EVE Search - FIN - Trustee Change Vote

All Channels

Market Discussions

FIN - Trustee Change Vote

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
EFS Manager Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2006.12.14 02:00:00 - [1] A vote will be issued shortly to change one of the trustees from EMFi Manager to Serenity Steele. This has nothing at all to do with any problems with EMFi Manager, but is rather a strategic decision which I will explain. We have missed a few high return (as in very good) BPOs the last month because we did not have enough capital to purchase them. If we had the option to get a short to medium term loan it would have allowed the FIN returns to be higher in the coming months due to the nature of the BPO. I can not (and don't really want to) use BMBE as firstly their rates are horribly high, and secondsly they require the BPO as collateral which reduces profits on it due to station production amongst other things. ISS has launched their new IPO which caters in part for secured loans. If Serenity Steele is a trustee then we will have immediate access to Isk if a really good deal comes up that we otherwise would have to pass over. Essentially I believe it will help improve the returns for the investors. I also believe that Serenity Steele is one of the most trusted players in eve having handled well over 100 Bill Isk in investments already. I also happen to know Serenity Steele in real life and thus have a lot of confidence in her (his) honesty. The vote will be for 7 days as per the shareholders agreement. Sincerely, EFS Manager
Serenity Steele Interstellar Starbase Syndicate Operations	Posted - 2006.12.14 02:01:00 - [2] Edited by: Serenity Steele on 14/12/2006 02:02:27 Confirmed I have been offered a position as Trustee pending vote. Edit: Managed 336Bn and counting to-date. New ISS IPO Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert
Marodi Julita Sublime Investment Fund	Posted - 2006.12.14 03:24:00 - [3] sounds very intelligent. And it sorta helps with the whole emfi also helping with AATP which is also competeing with you for the bpo's Sounds like a very good idea. Props.
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.12.14 03:37:00 - [4] Eefrit, as discussed by several people (myself included) it is desireable to have 3 trustees instead of 2. I would vote to simply add Serenity. If you have 3 trustees then you need two of them to decide to do something nefarious before things are stolen instead of just 1. Perhaps I am forgetting some of the game mechanics problems we talked about, but am I incorrect in remembering that it was thought to be better to have 3 rather than 2? The Enemy's Gate is Down
EFS Manager Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2006.12.14 03:47:00 - [5] Originally by: Baun Eefrit, as discussed by several people (myself included) it is desireable to have 3 trustees instead of 2. I would vote to simply add Serenity. If you have 3 trustees then you need two of them to decide to do something nefarious before things are stolen instead of just 1. Perhaps I am forgetting some of the game mechanics problems we talked about, but am I incorrect in remembering that it was thought to be better to have 3 rather than 2? Essentailly no matter how many trustees there are, whoever is the CEO can pull dodgy stunts. They may not be able to unlock the BPOs but that is all they can't do. It would not be possible ot have 3, as it would mean that ISS do not have security directly, which is a requirement of them making such a facility available. I sincerely hope that one day CCP will sort out the corp control and shareholding so that we can really run as a board. When that day comes, I will be the first to ask for there to be more than one trustee, but until then we have to work within the game mechanics. Sincerely, EFS Manager
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.12.14 04:10:00 - [6] Let me restate my question then. Why not simply replace EMFI with ISS as the CEO and retain 3 trustees so that the BPOs cannot be unlocked except by vote of two of them? Would this not be sufficient security for ISS given that they could still kick the other two corp members if an unlock vote was made? The Enemy's Gate is Down
EFS Manager Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2006.12.14 04:32:00 - [7] Originally by: Baun Let me restate my question then. Why not simply replace EMFI with ISS as the CEO and retain 3 trustees so that the BPOs cannot be unlocked except by vote of two of them? Would this not be sufficient security for ISS given that they could still kick the other two corp members if an unlock vote was made? I do not think this is enough security for ISS. I certainly would not accept that as security if I were them, so I do not expect them to either. Remember that their IPO only allows fully secured loans. It is possible for two people holding 67% of the shares to run for CEO and take that position, however it is not possible with only 50% of the shares. Kind regards, EFS Manager
Thews Mortaza Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2006.12.14 04:52:00 - [8] I suppose if you can't trust the ISS ... I will vote in the affirmative on this matter. (Sig) Your momma so fat ... when I tried to scoop her to my cargo hold, she don't fit !
Deren Thaldrel Minmatar Black Watch Legionnaires Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.12.14 05:09:00 - [9] Edited by: Deren Thaldrel on 14/12/2006 05:09:38 Edited by: Deren Thaldrel on 14/12/2006 05:09:23 My views are my own and do not reflect those of my alliance or corporation. -------------- I have three primary concerns and have divested my, admittedly modest, holdings in [FIN] because of the proposed change. First, the original business plan was clear about not wanting to 'blow the doors off' regarding rates of return. Returns of six and seven percent were quite reasonable, stable and expected within the original plan. Certainly additional profitability is desirable but not at the expense of stability, which is what [FIN] offered. I, and I suspect many others, invested knowing that we would not recoup our original investment for more than a year and were content with that because of the stability of the market plan and the security [FIN]'s structure provided. Second, I have concerns with the new 'trustee' simultaneously promoting the ISS IPO and looking to take over in a significant role in [FIN]. EFS Manager specifically says that this vote is to ensure speedy access to ISS' loans to increase profitability. Why would these loans not be available to us with the existing structure? Is [FIN]'s excellent reputation and solid structure insufficient to secure timely loans and reasonable rates from ISS? That seems unlikely, and frankly, a bad way for ISS to do business. The measure proposed by the EFS Manager would result in [FIN] becoming indebted to ISS and ISS retaining significant influence over [FIN]. This is a clear and unacceptable conflict of interest. Third, the proposed change - bluntly - makes no sense. ISS cannot hope to have its business plan succeed if it will not provide timely loans to reputable organizations such as [FIN] and [FIN] is currently successful and profitable without entering into this conflict of interest. I have retained a single share in this organization to monitor its development and I hope that this measure will fail and I can reinvest in this organization in confidence. Sincerely, Deren Thaldrel
EFS Manager Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2006.12.14 05:25:00 - [10] Originally by: Deren Thaldrel First, the original business plan was clear about not wanting to 'blow the doors off' regarding rates of return. Returns of six and seven percent were quite reasonable, stable and expected within the original plan. Certainly additional profitability is desirable but not at the expense of stability, which is what [FIN] offered. I, and I suspect many others, invested knowing that we would not recoup our original investment for more than a year and were content with that because of the stability of the market plan and the security [FIN]'s structure provided. Nothing about the stability is changing at all. The only thing that this changes is access to capital at short notice. I will answer in more detail further on. Originally by: Deren Thaldrel Second, I have concerns with the new 'trustee' simultaneously promoting the ISS IPO and looking to take over in a significant role in [FIN]. EFS Manager specifically says that this vote is to ensure speedy access to ISS' loans to increase profitability. Why would these loans not be available to us with the existing structure? Is [FIN]'s excellent reputation and solid structure insufficient to secure timely loans and reasonable rates from ISS? That seems unlikely, and frankly, a bad way for ISS to do business. The measure proposed by the EFS Manager would result in [FIN] becoming indebted to ISS and ISS retaining significant influence over [FIN]. This is a clear and unacceptable conflict of interest. The only role that the trustees play in FIN is making sure that the BPOs are locked down and that there is enough security in them. I suggest speaking to EMFi or Femintaki to find out how much time this has taken them each month. I would venture not even an hour in total since inception. The reason I would like to have short notice access to finance available is for bridging finance and not for long term loans. I would not expect any loan to be held for more than about 4-8 week at all. I do not see where this is undue influence and I can not see what they could influence. I have always done what I regard as in the best interest of FIN as an independent corp which is why FIN has never supplied BoB (the alliance my main is in) with any goods. Originally by: Deren Thaldrel Third, the proposed change - bluntly - makes no sense. ISS cannot hope to have its business plan succeed if it will not provide timely loans to reputable organizations such as [FIN] and [FIN] is currently successful and profitable without entering into this conflict of interest. I'm sure that ISS would make loans available even if this were not the case, but those loans would mean that we would have to provide collateral. As all BPOs are used for production this would either mean cancelling a production run or getting the BPO seller to hold on for up to 2 weeks (not very likely). Also then I would not be able to make sure that production is as efficient as it currently is. Yes, FIN is profitable as it is now and will continue to remain so. Sincerely, EFS Manager
Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.12.14 05:31:00 - [11] Do you really want to have ISS as a business partner? They aren't doing so well in the south and won't for months to come. I think this might cause concern for investers if ISS are committed to defend their three outposts in catch from hostiles forces if they cannot rememdy the highly escalating situation through politics. I know I have concerns as a future investor and this is a conflict of interest for potential southern dwellers. If anything, I'd tend to agree with Baun. Having Serenity Steele as one of only two trustees is simply unacceptable. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Maltrox Minmatar United Salvage and Recovery	Posted - 2006.12.14 06:59:00 - [12] Deren Thaldrel and Kaylana Syi both raise valid points that has me sitting on the fence with this... On one angle of opinion the ISSO IPO and FIN's trustee vote certainly is causing waves in the little pond, and some of the investor canoes are swamping with their captains jumping ship. I can see where they are coming from. I also realize from another perspective that the changing face of business creates these waves, and as real-life Microsoft's CEO Bill Gates said, "The Internet is a tidal wave. It will wash over nearly all industries, drowning those who don't learn to swim in its waves." (lets not comment on that, it was just for effect :P) In any case, I choose to abstain from this vote. I am not convinced either way for a YES or a NO to make my vote with 100% certainty.
Apple Blossom	Posted - 2006.12.14 07:16:00 - [13] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Do you really want to have ISS as a business partner? They aren't doing so well in the south and won't for months to come. If I understand the trustee arrangement in FIN correctly, the state of ISS as a profit making entity has very little baring at all on FIN's success. As EFS stated above, the trustee's sole role is to ensure the BPOs are locked down. They are not 'business partners', except in this case as a potential source of short-term loans. Even in the worse case scenario (or best from your point of view), ISS loose two outposts, and have five left. I'm sure Serenity would still have ample funds to offer loans. The IAC-ISS war would seem to have little baring on FIN, whether Serenity is trustee or not. Apple Blossom
Florio Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.14 07:48:00 - [14] Hello. 400k shares held here. I am voting in favour of the proposal. Nothing wrong with a company increasing its options.
EMFi Manager EvE Mutual Fund Inc.	Posted - 2006.12.14 08:06:00 - [15] I have only 2 issues myself personally as a shareholder 1) The colleteral will be used to secure 2 items... - If EFS decides to run and not pay back ISS... who will be reimbursed first? FIN Bond holders or ISS-Loans department? 2) What if people purchased shares because they trust the EMFi, but not Serenity... for myself personally, I trust myself more then SS, (though of course that is logical ;P) but I could see that some investors may not be pleased. 3) I am not sure if the contract caters to change of CEO, but I haven't read it yet.. if change of trustee CEO is allowed under shareholder vote (even though the CEO's are named explicately) then of course this will continue as the charter determines. I have only 1 job as a trustee, and that is to uphold the charter, I have been a terrible ***** about it as well.. and paid attention to every comma. I just hope that SS can be the same, and will have the BOND HOLDERS interest highest, and only ISS interest secondly ;)
Speng	Posted - 2006.12.14 10:41:00 - [16] Originally by: Apple Blossom Even in the worse case scenario (or best from your point of view), ISS loose two outposts, and have five left. I think you'll find the worse case scenario would be losing ALL their outposts. And you can't rule that out.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.12.14 11:29:00 - [17] I will most likely be voting no as it stands. Serenity Steele already has enough access to assets with the new IPO, and making him able to do what he wants with no more than a single vote is horribly stupid in my mind. The excuse you've used to toss away the possibility of three trustees is a very mediocre one. Its not that I don't trust Serenity, but there are too many eggs in one basket here. -[23] Member- Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON!
Astarte Nosferatu MBN Holding Corporation	Posted - 2006.12.14 11:49:00 - [18] Originally by: Dark Shikari I will most likely be voting no as it stands. Serenity Steele already has enough access to assets with the new IPO, and making him able to do what he wants with no more than a single vote is horribly stupid in my mind. The excuse you've used to toss away the possibility of three trustees is a very mediocre one. Its not that I don't trust Serenity, but there are too many eggs in one basket here. I concur. As it stands, I'm voting no to replace EMFI Manager with Serenity Steele as trustee.
EFS Manager Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2006.12.14 11:59:00 - [19] Originally by: Apple Blossom Originally by: Kaylana Syi Do you really want to have ISS as a business partner? They aren't doing so well in the south and won't for months to come. If I understand the trustee arrangement in FIN correctly, the state of ISS as a profit making entity has very little baring at all on FIN's success. As EFS stated above, the trustee's sole role is to ensure the BPOs are locked down. They are not 'business partners', except in this case as a potential source of short-term loans. Even in the worse case scenario (or best from your point of view), ISS loose two outposts, and have five left. I'm sure Serenity would still have ample funds to offer loans. The IAC-ISS war would seem to have little baring on FIN, whether Serenity is trustee or not. Apple Blossom 100% correct on all points /EFS Manager
Speng	Posted - 2006.12.14 12:04:00 - [20] Originally by: EFS Manager 100% correct on all points Apart from the misidentification of the worst case scenario, you mean?
EFS Manager Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2006.12.14 14:02:00 - [21] Originally by: Speng Originally by: EFS Manager 100% correct on all points Apart from the misidentification of the worst case scenario, you mean? Not at all. Worst case scenario is generally read to be "worst reasonable case scenario". Only two stations are under any sort of threat at all, so loosing 2 is the current worst case. I mean we could say the worst case is that Oveur decides he wants to take all ISS' Isk and assets away, but that is also not very reasonable. Sincerely, EFS Manager
Apple Blossom	Posted - 2006.12.14 14:05:00 - [22] Originally by: Speng Originally by: Apple Blossom Even in the worse case scenario (or best from your point of view), ISS loose two outposts, and have five left. I think you'll find the worse case scenario would be losing ALL their outposts. And you can't rule that out. Agreed. However, even with 0 outposts I would be confident that ISS would have sufficient funds to provide loans. They have well over 100B isk in their coffers as it stands. My point is that the FIN arrangement has nothing (or at least very little) to do with ISS outposts. Apple Blssom
EFS Manager Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2006.12.14 14:08:00 - [23] At the risk of repeating myself on some points, let me try clarify this. 1) The performance of FIN has nothing whatsoever to do with the profitability of ISS. The only change this represents is who the trustee is and who trusts them. ISS is not the new trustee rather one of the directors of ISS in the same way that EMFi is currently a trustee but people don't say "You have a pirate (Naphtalia) as your trustee!!!". In this case, having SS as a trustee brings with it added benefits. 2) The shareholders agreement has always been kept to, and clause 4.4.2 states the following: A general change to all other terms in this agreement is possible subject to a simple majority vote by the EFS shareholders (or bond holders) That was always part of the business plan and there is no room for the comment of "what if people only trusted EMFi". FIN has always revolved around the agreement in the business plan and will continue to do so. It is not as if I have suggested someone random or unproven as a trustee here. I venture that nobody has handled as much Isk investment wise in Eve than Serenity Steele. 3) EMFi brings up a good point that I should have answered regarding who the 'preferred creditor' would be in the case of default. The way this will work is that ISS would be 'just another creditor' in the same way that any bond holder is in effect a creditor, and the same rules will apply. So we will not be able to borrow Isk unless the total amount loaned (bonds and loans) holds to the 120% security rule. 4) The answer to having more than 3 shareholders is in fact based almost entirely on advice from EMFi Manager when I was writing up the FIN business plan. Now if EMFi was not happy having more than 2 trustees (and felt it would not make it more secure) then I fail to see why Serenity Steele should look at it any differently especially since Serenity Steele may be (if needed) loaning FIN Isk on behalf of ISS (which requires the collateral to be fully secured). 5) Regarding too many eggs in one basket, that should then apply to EMFi as well, as EMFi has effective control over AATP, EMFi and FIN (with AATP being direct competition). It is also not as if I am handing over complete control to Serenity Steele - any unlock vote can still be blocked by Femintaki. I know that some investors will not like the proposal, while some will be in favour of it. I'm not running for a political position here - I am trying to make FIN as profitable as I can for the shareholders, which I believe I have been very successful in thus far and I am not about to propose something that will jeapoardise that work. Overall I will of course abide by the majority decision here, so this is an oportunity for shareholders to decide what they think will be best for FIN. Sincerely, EFS Manager
Imperius Blackheart	Posted - 2006.12.14 14:38:00 - [24] I have been hugely impressed by the way this investment has been managed thus far, and happy with my returns. I don't invest easily, rather putting in more of my cash as my confidence with something grows, today I ordered more bonds in EFS... however I am also voting no to the adding of ISS to the business plan. My reasons for this are that it isn't the stable steady investment I brought into, I don't want my investment taking loans and I don't want to further the risk on this investment or rock the boat at all. I have been pleased with preformance and I hope it stays like it. I may be wrong and if I am outvoted so be it, and if I am proven wrong over time of course I will be happy of course. But when I make risky, or high risk investments I know what I am getting into at the time and it forms my decisions, when I make steady and stable investments its because thats what I need from that investment. So I would rather this investment doesn't change. I hope this is clear and makes sense
EFS Manager Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2006.12.14 14:50:00 - [25] Edited by: EFS Manager on 14/12/2006 14:53:39 Originally by: Imperius Blackheart I have been hugely impressed by the way this investment has been managed thus far, and happy with my returns. I don't invest easily, rather putting in more of my cash as my confidence with something grows, today I ordered more bonds in EFS... however I am also voting no to the adding of ISS to the business plan. My reasons for this are that it isn't the stable steady investment I brought into, I don't want my investment taking loans and I don't want to further the risk on this investment or rock the boat at all. I have been pleased with preformance and I hope it stays like it. I may be wrong and if I am outvoted so be it, and if I am proven wrong over time of course I will be happy of course. But when I make risky, or high risk investments I know what I am getting into at the time and it forms my decisions, when I make steady and stable investments its because thats what I need from that investment. So I would rather this investment doesn't change. I hope this is clear and makes sense Yes, that makes sense, however I would like to counter. FIN is not going to take lots of loans and may not take any at all. What we would have is the option to have quick access to Isk to bridge any possible gap between FIN's liquidity and the cost of the BPO. Please note this would ONLY apply if a REALLY good deal came along which had a yield above the effective interest that we would be paying. From then on the loan would be settled as soon as possible and the loan would generally only be active for a few weeks (2-6). How FIN is run and how investments are chosen will not change at all. FIN is designed to be steady growth, which I believe it has lived up to in every way. Besides that, I have no problem with you voting no, as this is exactly what the vote is there for. I think a yes vote is a positive thing, but then I do not have the right to make those sorts of changes without majority aproval, and I will live by the majority decision whatever that may be. Kind regards, EFS Manager
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.12.14 14:57:00 - [26] Voted no so as to prevent doubling up on security BPOs are used as collateral for. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Keith Yelnick2 Gallente Fatalix Industries Schism.	Posted - 2006.12.14 15:12:00 - [27] Originally by: EFS Manager That was always part of the business plan and there is no room for the comment of "what if people only trusted EMFi". FIN has always revolved around the agreement in the business plan and will continue to do so. It is not as if I have suggested someone random or unproven as a trustee here. I venture that nobody has handled as much Isk investment wise in Eve than Serenity Steele. I only invested because the EMFI name was on this. It was right in the charter. I've voted no and will be selling my shares if the vote goes through. This was supposed to be a stable investment. You're making a major change from the original charter. Major Change = Not Stable. Your not being forced into putting in a new trustee because EMFI is quitting. You're choosing to. I hope that this vote fails, because I don't want to sell a stock that has been a nice stable performer for me. However, I invested in an EMFI backed venture. If EMFI goes, so will alot of other people. Everybody who has ISK in this now, invested based on the current plan. I doubt this change will bring in new investors, it will simply cause alot of current investors to sell.
EFS Manager Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2006.12.14 15:59:00 - [28] Originally by: Baun Voted no so as to prevent doubling up on security BPOs are used as collateral for. Baun, would you mind explaining to me what you mean by this? If you read my previous posts you will see that there will be no doubling up of anything. However you are free to vote as you see fit. Kind regards, EFS Manager
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.12.14 16:02:00 - [29] Originally by: EFS Manager Originally by: Baun Voted no so as to prevent doubling up on security BPOs are used as collateral for. Baun, would you mind explaining to me what you mean by this? If you read my previous posts you will see that there will be no doubling up of anything. However you are free to vote as you see fit. Kind regards, EFS Manager You have a point, but this presents the possibility of doubling up that I am not happy with. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Maltrox Minmatar United Salvage and Recovery	Posted - 2006.12.14 16:25:00 - [30] Edited by: Maltrox on 14/12/2006 16:26:40 Can I get things clarified here (preferably by EFS Manager or Femintaki) 1) If I understand this vote correctly (and hopefully last night's dream was just silly :P), then the vote is to replace EFS Manager for Serenity Steele as one of the two trustees of EFS... so it would be Femintaki and Serenity Steele doing corp votes/unlocking BPO's blah blah... Or would it be Femintaki, EFS Manager and Serenity Steele as the trustees...and doing all the votes et al? 2) Newbie Question (refrain from the flames, it's an honest question): What gurantee is there that Femintaki/EFS Manager/Serenity Steele are not the same person or combination thereof? I'd appreciate an explanation without comments such as "check my employment history" or "I've played for five years". I take investment seriously, especially after the EIB scam. 3) What exactly is the current loan proces if FIN were to request funds from ISS? What is the expected turnaround time, at present (theoretically speaking, should the service still be in infancy). How will having Serenity Steele as a trustee assist in this process or make it more efficient? -unrelated bit P.S. The enemy's gate is indeed down, and the four disabled soldiers with the five half frozen are actually carrying out the victory routine. Shoot em!

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.