| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
RAW23
   |
Posted - 2010.09.04 06:29:00 -
[1]
Given that Bobby has made it clear many times that he has no ethical problems at all with scamming, this is hardly a surprise. If someone openly states that the only reason they don't scam is because they make good money from being perceived as honest, they are more or less telling you that come a certain point they will clean you out.
Major fail on the part of the trustees for providing cover for Bobby rather than an early warning system for investors on this. Once security had been breached they should have been sending red flares up by walking away. Not saying I would have actually been able to bring myself to do so in their shoes; just that this is what they should have done.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 06:49:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
Originally by: RAW23
Major fail on the part of the trustees for providing cover for Bobby rather than an early warning system for investors on this. Once security had been breached they should have been sending red flares up by walking away.
Once security had been breached... what does this mean in your opinion?
Once Kazzac went largely MIA?
Once cosmoray announced to resign from being a trustee?
Once the director roles where stripped? that's sth which the trustees are almost guaranteed not to notice and that doesn't make much difference as long as the shares are still in place (you only need the director alts to protect against "hit by bus" for scam deterrence only the share holdings matter)
Once the investors had decided to do sth potentially stupid?
Once the new shares had been created it was already too late.
Once they were no longer able to secure the offering :-).
If Kazzac was known to be MIA, even if Bobby was not known to have the shares, and if the trustees (as some have said) were advising against share creation on security grounds (that is, if they themselves saw a security problem) then they should have walked rather than remaining on-board in the hope that the security issue would not be exploited. Very tough call though and I wouldn't want to have been in their shoes.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 09:59:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 04/09/2010 07:58:54
Quote:
Major fail on the part of the trustees for providing cover for Bobby rather than an early warning system for investors on this
They fail more than you think. BB is not the only one who took advantage of game mechanics. Another major player has done so even if so far he did not turn this into theft.
Can we have some more info on this? |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 12:53:00 -
[4]
Edited by: RAW23 on 04/09/2010 12:55:43
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Can we have some more info on this?
When I took position against the untouchables I was flamed to hell. And none defended me.
When I audited, I was flamed and ridiculed and the whole meta-profession brought to the bin by a concerted effort off multiple people. And none defended me.
When I offered to buy out a failed IPO (which I had no interest in, nor audited) to save investors money, I was ridiculed.
When I started a major efforts at educating people at finance, I got greeted with "It's been forever since I've read a wall of text that had no useful content to it."
So... no.
Enjoy losing more dozens of billions. Talk is cheap, my payback is not.
So you know of a potential major risk to investors and you won't disclose it out of spite? You appear to be confusing the 'some' who have given you a hard time with the 'all' who you are now happy to see suffer. What happened to your much advertised moral code?
Edit
@Caleb - Isn't TMPI the second biggest shareholder in T4U? |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 17:00:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: Berikath
From your list of dividend payments, I figure that in a year you paid out on 42.75 bil profits, or 14.4%. Grats on having a return about a third of what you initially listed, and still being considered gold.
Were you skimming also, or did you just make a whole lot less than you initially anticipated? Just wondering if the total should be bumped up to 900 or so, instead of 850.
No, there was no skimming. I did however build a very good BPC reselling business off the back of the contacts, information and skills that I gained from the IPO and thus made many times more than my cut of T4U via an indirect route.
The profits were much lower than projections due to the massive reduction in BPC sale price after the combination of the Titan rebalance, the introduction of heavy fleet lag and the outbreak of peace in many areas that would have otherwise seen profitable conflict.
We were projecting at 10b-20b a copy and the reality was 5b-10b per copy, averaging at a little over 7b. The original plan was for 4 Titan BPOs and we only started with 3. The 4th and 5th BPOs were expansions.
The dividend history I've published was accurate and complete.
Out of interest, where did the rest of the 850bil come from? T4U and the other bonds still leave things short a few hundred bil don't they? |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 15:00:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Such a shame.. wish I had more time for the game otherwise I would have been in here screaming from the tops of the mountains not to create anymore shares. At least I know I voted against it.
Against the creation of holding company shares or public shares? Because the creation of the latter was irrelevant to the scam, other than that it increased Bobby's prize pot somewhat. It was the former that allowed the scam to take place. |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 14:58:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Such a shame.. wish I had more time for the game otherwise I would have been in here screaming from the tops of the mountains not to create anymore shares. At least I know I voted against it.
Against the creation of holding company shares or public shares? Because the creation of the latter was irrelevant to the scam, other than that it increased Bobby's prize pot somewhat. It was the former that allowed the scam to take place.
Both actually
"Absent" trustee is best trustee.
|
| |
|