| 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
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 03:47:00 -
[2]
 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
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 04:32:00 -
[3]
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
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 05:25:00 -
[4]
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
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 11:59:00 -
[5]
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
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 14:02:00 -
[6]
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
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 14:08:00 -
[7]
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
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 14:50:00 -
[8]
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
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 15:59:00 -
[9]
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
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 16:49:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Maltrox
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?
The current trustees are EMFi Manage and Femintaki, and not myself. I do all the work but have no shares in the FIN trust that manages the production and profit making.
If the vote is passed, the trustees will be Femintaki and Serenity Steele. They alone will have the ability to lock/unlock BPOs.
Originally by: Maltrox
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.
Femintaki and Serenity Steele are well known in real life, and many people can verify that they are in fact not the same person. You can check with EMFi Manager as well, as I know he has met Serenity Steele at Fanfest 2006 and has known Femintaki for a long time. As to weather or not I can prove I am neither of them, all I can point to is that I have spoken to both Serenity Steele and Femintaki via Skype and TeamSpeak, and I think (although I am not sure) I have spoken to EMFi on skype/google chat.
Originally by: Maltrox
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?
It would most likely be a temporary sale of FIN Bonds to Serenity Steele which we would buy back to pay off the loan. We would likely pay the difference in interest directly to Serenity Steele as well.
You should remember that FIN Bonds are really a form of loan as it is, so taking the view that loans from ISS = risk is like saying I should not accept Isk from certain investors as that poses extra risk.
Once again there are no plans to make use of loans right now, but rather having the facility available would allow us to snap up high yield BPOs if they were to become available at below market prices.
I hope that I answered your questions, but feel free to ask for more clarification on any points that I have not adequately dealt with.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 16:56:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Imperius Blackheart
Please excuse my ignorance, I would rather make a informed vote. But why wouldn't ISS currently loan EFS money for the BPO without being one of the trustees?...
And additionally again, I fail to see why ISS couldn't be added to the current trustees adding surely more security to the fund for investers... Sorry if this has already been answered but I just don't get it.
ISS would loan money to FIN without being a trustee, but it would take about two weeks to facilitate as we would have to get BPOs out of production, unlock them and then trade them with ISS as collateral. This would all negate the ability of being able to buy high return BPOs when they (rarely) come available.
In terms of having more than two trustees, that was one of EMFi Managers requirements to become a trustee initially, and revolves around the way the ingame mechanics work in terms of corp management. Essentially whoever is CEO is really the primary trustee no matter how many shares he/she has. Also if there are for example 3 trustees, then if two of them decide to, they can remove the CEO, unlock the BPOs and run away with them.
The agreement between ISS and it's investors is that only fully secured loans will be given which means that the ISS needs to be 100% sure that the assets acting as collateral can not be taken away without the loan being repaid.
Basically it is an indulgence that ISS have offered that if Serenity Steele is the primary trustee, that the collateral can remain in the FIN trust instead of having to be moved to the ISS for the duration of the loan. That indulgence makes a HUGE difference to FINs ability to respond to excellent deals when they come around.
Kind regards,
EFS Manager
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:03:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Why would it be bad if it would require two people to run off with everything instead of one?
Because it would not be fully secured for the ISS shareholders. Would you like ISS to violate their shareholders agreement so that you can feel safer? I don't think it is fair (or ethical) for them to expect that.
You should ask EMFi why he had a problem with my initial suggestion of 5 trustees, and instead wanted only two. You never had a problem then, so I fail to see what the problem is with it now.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:06:00 -
[13]
Originally by: ElrondMD
Voted no, this does not seem to be a simple matter of the need for extra ISK, such a radical change should have a airtight reason.
It is not a current need for extra Isk. It is forward planning so that if the need arises and is suitably justified by the return that we have options.
This is not a vote to loan Isk from ISS - this is a vote to have the option of doing that if justified.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:42:00 -
[14]
Originally by: EMFi Manager
2 Trustees with each *exactly* 50% shares = most secure within game mechanics.
You are 100% correct here. I thought this was not the case until you convinced me of it. In fact we tested it and it turns out that this is the case (not just speculation).
I want to stress that EMFi Manager has done a sterling job of being a trustee and this vote in now way should reflect poorly on him. If the game mechanics change such that a board of directors is truly possible, then I will be the first to ask EMFi to be a trustee again (assuming this vote passes).
Thanks for all your advice and support EMFi. I doubt FIN would be where it is today without your input, especially into the business plan.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:45:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Poison
Here is someone that started a fund that does not take management fees. Tell me how many others you see do that? EFS has taken care of us and if he knows that he can make us more money with this then he can. I have a good amount invested and I am going to vote yes. If we can get access to large amounts of cash and keep the BPO's this is ideal. And in RL this is how corps work. They USE OPM.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Poison. One of the perks of FIN is that I get to meet lots of new people, and some of them are even nice 
/EFS Manager
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 19:10:00 -
[16]
Originally by: EMFi Manager
Thx, though I will still vote no with the EMFI shares ;) but that is purely becuase I trust myself more then anyone else <winks> no hard feelings.
No hard feelings at all. I would vote for me over Serenity too
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 04:20:00 -
[17]
To put it simply, the primary reason that I trust EMFi is that I trust Femintaki, and he trusts EMFi. This is not just about what investors want trust wise, but also about what I am comfortable with, as I have a LOT more to loose than all the investors combined if this goes pear shaped.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 05:41:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Dr Slurm
Edited by: Dr Slurm on 15/12/2006 04:37:51
Originally by: EFS Manager
To put it simply, the primary reason that I trust EMFi is that I trust Femintaki, and he trusts EMFi. This is not just about what investors want trust wise, but also about what I am comfortable with, as I have a LOT more to loose than all the investors combined if this goes pear shaped.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
Removing Fem doesn't change that relationship. I was just wondering why the option wasn't presented.
Please answer my other questions as I feel they much more important then this.
I did answer your question. Besides that, how the corp is run is entirely my decision as long as it remains within the shareholders agreement. Nobody own shares in the actual corporation besides myself - what have been sold are bonds and they should not be confused with shares.
Bonds are a form of loan agreement whereas shares give the holder a say in the running and decision making of the corp. The day bondholders are happy with there being no trustees and no collateral is the day that I will make management decisions open to bondholders scrutiny. Until then, as per the shareholders agreement, all management decisions and vote propositions are entirely my perogative.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 16:36:00 -
[19]
If it has been bought then it can vote. If it has not been bought then it is not used for a vote.
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.01.13 16:37:00 -
[20]
Originally by: David H'Levi
It finished a while ago, 95.3% in favor, 4.7% opposed.
The result was yes, but was not implemented due to CCP fixing a corp management bug that now would allow FIN to be managed by a board of trustees rather than only two people.
I have been away for the last 3 weeks and just got back today so I apologise for not informing investors sooner - I would have had I been able to post on the forum from my holiday destination.
Either way, I do not believe that the ISS hostilities effects the reasoning behind the change, but when weighing things up, I believe that a more secure board would be more beneficial to FIN than having the short term loan facilities available.
I am in the process or drafting a new shareholders agreement that will be put to vote as soon as it is complete which takes into account this change.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.01.14 12:19:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Jas Dor
Originally by: EFS Manager
Originally by: David H'Levi
It finished a while ago, 95.3% in favor, 4.7% opposed.
The result was yes, but was not implemented due to CCP fixing a corp management bug that now would allow FIN to be managed by a board of trustees rather than only two people.
I have been away for the last 3 weeks and just got back today so I apologise for not informing investors sooner - I would have had I been able to post on the forum from my holiday destination.
Either way, I do not believe that the ISS hostilities effects the reasoning behind the change, but when weighing things up, I believe that a more secure board would be more beneficial to FIN than having the short term loan facilities available.
I am in the process or drafting a new shareholders agreement that will be put to vote as soon as it is complete which takes into account this change.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
You know if the vote was yes, to be consistent, you really should to SS in as trustee then call for another vote to amend.
I have to disagree with you there as this was not a decision vote but rather a permission vote. I need permission to make a change from the investors and that is what I was asking for. I recieved permission but subsequently decided (as per the shareholders agreement) to not impliment the action.
As an aside, with the new agreement being drawn up, I will likely call for Serenity Steele to be one of the trustees on the board, but I feel it is in the best interests of investors to have a more secure board than it is to have bridging finance.
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
|
| |
|