| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
AnthonyKiedis
Gotham Solutions
   |
Posted - 2010.12.04 00:57:00 -
[31]
Sorry about the delay guys, life has been pretty hectic recently with holiday travel and the like. From now on dividends will be paid out on the 5th of every month as too many things are going on for me at the beginning of each month. I did indeed switch corps with this character for pos operation purposes as I said would eventually happen.
I did not make it clear that me leaving Goldmen's Sacks was bound to happen and for that I apologize as I can see how that fact combined with the unexplained late dividends could lead to MDers getting the wrong ideas. Rest assured though Goldmen's Sacks is under my alt's, StanleyYelnats, control and he will be the one paying out the dividends from this point forward.
Total isk paid out in dividends for November was 8.406B. That comes out to 168,120 isk per share.
Month was a little slower than I would have liked since I was not able to play about the last third of the month for reasons already mentioned. However, I have not yet cashed out the vast majority of my speculative loans and NAV growth does not reflect the current value of the collateral, only the size of the loans I have out against that collateral. Said collateral has appreciated %50+ since I took the loans out, something my creditors, Ambo and Raw23 can choose to confirm if they want, preferably without disclosing what the collateral actually consists of.
I will not be offering anymore shares to the public this month as I do not have a readily available use for additional capital atm. However, I do plan to offer more than 1k shares next month outside of LLSE as I do not feel the 100 share purchase limit is adequate for where I want to take GoMeS. Feel free to evemail any questions and again, sorry for the delay and fly safe till next month.
|
Saidin Thor
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 01:25:00 -
[32]
Confirming receipt of November interest in the amount stated.
|
Darrigaaz
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 03:53:00 -
[33]
Posting to confirm receipt of November's dividends as stated.
Thanks for the explanation.
|
Eckstacy
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 00:10:00 -
[34]
Any news on this month's dividends?
|
Vagus Bellum
Viziam
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 23:04:00 -
[35]
Also curious about his months dividends or did the OP succumb to IRL.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 23:12:00 -
[36]
Just a heads up for investors in this, the OP defaulted on his loan with me so make of that what you will. It was fully collateralised and he lost about 5bil by defaulting so I'm guessing RL issues rather than a money grab. Whether that will make any difference to this investment is another question but we can still hope.
|
Eckstacy
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 06:47:00 -
[37]
In fairness, its not a massive blow to me, I would suspect RL too and I just wish the owner of the IPO luck if so that they are resolved in good time.
|
Ambo
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 07:30:00 -
[38]
Interesting, he has a collateralised loan with me as well.
Again, stands to lose about 5 billion if he defaults. First interest payment was late and this one is now ten days late as well...
I've eve-mailed and will give him until the end of this week, then I'll have to consider it a default.
--------------------------------------
|
laksmi2
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 11:22:00 -
[39]
losing 5+5 b collateral because being some days late for showing up in game seems harsh no?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 11:46:00 -
[40]
Edited by: RAW23 on 10/01/2011 11:47:52
 Originally by: laksmi2
losing 5+5 b collateral because being some days late for showing up in game seems harsh no?
I run my loan business as a business. If someone is a day late they are technically in default. I give them a reminder mail when they are 3-4 days late and then a final notice giving them 24 hours after 6 days. At the one week point I take possession of the collateral if I haven't heard anything. Ambo seems to be more generous than me with time but the principle is the same - if you provide loans there has to be some cutoff point at which the loan is officially ended. The only unusual thing here is that the collateral appreciated so much during the loan term. This did give me pause but, on reflection, I came to the conclusion that this should not provide any special privileges over those people who default on loans with 110% collateral.
tl;dr - if you take out a collateralised loan pay it back at the agreed upon time. If you don't, then pay it back near the agreed upon time. If you don't manage the latter, be prepared to lose your collateral, the precise purpose of which is to protect me against people not paying when they should.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 11:57:00 -
[41]
What happens to the profit made on the collateral? Do you refund that to the client or keep it for yourself?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 12:05:00 -
[42]
Edited by: RAW23 on 10/01/2011 12:07:35
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
What happens to the profit made on the collateral? Do you refund that to the client or keep it for yourself?
The loan is collateralised against the items, not against a fixed amount of isk, so no, I don't intend to refund the profit to the defaulter. Bear in mind that I took a risk in taking on this collateral - speculation stocks can go down as well as up and I could have ended up holding collateral worth half, rather than double, the loan in the event of a default. No one would have refunded me that loss. Since the collateral consists of PI stocks that will take some days to unload and I insisted that I was not willing to hold this collateral through the patch, I have another good, but incidental, reason for not providing extra time.
I am happy to talk with Ambo, however, about the possibility of buying up the shares in this investment at original purchase value if this IPO goes silent.
Edit - Just to clarify, if I was in contact with the defaulter the question might well be different. If I am holding collateral and someone wants to sell it while I hold it, and pay me out of the proceeds, I am normally amenable to that so long as I am compensated for the extra work involved. But in cases where there is no communication I want to move on as quickly as possible and put the isk back into play.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 12:11:00 -
[43]
Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 10/01/2011 12:07:35
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
What happens to the profit made on the collateral? Do you refund that to the client or keep it for yourself?
The loan is collateralised against the items, not against a fixed amount of isk, so no, I don't intend to refund the profit to the defaulter. Bear in mind that I took a risk in taking on this collateral - speculation stocks can go down as well as up and I could have ended up holding collateral worth half, rather than double, the loan in the event of a default. No one would have refunded me that loss.
Yes, if you are personally taking on the risk of a loss then you are entitled to any potential profit involved in that position.
However, what if you were holding collateral as a third-party for a bond and a similar situation occured - am I correct in assuming that any profit would be handed over to the investors as they are the risk-takers?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 12:39:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 10/01/2011 12:22:07
Originally by: RAW23
Edited by: RAW23 on 10/01/2011 12:07:35
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
What happens to the profit made on the collateral? Do you refund that to the client or keep it for yourself?
The loan is collateralised against the items, not against a fixed amount of isk, so no, I don't intend to refund the profit to the defaulter. Bear in mind that I took a risk in taking on this collateral - speculation stocks can go down as well as up and I could have ended up holding collateral worth half, rather than double, the loan in the event of a default. No one would have refunded me that loss.
Yes, if you are personally taking on the risk of a loss then you are entitled to any potential profit involved in that position.
However, what if you were holding collateral as a third-party for a bond and a similar situation occured - am I correct in assuming that any profit would be handed over to the investors as they are the risk-takers?
Edit: Or do you guarantee 100% repayment of principal to all investors in the event of a default where the collateral is insufficient to cover the losses? Apologies for my lack of familiarity with your business model.
It would depend on the particular agreement. For instance, when I secured the Tiberius Adama bond I posted that in the event of default I would pay out 15.3billion isk, so any profit or loss on the collateral would have been assumed by me. I chose that option as the collateral consisted of blueprints and it would have been a pain to keep track of 12 different sales over a period of 2-3 weeks and to justify the prices I got as 'best value' for the investors. However, if the collateral had been market items that could have been dumped straight to buy orders I would have been open to going down the other route. But simply assuming the isk liability is generally the easiest option as it is the cleanest approach and ensures that the investors get back what they put in. I'm not sure what approach Grendell would take in thte event of a default on my own secured bond. I assume that the proceeds of the collateral would go to the investors as he didn't state any fixed isk amount and in my previous secured bond posted occassional updates for the investors on the current value of the collateral (which is currently at 225-250%, all of which I would expect to lose if I defaulted).
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 12:54:00 -
[45]
Ok, thanks for answering. This is something that should surely always be clarified at the outset though, and should be explicitly made clear.
Any ambiguity would seem to provide the collteral holder with a mechanism to transfer all risks in the event of a loss while retaining all profit in the event of a collateral value increase.
It potentially also provides conflict of interest, to either push unforgivingly or show great tolerance depending on financial incentives.
For example, if you were incommunicado for a short period, you could return to find your collateral unforgivingly liquidated. A position that Anthony Kiedis is finding himself in.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 13:07:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Ok, thanks for answering. This is something that should surely always be clarified at the outset though, and should be explicitly made clear.
Any ambiguity would seem to provide the collteral holder with a mechanism to transfer all risks in the event of a loss while retaining all profit in the event of a collateral value increase.
It potentially also provides conflict of interest, to either push unforgivingly or show great tolerance depending on financial incentives.
For example, if you were incommunicado for a short period, you could return to find your collateral unforgivingly liquidated. A position that Anthony Kiedis is finding himself in.
With regard to collateral holding (whether it is the collateral or the isk value that is being secured), I think you are correct that clarity should become the standard (hurries off to clarify psoition in recently secured IPO). However, in the case of loan terms, thing's are already clear. The loan is due the day it is due. Anything beyond that is a grace period provided entirely optionally by the lender. Now, I think it would be a bad lender, from a business perspective, who didn't provide for a bit of flexibility as borrowers will not want to be chained to a specific hour for repayment. But I don't think that allowing a loan to run for an additional 25% of its term over the due date is 'unforgiving'. The only reason it looks harsh in this case is because of the final value of the collateral.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 13:20:00 -
[47]
Originally by: RAW23
With regard to collateral holding (whether it is the collateral or the isk value that is being secured), I think you are correct that clarity should become the standard (hurries off to clarify psoition in recently secured IPO). However, in the case of loan terms, thing's are already clear. The loan is due the day it is due. Anything beyond that is a grace period provided entirely optionally by the lender. Now, I think it would be a bad lender, from a business perspective, who didn't provide for a bit of flexibility as borrowers will not want to be chained to a specific hour for repayment. But I don't think that allowing a loan to run for an additional 25% of its term over the due date is 'unforgiving'. The only reason it looks harsh in this case is because of the final value of the collateral.
Yes, you're right - that maybe came over as a little more critical than I meant. Clearly, the investee is in breach of contract - as far as business ethics go, he broke the contract so it's his loss.
The grounds for perceiving it as harsh [either on the investee or the investors] would be if there was any lack of clarity concerning the terms - ie if they were in some way ambiguous, even unintentionally - and as a result of this ambiguity risks/profits were seen to be misallocated. It's nothing that a little clarity can't resolve - however an absence of clarity at the outset could potentially become a large issue later on.
|
Ahmail
|
Posted - 2011.02.19 18:39:00 -
[48]
AnthonyKiedis was probably banned for using Python injection.
Dont expect to receive anything back from G-Solutions.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
|
Posted - 2011.02.19 23:15:00 -
[49]
YOUR SOLO ALBUM SUCKED
? |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |