Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Imperius Blackheart
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 16:44:00 -
[31]
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.
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 16:49:00 -
[32]
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 -
[33]
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
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 17:25:00 -
[34]
Originally by: EFS Manager
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
Why would it be bad if it would require two people to run off with everything instead of one?
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a really bad idea, IMO.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
ElrondMD
The Arrow Project The ARR0W Project
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 17:45:00 -
[35]
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.
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:03:00 -
[36]
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 -
[37]
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
|
Poison
Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:15:00 -
[38]
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.
|
Xanthar Rex
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:30:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Xanthar Rex on 14/12/2006 18:30:26 The situation has been explained very well and I believe this is a very good opportunity to grow our returns in the future without risking current stability. Voted Yes.
|
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:32:00 -
[40]
2 Trustees with each *exactly* 50% shares = most secure within game mechanics.
|
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:42:00 -
[41]
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 -
[42]
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
|
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:48:00 -
[43]
Originally by: EFS Manager
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
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.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 18:57:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Dark Shikari Why would it be bad if it would require two people to run off with everything instead of one?
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a really bad idea, IMO.
If I am understanding this correctly, it takes a majority share vote in the trustee corp to unlock bpos. With 3 trustees, two thirds of them can pack up all the bpos and run off with the isk, leaving one honest trustee unable to do anything to stop them. With 2 trustees, it takes both to vote yes on the unlock vote to get a majority vote.. so 100% of the trustees would have to defect in order for the bpos to be stolen.
So there would be no added security in having three trustees than there would be in having two, would there?
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Poison
Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 19:03:00 -
[45]
[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.
Now thats a good reason to vote no :)
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 19:10:00 -
[46]
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
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 19:57:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Dark Shikari Why would it be bad if it would require two people to run off with everything instead of one?
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a really bad idea, IMO.
If I am understanding this correctly, it takes a majority share vote in the trustee corp to unlock bpos. With 3 trustees, two thirds of them can pack up all the bpos and run off with the isk, leaving one honest trustee unable to do anything to stop them. With 2 trustees, it takes both to vote yes on the unlock vote to get a majority vote.. so 100% of the trustees would have to defect in order for the bpos to be stolen.
So there would be no added security in having three trustees than there would be in having two, would there?
I didn't know a vote that was tied would default to fail... so in that case, you're right, two trustees is better.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
mackem
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 21:21:00 -
[48]
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.
I agree, I voted yes.
But I have two questions. What BPO's have been missed in the past? How drastic an affect would the possibility of instant access to these extra funds have on the return?
|
Erfnam
Time Cube Syndicate Daikoku Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.12.14 22:36:00 -
[49]
The only problem with 2 trustees is that if 1 is expected to be away for more than 24 hours, nothing will stop the other from doing a 24 hour vote to claim CEO, unlock bpos, etc. The number of trustees really isn't the issue, since if you don't trust each one completely, you're taking a huge gamble.
Time Cube Syndicate is recruiting |
Serenity Steele
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate Operations
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 00:48:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Serenity Steele on 15/12/2006 00:48:44
Originally by: Erfnam The only problem with 2 trustees is that if 1 is expected to be away for more than 24 hours, nothing will stop the other from doing a 24 hour vote to claim CEO, unlock bpos, etc. The number of trustees really isn't the issue, since if you don't trust each one completely, you're taking a huge gamble.
You're not actually suggesting that either Femintaki or I go on holidays from EvE are you
Actually, we will do, just not at the same time, so FIN always watched New ISS IPO
Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert |
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 03:41:00 -
[51]
I think the question needs to be asked who votes the shares that were recently created?
EMFi or EFS? or are they simply not voted?
if the charter requires members to always agree to creating shares, what's the point of voting?
you could always create enough shares to win whatever vote you have planned coming up.
|
Erfnam
Time Cube Syndicate Daikoku Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 04:02:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Edited by: Serenity Steele on 15/12/2006 00:48:44
Originally by: Erfnam The only problem with 2 trustees is that if 1 is expected to be away for more than 24 hours, nothing will stop the other from doing a 24 hour vote to claim CEO, unlock bpos, etc. The number of trustees really isn't the issue, since if you don't trust each one completely, you're taking a huge gamble.
You're not actually suggesting that either Femintaki or I go on holidays from EvE are you
Actually, we will do, just not at the same time, so FIN always watched
I'm not worried about EFS, since from what I understand he does not have have shares in the trustee corp so cannot cause a vote.
Time Cube Syndicate is recruiting |
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 04:20:00 -
[53]
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
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 04:31:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Dr Slurm on 15/12/2006 04:31:30
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 that this.
|
EFS Manager
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 05:41:00 -
[55]
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
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 06:17:00 -
[56]
Originally by: EFS Manager
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
I'm afraid you didn't. I would like to know who votes the shares that were just recently created via vote. Am I mistaken that a good number of shares were recently created?
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 06:27:00 -
[57]
Originally by: EFS Manager Edited by: EFS Manager on 15/12/2006 06:07:57
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.
Assuming that you are referring to the implication that as many shares as I want can be created, I did not feel it needed answering. The shareholders agreement gives the guidelines under which extra bonds can be created and this has always been kept to, so the implication that I have created bonds at will to win a vote is absurd.
If we were going to go entirely on the weighted majority of investments, I would hold by far the majority as far more of my personal assets are being held as surety to make bondholders sleep a little easier than the total invested amount thus far - and that amount could easily be taken as investment (which it has not).
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
It's not absurd, it's plausible. Please login to eve if you have the time, I'd rather discuss this in chat then cluttering your thread.
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 06:48:00 -
[58]
I'm not trying to cause grief here, just playing devil's advocate.
Personally I'm a cynic, skeptic and resistant to change. Please don't take it personally.
|
Heikki
Gallente Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 15:27:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Edit: Managed 336Bn and counting to-date.
I apologize for slight off-tanged post:
Does this mean you had access to 336B at some point, or that total ISK flow passed through your hands has been over that?
When speaking about trust, I believe it is only sensible to talk about the biggest temptation you've proven to resist in the past (and so are likely to resist in the future). So not scamming single fund peaking at 50B is pretty much better honor than being 100 times honest with 5B funds.
For on topic note: If I've understood correctly, ISS management is about to gain access to highest single fund in Eve so far. Although the they are known to be trusted on rather grand scale (tens of billions), I reckon this level of trust is yet to be tested.
-Lasse
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2006.12.15 15:58:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Dr Slurm Edited by: Dr Slurm on 15/12/2006 06:45:48
Originally by: EFS Manager Edited by: EFS Manager on 15/12/2006 06:07:57
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.
Assuming that you are referring to the implication that as many shares as I want can be created, I did not feel it needed answering. The shareholders agreement gives the guidelines under which extra bonds can be created and this has always been kept to, so the implication that I have created bonds at will to win a vote is absurd.
If we were going to go entirely on the weighted majority of investments, I would hold by far the majority as far more of my personal assets are being held as surety to make bondholders sleep a little easier than the total invested amount thus far - and that amount could easily be taken as investment (which it has not).
Sincerely,
EFS Manager
It's not absurd, it's plausible. //going to bed
So who votes the stock?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |