EVE Search - Bond wanted: 4B

All Channels

Market Discussions

Bond wanted: 4B - 10%

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.10.02 12:06:00 - [31] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 02/10/2010 12:12:28 Well, tbh a casual perspective investor getting to this page and reading: Quote: This IPO/Bond receives a CCC credit rating. This investment is/has Extremely speculative and is Non-Investment Grade. would make him flee away without even reading the OP. This is because as you said in your thread: Quote: My motivations for posting a credit rating in thread are much the same as the other posters who have expressed an opinion in a less formal way. and you don't seem to see how you are performing social engineering with the very act of posting in such an highly formal way. A guy poasting "SCAM!" will be seen as a nuisance, someone possibly even someone who did not ever read the offer at all but posting a bad rating in a style like Merrill Lynch WILL destroy an investment. Basically you make it a definitive "don't invest" action vs an already struggling investment without even the investee having given actual details (ie if he "gave up" and asked for an audit). - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
49473 Jita Trade and Research Institute	Posted - 2010.10.02 12:24:00 - [32] Edited by: 49473 on 02/10/2010 12:25:21 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Well, tbh a casual perspective investor getting to this page and reading: Quote: This IPO/Bond receives a CCC credit rating. This investment is/has Extremely speculative and is Non-Investment Grade. would make him flee away without even reading the OP. This is because as you said in your thread: Quote: My motivations for posting a credit rating in thread are much the same as the other posters who have expressed an opinion in a less formal way. and you don't seem to see how you are performing social engineering with the very act of posting in such an highly formal way. A guy poasting "SCAM!" will be seen as a nuisance, someone possibly even someone who did not ever read the offer at all but posting a bad rating in a style like Merrill Lynch WILL destroy an investment. Basically you make it a definitive "don't invest" action vs an already struggling investment without even the investee having given actual details (ie if he "gave up" and asked for an audit). I will endeavour to provide greater context for potential investors when reading ratings in the future. However, they only need to read the document linked for appropriate context. Junk Bonds can be successful, as explained in the document. My motivations are "sharing my analysis with a view to helping potential investors". As I've said before, please use the discussion thread so this ipo/bond thread is not hijacked.
Frie Dargon	Posted - 2010.10.02 16:17:00 - [33] Thank for the free bumps. I guess I can't disagree with the comments, although the business plan is strong. I dont know much about this type of thing - for a bond rated CCC, what can i do to make it more appealing? Increase the 25% profit sharing?
49473 Jita Trade and Research Institute	Posted - 2010.10.02 16:32:00 - [34] Originally by: Frie Dargon Thank for the free bumps. I guess I can't disagree with the comments, although the business plan is strong. I dont know much about this type of thing - for a bond rated CCC, what can i do to make it more appealing? Increase the 25% profit sharing? You yourself have alluded to several measures in your OP that would strengthen your bond; audit, collateral, structure of the return. Increasing to 25% would not upgrade credit rating, in anything it would downgrade it.
Banque Lonely Pear Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.02 16:35:00 - [35] Another bond I was investing in fell through so I would like to invest another 100 million taking my total to 200 Million Isk. Thank you.
Patrokolus	Posted - 2010.10.02 19:32:00 - [36] Please put "The Praetorian Group" down for 250mil. Will send within 72 hours.
Frie Dargon	Posted - 2010.10.02 21:30:00 - [37] Originally by: 49473 Originally by: Frie Dargon Thank for the free bumps. I guess I can't disagree with the comments, although the business plan is strong. I dont know much about this type of thing - for a bond rated CCC, what can i do to make it more appealing? Increase the 25% profit sharing? .... Increasing to 25% would not upgrade credit rating, in anything it would downgrade it. ?? I don't follow. But I think I will go ahead and launch w/ what I have tomorrow and take reservations on-going. Late reservations won't get the 25% kicker and will have partial interest. Hopefully performance will build up some trust.
Eckstacy	Posted - 2010.10.02 21:58:00 - [38] 200m sent, please confirm back. A risk, yes, but with luck worth it. If its a scam, well, you live and learn.
Patrokolus	Posted - 2010.10.02 22:13:00 - [39] ISK Sent, please confirm.
Scott McClellan Forum Posters Anonymous	Posted - 2010.10.03 01:48:00 - [40] Originally by: Frie Dargon But I think I will go ahead and launch w/ what I have tomorrow and take reservations on-going. Late reservations won't get the 25% kicker and will have partial interest. If still eligible for the full return I would chip 100m to the pot. Would be nice to see this work and losing 100m wouldn't hurt much :P
Frie Dargon	Posted - 2010.10.03 02:00:00 - [41] Originally by: Scott McClellan Edited by: Scott McClellan on 03/10/2010 01:59:13 Originally by: Frie Dargon But I think I will go ahead and launch w/ what I have tomorrow and take reservations on-going. Late reservations won't get the 25% kicker and will have partial interest. If still eligible for the full return I would chip 100m to the pot. Would be nice to see this work and losing 100m wouldn't hurt much. I also rather dislike the fact that someone is trying to push an official-looking "rating" on this project. Arguably every unsecured bond floated here would be considered non-investment grade, as there is no mechanic to ensure safe return of ISK. Branding this particular bond with that tag differentiates it from the many other unsecured bonds that have launched rather unfairly. Not to mention; a "rating system" has tremendous potential for abuse in rating its own bonds or those of friends/associates. Sure, it is still open. Most have not yet paid.
Scott McClellan Forum Posters Anonymous	Posted - 2010.10.03 02:34:00 - [42] Edited by: Scott McClellan on 03/10/2010 02:41:21 Edited by: Scott McClellan on 03/10/2010 02:38:54 Originally by: Frie Dargon Sure, it is still open. Most have not yet paid. It would do you well to add a "Paid" list to your initial posting, so that investors can confirm that their ISK was received, and also who you are still waiting on. I personally would like to see some sort of confirmation before throwing money at something, it gives some measure of confidence.
Holli Nalt	Posted - 2010.10.03 14:49:00 - [43] 200m sent.
Banque Lonely Pear Inc.	Posted - 2010.10.03 14:51:00 - [44] Isk sent
Frie Dargon	Posted - 2010.10.03 18:49:00 - [45] Originally by: Scott McClellan Edited by: Scott McClellan on 03/10/2010 02:41:21 Edited by: Scott McClellan on 03/10/2010 02:38:54 Originally by: Frie Dargon Sure, it is still open. Most have not yet paid. It would do you well to add a "Paid" list to your initial posting, so that investors can confirm that their ISK was received, and also who you are still waiting on. I personally would like to see some sort of confirmation before throwing money at something, it gives some measure of confidence. Scott: An email went out the investors that showed they had paid. The forum post is now updated as well though. Thanks for the tip!! Almost all investors have paid, but since they haven't, still one more day to get the 25%.
Scott McClellan Forum Posters Anonymous	Posted - 2010.10.03 19:49:00 - [46] 100m sent
Thoraemond Minmatar Far Ranger	Posted - 2010.10.03 19:54:00 - [47] Originally by: Frie Dargon I can offer proof my idea is viable and achievable. I will do this for anyone interested in investing. What sort of proof do you offer? Note that I am not asking that you post that purported proof here, since if you wanted to do that you could have just put it in your offering. Please describe the nature of that proof. Originally by: Frie Dargon I wish I could make it easier to see, but basically what I am offering is an auditors view, without seeing the Alts. The most important aspect of "an auditors view" is that the Auditor is directly sees the current nature and API-logged activities of your account(s) without needing to rely on what you say about those things. The claim "here is all the information about my account(s) that an Auditor would see (except for my alts)" is essentially the same as "here are some unverified claims about my account(s)". Saying "this is what an Auditor would see" adds no credibility to the underlying claims. It is the actual review and confirmation by the Auditor that provides any corroboration, not the Offeror's claims. E.g., you might claim that you have been active with commodity X, say reselling T3 hulls in secondary or tertiary market hubs, and you might point to certain features of the market history data in those secondary hubs and say "see, I've been pushing the prices around". However, what confirms that such activity was yours? At that point, it is still just an unverified claim. An audit might provide some corroboration. Originally by: Frie Dargon I could move this character to a new account. But that would be 15 a month in fees. While I expect to earn more from trading than $15 (300M ISK), it seems a bit overboard. However, I will do this if that is what it takes. As alluded to above, this would simply add another account to the scope of the audit. á á
Frie Dargon	Posted - 2010.10.03 20:17:00 - [48] Originally by: Thoraemond Originally by: Frie Dargon I wish I could make it easier to see, but basically what I am offering is an auditors view, without seeing the Alts. The most important aspect of "an auditors view" is that the Auditor is directly sees the current nature and API-logged activities of your account(s) without needing to rely on what you say about those things. The claim "here is all the information about my account(s) that an Auditor would see (except for my alts)" is essentially the same as "here are some unverified claims about my account(s)". Saying "this is what an Auditor would see" adds no credibility to the underlying claims. It is the actual review and confirmation by the Auditor that provides any corroboration, not the Offeror's claims. E.g., you might claim that you have been active with commodity X, say reselling T3 hulls in secondary or tertiary market hubs, and you might point to certain features of the market history data in those secondary hubs and say "see, I've been pushing the prices around". However, what confirms that such activity was yours? At that point, it is still just an unverified claim. An audit might provide some corroboration. Please check my 'finished contracts' for the proof I offer. No one took me up on the offer to verify the business plan, but that will do it. It is the one mechanism, to my knowledge, where another player can verify another player's activity without having API. It shows me doing on a small scale what i want to do on a large scale. For example, I think I just purchased a faction item for $14M and sold it for about $30M (exact numbers escape me).
Thoraemond Minmatar Far Ranger	Posted - 2010.10.03 21:04:00 - [49] Originally by: Frie Dargon Please check my 'finished contracts' for the proof I offer. No one took me up on the offer to verify the business plan, but that will do it. It is the one mechanism, to my knowledge, where another player can verify another player's activity without having API. It shows me doing on a small scale what I want to do on a large scale. For example, I think I just purchased a faction item for $14M and sold it for about $30M (exact numbers escape me). Your contract history does show a little bit of contract trading over the past couple of weeks, and those few verifiable facts do appear to align with your claims. However, given that this is public information, does it not seem a bit disingenuous to call it "an auditors view" as you did? If every player can see this data, it would be equally accurate to call it "a mission runner's view" or "a scammer's view", no? Direct access to data is important, but Auditors have access to non-public information as well. I found your contract history information quite easy to see, in part because it is such a short history. If this was the available proof you had in mind all along, why did you write "I wish I could make it easier to see"? á á
Frie Dargon	Posted - 2010.10.03 22:43:00 - [50] Originally by: Thoraemond Originally by: Frie Dargon Please check my 'finished contracts' for the proof I offer. No one took me up on the offer to verify the business plan, but that will do it. It is the one mechanism, to my knowledge, where another player can verify another player's activity without having API. It shows me doing on a small scale what I want to do on a large scale. For example, I think I just purchased a faction item for $14M and sold it for about $30M (exact numbers escape me). Your contract history does show a little bit of contract trading over the past couple of weeks, and those few verifiable facts do appear to align with your claims. However, given that this is public information, does it not seem a bit disingenuous to call it "an auditors view" as you did? If every player can see this data, it would be equally accurate to call it "a mission runner's view" or "a scammer's view", no? Direct access to data is important, but Auditors have access to non-public information as well. I found your contract history information quite easy to see, in part because it is such a short history. If this was the available proof you had in mind all along, why did you write "I wish I could make it easier to see"? ok on your first point second point, the in game info can't be linked to the forum so i think that is harder to see compared to the write up. that was all it meant.
Saedi R'tha Minmatar R'tha Syndicate	Posted - 2010.10.04 01:22:00 - [51] I'd like to reserve 100M, please.
egola	Posted - 2010.10.04 08:40:00 - [52] Edited by: egola on 04/10/2010 08:42:35 Originally by: Frie Dargon Originally by: 49473 Originally by: Frie Dargon Thank for the free bumps. I guess I can't disagree with the comments, although the business plan is strong. I dont know much about this type of thing - for a bond rated CCC, what can i do to make it more appealing? Increase the 25% profit sharing? .... Increasing to 25% would not upgrade credit rating, in anything it would downgrade it. ?? I don't follow. But I think I will go ahead and launch w/ what I have tomorrow and take reservations on-going. Late reservations won't get the 25% kicker and will have partial interest. Hopefully performance will build up some trust. Well, it's a day late but anyways, What he was trying to do was basically say that the risk factor of an investment has little to do with the actual reward involved. On one hand you might think that more rewards=better investment, however it has little to do with the safety of the investment itself. I.E. imagine a jita scammer yelling on local, " i will double the amount of isk you send me", and when people points out the obvious scam, the scammer responds by promising to triple or quadruple the amount of isk sent instead, Clearly the scammer did it out of desperation and it became fairly obvious even towards new players. Now not to say that you are a scammer in anyway, you can relate how the sudden increase in reward can be viewed as a desperate attempt to rope in gullible sheeps. ~OMG the JTRI guy's grammar and manner of speaking is infectious
Frie Dargon	Posted - 2010.10.04 14:45:00 - [53] Originally by: egola Edited by: egola on 04/10/2010 08:42:35 Originally by: Frie Dargon Originally by: 49473 Originally by: Frie Dargon Thank for the free bumps. I guess I can't disagree with the comments, although the business plan is strong. I dont know much about this type of thing - for a bond rated CCC, what can i do to make it more appealing? Increase the 25% profit sharing? .... Increasing to 25% would not upgrade credit rating, in anything it would downgrade it. ?? I don't follow. But I think I will go ahead and launch w/ what I have tomorrow and take reservations on-going. Late reservations won't get the 25% kicker and will have partial interest. Hopefully performance will build up some trust. Well, it's a day late but anyways, What he was trying to do was basically say that the risk factor of an investment has little to do with the actual reward involved. On one hand you might think that more rewards=better investment, however it has little to do with the safety of the investment itself. I.E. imagine a jita scammer yelling on local, " i will double the amount of isk you send me", and when people points out the obvious scam, the scammer responds by promising to triple or quadruple the amount of isk sent instead, Clearly the scammer did it out of desperation and it became fairly obvious even towards new players. Now not to say that you are a scammer in anyway, you can relate how the sudden increase in reward can be viewed as a desperate attempt to rope in gullible sheeps. ~OMG the JTRI guy's grammar and manner of speaking is infectious Ohhhh... i see. Since I am removing the 25%, does that help? 1B or so still open
Holli Nalt	Posted - 2010.10.04 19:02:00 - [54] Removing the 25%? Not for the original investors, I hope.
Patrokolus	Posted - 2010.10.04 20:20:00 - [55] I have to agree with the above poster. If it is now a set 10% I would like a refund of my groups investment of $250m "The Praetorian Group" if the 25% is still in effect for currently listed and paid investors, I will remain on board.
49473 Jita Trade and Research Institute	Posted - 2010.10.04 20:32:00 - [56] The OP is not removing the 25% incentive fee for those whose invested with that agreement. Quote: I would be willing to include an incentive fee - i.e., profit sharing of 25% for the month. That would be an additional 585M to investors. However, he has removed the incentive fee from now onwards, so any future investors in his offering will not get it. Credit Rating: Given that the incentive fee still applies to the ofering in part, there is not sufficient case for a reassessment.
Slutz	Posted - 2010.10.04 20:37:00 - [57] The OP is too busy shopping for another toon to be bothered with a percentage change
Frie Dargon	Posted - 2010.10.04 21:55:00 - [58] Originally by: ****z The OP is too busy shopping for another toon to be bothered with a percentage change 25% is not going away for original investors, just new ones, because it is impossible to calculate. I do admit that thread looks pretty incriminating, all i can say is, it is a corp alt that is used for many things and that it is not a character for me that it is purchasing.
egola	Posted - 2010.10.04 22:43:00 - [59] well just wondering, based on the updates on the first page we can assume that the investment has been filled right?
Machete Visor	Posted - 2010.10.04 23:51:00 - [60] Originally by: Frie Dargon Originally by: ****z The OP is too busy shopping for another toon to be bothered with a percentage change 25% is not going away for original investors, just new ones, because it is impossible to calculate. I do admit that thread looks pretty incriminating, all i can say is, it is a corp alt that is used for many things and that it is not a character for me that it is purchasing. This is entertaining and not exactly what I'd expected. Guess we'll see in a month (or maybe sooner?).

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.