People play for a bit and then, in most cases, stop playing, so the number of EBANK's depositors who will actually be around to collect the full-payout diminishes over time. Anyone who stops playing before they receive their money back has essentially lost it all in that they will never be able to benefit from any of the money whilst they are still in the game. So, for people who won't be around in three years time it makes much more sense to want back the remaining 1/3 of their isk so they can actually spend it, whereas the 100% later payout would give them no benefit at all.
As to the idea that not having the isk can't be felt, I don't really see that. If they did have a proportion of their isk back I'm fairly sure most pilots would be quite capable of spending it on stuff they want. That they don't have it to spend at the moment doesn't mean they can't feel its absence.
Oh, and lots of people think the roi on T2 BPOs is ridiculously low to make them worthwhile investments  . But I guess that is entirely down to how much money you have. If you have loads and have no other outlets for it that pay better, then a 3 year roi is great. But I think most poorer players aim for more than a 2-3% monthly return on their isk and feel they could do much better with it themselves.
Ok - not so brief. Sorry.
Edit - Setrak's point is that that is the amount of isk that has so far not been verified by giving EBANK api details. I believe the suggestion is that a goodly proportion of that unclaimed isk belongs to people who have already left the game, rather than just to protesters against the api requirement.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 20:56:00 -
[9]
It means your estimation of the majority of depositors by value is wrong. That's 1.2t in value gone from people who have left the game or never expect to get their money back. Interestingly, that would be the same value destroyed had everything been returned pro rata within a reasonable time frame. Furthermore, the situation can only get worse as this drags on. Finally, they were never given the decision either way.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 21:06:00 -
[10]
Regards to Tornsouls questions about waiting for full payout.
I am not sure what the best answer is. Should EBANK pay people back something before they leave the game or should everyone wait.
I don't see that as a problem. The problem I do see is that EBANK haven't spoken to any customers or made public their reasons for wanting to get to full solvency (see my questions above which EBANK promised to answer).
Also I am concerned that some directors see this as a personal mission, and that success would deliver a great amount of pride and be a great accomplishment (Athre said something along these lines last year). This recoveery can NOT be personal but must be a business decision, hopefully in the best interests of the customer.
My feeling is, that this debate about what is best for customers hasn't happenned or if it has it hasn't been publically shared.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 21:20:00 -
[11]
In line with what Cosmo is suggesting, for me it's really the dishonesty, intentional or delusion-induced, that bugs me. This recovery was justified as being supported by the customer and in his best interest, which we can now see is clearly bull****, though many of us guessed as much a year ago.
It's no different from anyone else who obfuscates and deceives others here in an effort to manipulate them. It's one of the few things I find repugnant, and it impacts everyone who tries to build anything here.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 21:22:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
On Negotiations
I fully agree with what you say when applied to actual negotiations. But in this particular case we can't actually negotiate - we can only discuss and attempt to persuade because only one side has any chips.
|
Kalrand
Kalrand's POS Removal Corp
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 21:23:00 -
[13]
Originally by: cosmoray
Also I am concerned that some directors see this as a personal mission, and that success would deliver a great amount of pride and be a great accomplishment (Athre said something along these lines last year). This recoveery can NOT be personal but must be a business decision, hopefully in the best interests of the customer.
I think this cuts right to the heart of the matter.
EBANK is something the BODs wants to run. It is not something they want to liquidate and repay people.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 21:41:00 -
[14]
Ok - this is getting difficult already. I know it's not easy to say how you think EBANK should operate without bringing in what you don't like about their previous operations but please try. This thread is for operational suggestions - I realise it will sometimes be necessary to state the end at which you think their operations should be directed but please try to do so succinctly and without passing moral judgment.
If you want to talk about the rights and wrongs of EBANK's actions, why they are heroes or why they are the worst people in eve, please do so here (link).
|
Menkaure
Amarr
LEM0N
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 21:45:00 -
[15]
I don't understand why everyone assumes that this has to be either EBANK dissolving and paying out all ISK, or waiting another 5 years till they pay it all back like those two options are the only possibilities, and mutually exclusive.
Pay out to those who are willing to take a hit (to the tune of the assets-liability ratio), use the ISK of those people who have left the game already and those willing to leave their ISK in the bank to keep working towards solubility. I still maintain this pleases almost all parties - its left to the individual depositor to decide on their action, not the bank.
|
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 23:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: TornSoul
Genuinely curious and not pointing fingers or anything, it has just always puzzled me.
I don't really want to get into the rights and wrongs of their decisions in this thread
I'm trying very hard not to go there as well, and thought this was innocent enough 
Originally by: RAW23
Anyone who stops playing before they receive their money back has essentially lost it all in that they will never be able to benefit from any of the money whilst they are still in the game. So, for people who won't be around in three years time it makes much more sense to want back the remaining 1/3 of their isk so they can actually spend it, whereas the 100% later payout would give them no benefit at all.
Right - Fair point.
One I'm however not quite sympathetic towards (each to his - right).
I mean... If people are leaving anyways...
I'm sorry, but I can't really feel sympathetic towards them.
I think those that are in for the "long haul" are way more important (to EVE as a whole).
And if you are in for the long haul... Waiting to get your ISK doubled/tripled should be fine (doubled/tripled relative to what a liquidation would give you)
I'm fairly certain that many don't feel the same way (hence a lot of the controversy). But there's my opinion for you at least.
Originally by: RAW23
As to the idea that not having the isk can't be felt, I don't really see that. If they did have a proportion of their isk back I'm fairly sure most pilots would be quite capable of spending it on stuff they want. That they don't have it to spend at the moment doesn't mean they can't feel its absence.
Sure, that's pretty obvious.
I mean, If someone handed me X ISK I'd be happy to go and spend it on something and sweeten up my EVE life.
But currently I don't *need* to do that, my EVE life quality isn't diminished becuase I can't (this long after)
It's like winning in the lottery - You don't actually *need* the ISK, but it sure would be nice to get it.
Originally by: RAW23
Edit - Setrak's point is that that is the amount of isk that has so far not been verified by giving EBANK api details. I believe the suggestion is that a goodly proportion of that unclaimed isk belongs to people who have already left the game, rather than just to protesters against the api requirement.
Thanks for the clarification.
Agiain, I don't, as explained above, really have a concern with that.
Others do. Fair enough.
BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 23:39:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Menkaure
Pay out to those who are willing to take a hit (to the tune of the assets-liability ratio), use the ISK of those people who have left the game already and those willing to leave their ISK in the bank to keep working towards solubility. I still maintain this pleases almost all parties - its left to the individual depositor to decide on their action, not the bank.
I was under the impression that thats exactly what they are planning/doing/implementing.
Or was that just an idea/something on the drawing board?
BIG Lottery |
Menkaure
Amarr
LEM0N
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 00:11:00 -
[18]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Menkaure
Pay out to those who are willing to take a hit (to the tune of the assets-liability ratio), use the ISK of those people who have left the game already and those willing to leave their ISK in the bank to keep working towards solubility. I still maintain this pleases almost all parties - its left to the individual depositor to decide on their action, not the bank.
I was under the impression that thats exactly what they are planning/doing/implementing.
Or was that just an idea/something on the drawing board?
Going back a while, it was something they were going to do once they reached 700billion in assets. See below... from a thread I can't be bothered to track down again. 
Quote:
Liquidation Methods
* EBANK has agreed to offer account holders access to limited liquidation withdrawals. ISK will become available for withdrawals once per month as profit above an asset valuation of 700b becomes available. The value of the actual withdrawal will be established as the percentage difference between our estimated NAV and known liabilities. A liquidation fee of 5% will be levied against all such withdrawals.
* We advise that these NAV estimations are not entirely accurate, and could be wrong either way by as much as 10%, thus you could be loosing up to 15% by taking this option.
* We will advise when these withdrawals will be allowed each month, and withdrawals will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis. Once all available capital above the 700b limit is liquidated, any remaining withdrawals will be cancelled and you will have to wait until the next month to attempt a liquidation withdrawal.
To RAW23 and other detractors, I fail to see how this solution is anything less than ideal for all parties involved. Those who call for complete liquidation, get the equivalent ISK back they would from liquidation. The rest of us who are content to leave things the way they are, get to do so. This has been the plan for a long time now.
However..
To EBANK - you've wobbled from one side of the 700b mark to the other for the past 4 months now, depending on which version of the spreadsheet and its history we look at. Isn't it time to liquidate some of the less profitable assets and start the repayment plan? Like I said in an (ignored) thread on the ebank website a month ago, it would go a long way to placating a great many people out there, depositors or not. If you're concerned about a bank run, just limit it. Start out with something small, 10b/month or something similar.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 00:33:00 -
[19]
Originally by: cosmoray
Also I am concerned that some directors see this as a personal mission, and that success would deliver a great amount of pride and be a great accomplishment (Athre said something along these lines last year). This recoveery can NOT be personal but must be a business decision, hopefully in the best interests of the customer.
Cosmo and I usually think quite alike. I personally recommended to eBank BoD to freeze accounts at the beginning of the run. Not to avoid a run, though a freeze is usually an anti-run measure, but to avoid further fraud that could potentially happen during a crisis. That being said, I think it would've only been fair to allow people to transfer isk back and forth amongst themselves to their hearts content. If an account holder with 1 billion isk decides to transfer that to another person, via the ebank system, for 250m isk (in game)... so be it. (Could even see additional income for "tellers" as middlemen for this.) I just think that it is being trapped into long term commitment with zero return visible on the horizon frustrates the consumer base the most. By allowing the account holders to transfer eBank virtualized debt amongst themselves eventually the only people holding eBank debt would be those willing to have eBank continue. The transition would change eBank from a failed bank to a financial boutique shop for a select few(er). So, while it is commendable to have people at the helm who will die before quitting, as Cosmo said, it is not quite good business sense. After all, they might actually die trying but not succeeding. Then what part of limbo would this all be in? Same/different/hell?
Wealth, howsoever got, in Eve makes
Lords of morons and gentlemen of thieves;
Aptitude and intellect are needless here;
'Tis impudence and money that grants fame. |
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 03:22:00 -
[20]
Disclaimer: I have not followed the Evebank drama. At all. My understanding: The bank failed due to scams/thefts, and then responded by freezing deposits.
My constructive suggestion:
Rank your assets most profitable to least profitable (cash on bottom).
Determine your total assets. Reduce this by 5% for administrative and margin of error reasons.
Compare your total liabilities. Figure out the % loss each individual investor would take if you liquidate 100%. Make that figure public and advise all creditors of their new "balance" (adjusted as if you fully liquidated).
Begin negotiating with individual investors to determine whether they are willing to let you continue to manage THEIR money. Give them options - demand deposit rates, 3 mos. rates, 6 mos. rates, 1 yr. rates, etc. You know, like a bank would.
Once you're done, liquidate your assets (least profitable first of course) until you have the cash to provide those who want out their new discounted balance(i.e. their expected full liquidation payout).
Perhaps you'll get a few who are willing to stay around and if so, you can save the most profitable assets for going forward. If not, too bad. Its the Banks fault after all, and its the depositors money. I see no way to justify keeping depositors' money (whatever is left of it, adjusted to assume total liquidation) if they'd rather take their share of whatevers left.
Will this cause the loss of profitable assets? Of course. Will it potentially end the bank? Of course. But thats the choice of those who provided the money in the first place, not the BOD.
Bankruptcy 101.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 03:25:00 -
[21]
Constructive Suggestions for EBANK:
1. Take zee money.
2. Run.
3. Laugh all the way to the bank (wait...).
|
Kalrand
Kalrand's POS Removal Corp
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 04:14:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Pirokobo
Edited by: Pirokobo on 07/06/2010 03:31:19
The fact that EBANK's remaining leadership hasn't gone Kartoon on all of you is almost more hilarious then if they had.
If anything, they've been trolling their depositors for far longer.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 09:52:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Menkaure
Quote:
Liquidation Methods
* EBANK has agreed to offer account holders access to limited liquidation withdrawals. ISK will become available for withdrawals once per month as profit above an asset valuation of 700b becomes available. The value of the actual withdrawal will be established as the percentage difference between our estimated NAV and known liabilities. A liquidation fee of 5% will be levied against all such withdrawals.
* We advise that these NAV estimations are not entirely accurate, and could be wrong either way by as much as 10%, thus you could be loosing up to 15% by taking this option.
* We will advise when these withdrawals will be allowed each month, and withdrawals will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis. Once all available capital above the 700b limit is liquidated, any remaining withdrawals will be cancelled and you will have to wait until the next month to attempt a liquidation withdrawal.
To RAW23 and other detractors, I fail to see how this solution is anything less than ideal for all parties involved. Those who call for complete liquidation, get the equivalent ISK back they would from liquidation. The rest of us who are content to leave things the way they are, get to do so. This has been the plan for a long time now.
However..
To EBANK - you've wobbled from one side of the 700b mark to the other for the past 4 months now, depending on which version of the spreadsheet and its history we look at. Isn't it time to liquidate some of the less profitable assets and start the repayment plan? Like I said in an (ignored) thread on the ebank website a month ago, it would go a long way to placating a great many people out there, depositors or not. If you're concerned about a bank run, just limit it. Start out with something small, 10b/month or something similar.
I agree that this could be a more or less an ideal approach (with reservations about the 5% fee and the api requirement) depending on the details of its implementation. I don't want to comment positively or negatively about it, though, until those details are made available. The crucial question is how money over 700bil gets counted as "available". It has been made clear that the plan you cite does not mean all assets over 700bil will be liquidated periodically so as to allow withdrawals and it has also been stated that as money does become available it might be reinvested rather than made available for withdrawal but it is not yet clear precisely what method will be followed or how decisions will be made. For relevant questions and some answers see posts 32, 33 and 35 in this thread.
|
SetrakDark
Northstar Cabal
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 10:07:00 -
[24]
Pro rata withdrawals are now a busted option because they've taken so long. Anyone who doesn't wait the few more months to get their full balance is a fool. Value has been transferred from those who have left the game to those who have remained by locking people out of their own money for a year.
Welcome to the future of EVE businesses: massive tontines dressed up as something else.
|
Mme Pinkerton
United Engineering Services
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 11:11:00 -
[25]
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.
(before anyone points out that term transformation is crucial to banking IRL: in EVE you neither have a interbank market for short-term loans nor a central bank which can provide short-term liquidity to banks)
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 12:52:00 -
[26]
Moved from the other thread.
Originally by: Varo Jan
Edited by: Varo Jan on 06/06/2010 17:59:53
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Currently there are no funds available [to allow withdrawals], and are likely first to be available only when the BMBE bonds mature. At that point AC155 and myself will decide whether to open up liquidation withdrawals or re-invest the excess funds.
The 700B threshold is an arbitrary number. The bank's actions this year clearly show that deposit repayments are not its number one priority. However, on the basis that deposit repayments are a priority of sorts, why not do the following:
Titan BPOs and BPCs
This is a long term investment with returns of a max of 2%, based on Titans For You's experience. EBank needs cash/profits generation - not long term capital gains. Sell the remaining 4 BPOs - you've already sold one. Sub-contract BB to sell your remaining BPCs. Your accounts seem to indicate that the bank has not been particularly successful at selling the BPCs so far, while BB's shop appears to be doing good business.
Use the funds generated of 176B to repay depositors.
Characters - 17B
Sell them.
Share Portfolio
Titans For Us (7.5B) - Sell. Monthly returns are low, but you may be able to sell at a premium.
Atima (?) - Sell. They were freebies. Dividends are immaterial in terms of the bank's total income.
AATP (130m) - Sell. Returns are low and infrequent, however they do trade at a premium. Like Atima, the principal and dividends are immaterial in terms of the bank's total income.
Block Mineral Reserve (14.5B) - No dividends. That alone is reason enough to sell.
That would clean up your portfolio leaving you with cosmo's bonds that return 4.25% monthly.
BMBE Bonds
65B returning 3% per month. You said at the time that you invested in them because you couldn't use the funds internally to generate a higher return. With respect, you should be setting yourselves a much higher stretch target - say 10%. If you cannot generate 10%, funds ought to be returned to depositors.
Defaulted Collateral
Stands at 5B in your public statements. Is probably higher. That figure has been there for what, two months? Sell the stuff.
Those actions would enable you to return a max of 385B to depositors.
The bank would be left with its loan portfolio, cosmo's bonds and the ventures.
Cleaner, simpler - and depositors get something back soon.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 13:32:00 -
[27]
Originally by: RAW23
Re: Varo's suggestion that all underperforming assets should be liquidated to allow for withdrawals at a % based on the current asset/liability ratio, this strikes me as having merit for a number of reasons.
Actually, what I meant was pay all depositors pro-rata. No conditions. No API checks - just pay.
There are all sorts of variations possible. Chances are that 80% of accounts make up some 20% of total deposits. The bank could instead simply pay off all small depositors in full. Good PR. Reduces the customer base - hence much fewer customer queries to answer.
All the assets I've suggested should be sold now add very little in profit both quantity wise and return wise. Logically, if the bank cannot generate market returns with certain assets, the money should be returned to depositors.
Holding on to those assets leaves the bank open to criticism about its poor financial performance and/or gives the impression that it has no intention of honouring its obligation/objective of repaying depositors in full.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 13:38:00 -
[28]
I'll read this thread and comment shortly. Just wanted to let everyone know that I'm now reading it. Firing up a thread on the weekend will usually get zero reponse from me as I take care of two, four year old girls, so weekends see little time for me to lurch in the forums.
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 13:48:00 -
[29]
Originally by: SencneS
I'll read this thread and comment shortly. Just wanted to let everyone know that I'm now reading it. Firing up a thread on the weekend will usually get zero reponse from me as I take care of two, four year old girls, so weekends see little time for me to lurch in the forums.
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Could I ask in advance, though, that distinctions between your personal views and EBANK's official policies be made as clear as is possible? Many thanks.
|
Lady Janey
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 14:01:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Lady Janey on 07/06/2010 14:04:51
Being a director in Ebank i am firmly of the position that Ebank should continue to try to become fully solvent. In private discussions we estimate this will take another 4 years. This time frame coincidentally will also allow for me to earn enough isk from my position within Ebank to fully pay off my new Titan. As a side note, anyone who leaves the game (character terminated) in this time will have their assets reallocated to us the directors for permanent safe keeping. Further to that anyone who hasn't left the game (character not terminated) after this time frame will also have their assets reallocated to us the directors for permanent safe keeping.
I think this direction is most suitable for us in the long run.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |