Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 11:06:00 -
[1]
I would like to answer some questions I have been getting lately as well as give feedback on the current situation with FIN.
Updates:
Dividends are only due by the end of the month. Previously we had paid them out in two parts but this was a discretionary option and was there to prevent bond sniping just before dividends. As we are sold out of dividends this is not longer a consideration. I expect that dividends will only be paid out once per month until (if ever) we expand FIN again.
Feedback Request:
With the T2 BPO reseeding and particularly the instability in the market regarding the invention changes, T2 BPOs have lost a lot of value. The profit has not dropped nearly as much as the actual BPO values though (but may still do so), which leaves FIN and myself in a difficult situation.
Right now the BPOs bought with the Isk invested into FIN no longer cover the invested Isk. This does not apply to the BPOs locked down though so please hold off on the panic. Right now my own personal BPOs are securing FIN which is not a situation I am prepared to keep indefinitely. Something has to be done to rectify this situation in the long term and I would like to open this up to feedback from investors. The following options are solutions I can think of, but if any investors have others, please feel free to suggest them.
1) The most obvious option is to cut dividends to the minimum 4% and use the portion of the profits over 4% to re-invest into FIN until such time that the FINs assets equal the invested Isk. I expect that it would take about 12-18 months to recover like this but it would need no special vote from any investors and falls within the ambit of the shareholders agreement.
2) In theory it would be possible to reduce the interest below 4% and re-invest the full amount, but this would be in violation of the shareholders agreement and therefore can not be considered.
3) The current security required is 120% of the invested capital. This could be reduced in which case FINs assets could cover the invested Isk. The security would have to be reduced to about 80% of the invested capital for this to be feasible. In this situation the full profit would continue to be paid out each month to each investor. This option is allowed for in the business plan and would need a 50% vote over 7 days to pass. To clarify that would mean that 50% of the people casting votes would have to say yes and not 50% of all investors.
4) I have personally been experimenting with other income generating ventures with my own Isk over the last few months and have done well with this. However this is not related to BPOs and therefore can not be secured by it's own activities. I could start doing this with some of FINs Isk as well, but this would also only be possible if the security amount were reduced. I am currently getting about 11% return on various unsecured (by third parties) trading. To do this the security would have to be reduced even further than that in option 3 to about 65-70%.
5) Any combination of 1,3&4. I would personally go for this whereby security would be reduced, dividends would likely remain the same and I would work some capital to get the security back to the 120% level.
I would like to point out that all but option 2 are possible by a majority vote as per the original agreement. I would however like to open the topic up for discussion for a while before anything is voted on.
In closing I would like to say that these solutions are not proposed lightly. CCP have once again taken away from the non PvP side of EvE in what I am convinced is a short-sighted move, but nonetheless it is a move we must adjust to however painful that may be.
Please keep the feedback constructive. I would also appreciate it if feedback was kept to FIN shareholders as this really only concerns them. If you are not an investor your opinion holds no weight here.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Cerwyn Taraman
Minmatar Phoenix Tech Industries Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 11:38:00 -
[2]
I'm comfortable with 3 & 4 and would vote my 78,000 shares that way if it comes to a vote.
Keep up the good work!
|
Kasia Pelarar
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 12:01:00 -
[3]
I think option 5
More precisely, the use of FIN ISK (secured with adequate collateral) in your personal venture to rebuild the 120% security rate. Although, it might be worth increasing that while the market settles in case the prices settle lower than expected.
As I understand, you are already doing something almost like this at present (second paragraph of Feedback request) in that your personal BPOs are securing FIN while you use personal ISK to fund your venture. Using the above at least everyone would understand how things stand.
Personally, any of these options are reasonable (to me) providing communication is maintained (or increased) on what is happening.
Can we have some word on what is happening on the re-vote and/or board of directors too?
Eve Share & Market Reporting (ESMaR) & Eve Share & Market Analysis (ESMAn) |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 12:12:00 -
[4]
Start with 1 and moving into 4. Diversification should ensure survival until the BPO market stabilizes and income ventures in said market can be realized again. |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 12:15:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kasia Pelarar Can we have some word on what is happening on the re-vote and/or board of directors too?
Sorry about not giving feedback on that - slipped my mind. I have responded in a new thread which can be found here. Thanks for the reminder Kasia.
Regards,
Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 12:18:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Start with 1 and moving into 4. Diversification should ensure survival until the BPO market stabilizes and income ventures in said market can be realized again.
Kazzac, I'm afraid I do not understand how I could practically do that. Could you please explain to me in steps or specific actions what you are suggesting here, as I don't quite see how starting at 1 would move into 4.
Unless of course you mean follow 1) until the security is back in place (about 18 months) and then continue with 1 to get some cash reserves to work on 4 with? If so that would be fine but a decision on that would only happen in about 18 months time.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Gomaz
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 12:42:00 -
[7]
Well at the time which you created FIN those BPO's were valued at the 120%. You had at least one chance to make away with the ISK and the BPO's clean and free. You say you already have a way to make up the difference over time? I have no prolbem with droping to the minimal amount, however on the other hand I trust you with my investment if it were a scam you would have done it by now.
in closing so far you have done a wounderful job. I am sure this in game company is something that takes a ton of work and is a thankless job. i just wish there was something I could do to help you with it.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 12:48:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Start with 1 and moving into 4. Diversification should ensure survival until the BPO market stabilizes and income ventures in said market can be realized again.
Kazzac, I'm afraid I do not understand how I could practically do that. Could you please explain to me in steps or specific actions what you are suggesting here, as I don't quite see how starting at 1 would move into 4.
Unless of course you mean follow 1) until the security is back in place (about 18 months) and then continue with 1 to get some cash reserves to work on 4 with? If so that would be fine but a decision on that would only happen in about 18 months time.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
That is what I meant... apologies. I post at work so in my effort to be quick sometimes I fail to communicate my full thoughts.
Its a long timeline, but I'd be comfortable with something like that as I feel the BPO markets are never going to recover to its previous heights given the changes and reseeds. |
Ray McCormack
BIG
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 13:01:00 -
[9]
Reduce security to 100%, reduce dividends to 4%, and utilise this additional amount to achieve growth for a period of 6 months or so. That would achieve (if my calculations are correct) at least another 15% overall.
What percentage do you need to increase FIN's worth by to withdraw your personal BPOs?
| How To Afford A Tech II BPO | the all mighty BIG industrial corp from hell *snip*- This is a PG forum- Tirg |
Halafian
Amarr Friendship Society
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 13:43:00 -
[10]
Whatever you think best, Eefrit. I'm fine with whatever you decide. Of course, I only own 5000 sharse.
|
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 13:55:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Ray McCormack What percentage do you need to increase FIN's worth by to withdraw your personal BPOs?
Ray, that really depends a lot on how the BPOs are valued by Femintaki and EMFi. I would estimate that it would need to be reduced to 70%-80%. I would really like to have a clear seperation between my personal BPOs and FIN's BPOs as it would make working out profits per month a heck of a lot easier.
/Eefrit
|
Kasia Pelarar
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 18:09:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Kasia Pelarar Can we have some word on what is happening on the re-vote and/or board of directors too?
Sorry about not giving feedback on that - slipped my mind. I have responded in a new thread which can be found here. Thanks for the reminder Kasia.
Thanks for that.
Just wish more corporations were quick to reply and/or provide public information.
Eve Share & Market Reporting (ESMaR) & Eve Share & Market Analysis (ESMAn) |
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 18:18:00 -
[13]
Well FIN is a going concern i.e. you're making isk. There are two issues I see here:
1) Per unit profit is declining as new sources of supply enter the market. To get profits up will require purchase of more capital goods (BPO's) to produce more items or diversification into other sources of profit (i.e. trading of drop items).
2) The value of capital goods is down. This means that the value of the company has decreased but also that it is cheaper to buy more capital goods. AT THIS TIME THE DECREASE IS SALE PRICE OF MANUFACTURED GOODS IS LESS THEN THE DECLINE IN BPO VALUE. This may change in the future.
Personally I'd say modify the charter so that Liquidation will include all BPO's of the company (publically listed monthly) at whatever the current value is. Start reinvesting a portion of the returns in trading until BPO prices bottom out/something good comes onto the market, then acquire new BPO's. Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU! |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 18:52:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jas Dor AT THIS TIME THE DECREASE IS SALE PRICE OF MANUFACTURED GOODS IS LESS THEN THE DECLINE IN BPO VALUE.
Actually quite the opposite is true. Right now the profit of the BPOs has not been hit that hard, rather the value of the BPOs has. People are worried about the future and so are less willing to spend on new T2 BPOs which has effected the value in terms of what they would sell for.
The current profit is equal to divies of just under 7% if all were paid out but the value of the BPOs as security has changed.
/Eefrit
|
Anastasia Heron
Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 20:20:00 -
[15]
Eefrit,
Have you thought at all about redeeming some of the bonds? I know there's a standing redemption offer outstanding but I thought a more aggressive buyback might be an option.
Also, my 45,000 shares and I would be okay with a 80-90% coverage. I'm with the sentiment that if this were a scam you'd have pulled the trigger by now. I'm also content with knowing I might only get 80% back if this does go south. Quite frankly, I've made back that 20% already.
I really do applaud your efforts to remain aboveboard on this venture. After the EIB situation, this is exactly what we needed.
|
Hangman69
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 20:28:00 -
[16]
I say option 5 in the short term (3 months) or until ccp stops monkeying with bpo amounts/invention and then reevaluate where things stand. Lots of stuff is in flux and i don't want you to sell off value needlessly to get to a certain % of value, but I also don't want you to miss out on getting rid of certain bpos which stand to lose major amounts of isk due to re-valuation.
I also wonder if Dark Shikari could drop in and say whether sales of products are different pre/post patch, just like to get his insights on the day to day sales of t2 goods.
|
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari Trinity Nova
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 02:35:00 -
[17]
Eefrit,
To be fair to you, I invested in this as a safe secure stable income source, as you intented, nobody could have forseen the changes or the impact they would have on FIN and our investments, while I have quite a few shares brought directly or though the open market on the stock exchanges I feel that if you are happy to re-invest and look after my isk, and continue to provide me a return for my investment, that is all any of us can expect from you.
I agree with your inital assement that a combination of the 1,3 and 4... and would vote for that should one come up.
I hope that this investment continues in the relable and open way it has been handled thus far :)
Much kudos to you, and thank you.
Imperius.
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 08:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Anastasia Heron Have you thought at all about redeeming some of the bonds? I know there's a standing redemption offer outstanding but I thought a more aggressive buyback might be an option.
Anastasia, I have thought about buying back bonds but that will not change the security needed as it is based on the total number of bonds in circulation. i.e. if I had 200 Bill Isk of the 250 Bill Isk in bonds, the security would still need to cover the 250 Bill Isk of bonds in circulation, otherwise I could just buy lots back, effectively reduce security by 90% and resell them. Of course I would not do this but it is would be open to abuse if it were allowed.
Long term for FIN to survive it needs to diversify into things like trading and capital ship production. With the present structure that would be very difficult as trading would have no assets to lock down and capital ship production would need huge amounts of liquid Isk to operate with.
It is worth mentioning that FIN really has no working capital of its own and has really been borrowing working capital from me interest free since inception. I would like FIN to become 100% its own entity with total wallet seperation in the future. The other advantage of this is it allows more transparency as to what FIN is doing regards to making Isk.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 13:19:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Hangman69 I also wonder if Dark Shikari could drop in and say whether sales of products are different pre/post patch, just like to get his insights on the day to day sales of t2 goods.
There doesn't seem to be that much of a difference so far; it probably won't chance drastically until datacore prices really do drop drastically, which will happen soon.
I haven't done any work for STUFF since Thursday due to RL stuff, so I am not fully up-to-date.
The main drops I noticed were mostly due to patch speculation: Inertia stab IIs dropped, though I managed to sell all of mine at a small loss. Hulks also dropped over 100m.
--23 Member--
EVE-Trance Radio--The EVE Textboard |
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 16:43:00 -
[20]
Not sure if this has been posted yet... (haven't read all replies) but would like to respond..
1) There is no such thing as a "FIN BPO" or an "Personal BPO".. technically All BPO's locked down by the trustee's are Eefrit's personal BPO's locked down to secure his personal issued bonds.
This should also avoid any confusion like "I bought BPO:X personal that has doubled in value, and then from my personal profit from FIN from month 3 and 4 I bought another personal one.. and the one I bought directly from FIN isk halved in value etc... The way the operation is going it is impossible to assign certain BPOs as FIN BPO's and others as personal ones, and we should be VERY careful to confuse these becuase then things can get very ugly.
If Eefrit wanted to do a "public T2 Company" such as "T2AHL or AATP" where shareholders directly profit and lose from BPO Price fluctuation, he should have.
Sure, Eefrit pays over his minimum of 4%, and that is all fine..
I am personally only comfortable with Eefrit lowering his payment to his minimum for as long as he sees fit and until such time as he feels he wants to volluntarily raise payments again...
There need not to be any reinvesting of the remaining 2% (becuase well none of the BPO's are FIN anyways)
Personally I have BIG issues with lowering the security from 120% for technical reasons (would ensure more work for trustee becuase a slight fluctuation immediately requires adjustment of more locking/unlocking) at least the 120% gives us some leeway that if it drops with 5% we don't immediately need to panic :)
Well... Eefrit...
1) All BPO's are your personal BPO's and any rise and fall in ANY of those bpos are your personal profit/loss 2) The BOND is your persona BOND and you are required to pay 4% (or more if you wish) 3) The Personal BPO's the trustees have locked for you will be used to secure your personal bonds.
I am sure someone has said this before me in this threat but cba to reread :)
Cheers!
|
|
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 16:45:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Eefrit
Anastasia, I have thought about buying back bonds but that will not change the security needed as it is based on the total number of bonds in circulation. i.e. if I had 200 Bill Isk of the 250 Bill Isk in bonds, the security would still need to cover the 250 Bill Isk of bonds in circulation,
We have had this issue before and is easy to cover with the trustee holding the shares... :) so really a non-issue...
|
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 16:49:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Eefrit I would like FIN to become 100% its own entity with total wallet seperation in the future. The other advantage of this is it allows more transparency as to what FIN is doing regards to making Isk.
To be frank, should have made public corp (with profit/loss accordingly) and not a bond... FIN isn't a corp, doesn't have liquid cash, doesn't have assets... FIN is only a "payment and security lockdown vehicle" for bonds... don't start to confuse things.
All cash raised by the bonds is your personal cash, and any personal cash can be used as liquid funds.. don't start treating FIN as a public corp now it is as huge as it is and write of the risk on the bond investors.
Seriously, if you are in trouble.. just drop to 4% like you are entitled to... till your personal wallet is more healthy... but this shift in communications is really worrying (talking about personal vs. FIN BPOs)
Anyways.. I reactivated the CEO, and did all the votes etc ;)
|
Alain DeMorgan
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 22:39:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Eefrit 1) The most obvious option is to cut dividends to the minimum 4% and use the portion of the profits over 4% to re-invest into FIN until such time that the FINs assets equal the invested Isk. I expect that it would take about 12-18 months to recover like this but it would need no special vote from any investors and falls within the ambit of the shareholders agreement.
Please do this. It's covered by the existing agreement and I don't see why you need to touch the security backing the bonds at all. If your corp isn't as profitable as you predicted when you raised the funding on the basis of 4% payback, then that's not the problem of the bondholders, it is your problem -- and TBH it's not really the business of the bondholders to say how you should run your corp so long as you come up with the 4% each month, anyway. If you want to retain earnings, that's your decision. I personally never expected more than 4% anyway because you related the bonus payments to some vague handwaving about "performance of the corp" and I expected it to disappear just as soon as something like this happened.
As I see it the corp's run into an unexpected (O RLY??) shift in the T2 BPO market. Well, that's not the problem of the bondholders. If anything I think you should be increasing the amount of security held since it seems like the value of the assets backing the bonds is much more volatile -- if the trustees were to liquidate the nominally-120% security in the current market, do you really think the bondholders would see 100% payback of their bonds?
Sorry to be a bit of a hardass about this but you didn't issue shares, you issued bonds, and went on at length about how secure and guaranteed-repayment they were. The only time you should be talking about renegotiating the terms on a bond is when the issuer is having trouble meeting their interest or principal repayment commitments in the hope of getting something back before the issuer goes bust .. and I hope we're not at that point.
|
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 22:59:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Jas Dor AT THIS TIME THE DECREASE IS SALE PRICE OF MANUFACTURED GOODS IS LESS THEN THE DECLINE IN BPO VALUE.
Actually quite the opposite is true. Right now the profit of the BPOs has not been hit that hard, rather the value of the BPOs has. People are worried about the future and so are less willing to spend on new T2 BPOs which has effected the value in terms of what they would sell for.
The current profit is equal to divies of just under 7% if all were paid out but the value of the BPOs as security has changed.
/Eefrit
Um isn't that what I said? Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU! |
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 23:23:00 -
[25]
Originally by: EMFi Manager
Originally by: Eefrit I would like FIN to become 100% its own entity with total wallet seperation in the future. The other advantage of this is it allows more transparency as to what FIN is doing regards to making Isk.
To be frank, should have made public corp (with profit/loss accordingly) and not a bond... FIN isn't a corp, doesn't have liquid cash, doesn't have assets... FIN is only a "payment and security lockdown vehicle" for bonds... don't start to confuse things.
All cash raised by the bonds is your personal cash, and any personal cash can be used as liquid funds.. don't start treating FIN as a public corp now it is as huge as it is and write of the risk on the bond investors.
Seriously, if you are in trouble.. just drop to 4% like you are entitled to... till your personal wallet is more healthy... but this shift in communications is really worrying (talking about personal vs. FIN BPOs)
Anyways.. I reactivated the CEO, and did all the votes etc ;)
Why not start an IPO and buy out the FIN bonds? A couple points:
1) As a going concern FIN has goodwill. How much value should be attributed to goodwill is an open question. While the EvE Market does not allow for the traditional repreat customer FIN has (probably some) standing contracts as well as systems in place with component suppliers and haulers.
2) The current BPO stock likely has some additional value as all the BPO's are accumulated by one holder and are correctly positioned to realize a profit.
3) Other FIN assets such as POS infrastructure, freighters, ect.
My suggestion would be buy out the bonds. Transfer 105% of bond value to the IPO and use the IPO as a vehicle to raise additional capital for Cap Ship and other T1 production. (I'm less in favor of trading opperatings as commodity prices can very and there's no secure capital good, such as researched T1 BPO's that can be liquidated at a profit).
Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU! |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 14:04:00 -
[26]
Okay, there are quite a few things I would like to address so please excuse my rather long post.
1) To EMFi: I have always in my own spreadhseets kept clear diferentiation between BPOs that I allocated to FIN and those that were mine. Claiming that is not the case is rather arrogant for someone that has not been involved in the internal workings of FIN. You can claim I can not prove that and you are right, but that does not change the truth of the statement.
2) I am opening something up for discussion that is 100% within the bounds of the shareholders agreement. A LARGE part of this issue is that getting EMFi to do proper valuations has been pretty impossible. As a result the only way to do anything has been to lock down WAY in excess of the 120% needed to keep things moving along. Any amount more than 120% was an indulgence by myself to make life easier for EMFi primarily. An indulgence that I strongly feel is now being abused.
3) No, FIN can not buy back bonds to reduce security as it makes it VERY easy for EMFi to scam. FIN was set up such that it would require both trustees to scam for it to work and like this only one of them need to.
4) EMFi, whatever you may claim, I have personally not made any Isk from FIN while I have been working very hard at it. The structure that was set up was such that I could not scam, and that I have not done. FIN has done far better than AATP or any other similar corps set up by people that have done very little work at all and are primarily doing it to enrich themselves.
Let me finally remind all involved here that I am purely opening up the current situation to discussion from shareholders BEFORE any action is taken at all. If you wish to flame me for communicating then by all means go ahead, however I believe that most shareholders prefer getting given options within the ambit of the shareholders agreement. They could always vote to keep to the status quo, and that would be fine, but they could also vote to change the structure to any system that they believe is in their best interests.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Minmatar Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 14:22:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Eefrit Okay, there are quite a few things I would like to address so please excuse my rather long post.
1) To EMFi: I have always in my own spreadhseets kept clear diferentiation between BPOs that I allocated to FIN and those that were mine. Claiming that is not the case is rather arrogant for someone that has not been involved in the internal workings of FIN. You can claim I can not prove that and you are right, but that does not change the truth of the statement.
2) I am opening something up for discussion that is 100% within the bounds of the shareholders agreement. A LARGE part of this issue is that getting EMFi to do proper valuations has been pretty impossible. As a result the only way to do anything has been to lock down WAY in excess of the 120% needed to keep things moving along. Any amount more than 120% was an indulgence by myself to make life easier for EMFi primarily. An indulgence that I strongly feel is now being abused.
3) No, FIN can not buy back bonds to reduce security as it makes it VERY easy for EMFi to scam. FIN was set up such that it would require both trustees to scam for it to work and like this only one of them need to.
4) EMFi, whatever you may claim, I have personally not made any Isk from FIN while I have been working very hard at it. The structure that was set up was such that I could not scam, and that I have not done. FIN has done far better than AATP or any other similar corps set up by people that have done very little work at all and are primarily doing it to enrich themselves.
Let me finally remind all involved here that I am purely opening up the current situation to discussion from shareholders BEFORE any action is taken at all. If you wish to flame me for communicating then by all means go ahead, however I believe that most shareholders prefer getting given options within the ambit of the shareholders agreement. They could always vote to keep to the status quo, and that would be fine, but they could also vote to change the structure to any system that they believe is in their best interests.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
as far as 2) goes, it's a business, should be treated like a business. if someone doesn't want to hold to their end - do what you would normally do in a business situation.
"no good deed goes unpunished" is a proverb that comes to mind in regards to many a 'goodwill' business transaction.
|
Riley Craven
Caldari Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 17:31:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Riley Craven on 26/03/2007 17:29:38 It is my firm belief that FIN should do nothing.
1. BPO prices are not stable. It makes no sense to have a plan when prices for bpos could change wildly from day to day based off of CCP actions. No one knows just how much the last give away will affect the worth of these BPOS and further over time no one knows how prices will stabilize on items that are now officially unique and finite resources.
2. FIN has a responsibility to the share holders, not to anyone else. In the end it doesnt matter what EMFI says or what Eefrit says. The shareholders protection is in the agreement that Eefrit made. The only thing that matters is whats in that document.
3. My personal opinion is that while the 120% is a nice safety net, and ensures people they will still have money if Eefrit fails, I as a shareholder only care about the return on my investment. In the end there is always risk with any investment, and as investors that is something we realize. I believe that given the current rate of returns that it matters more to keep the returns high, leave the shareholder agreement the same and wait this out. Frankly, I think a guarentteed investment is always too good to be true, there will always be unexpected problems in the market that arise. With that I am more than happy with 90%. But still wait it out.
|
Two step
Amarr Chosen Path Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 18:08:00 -
[29]
Maybe I am missing something here, but I really think that the payback rate and BPO lockdown security issues are very separate things. If FIN is making 5% returns, that is what should be sent to investors. The question you should be asking investors is if they are OK with a specific mix of BPOs being held as collateral here. I know you are reluctant to mention specifics of which BPOs you are using, but I suspect that if you listed the BPOs by Item group (HAC, Medium Laser, etc.), most investors could easily make their own judgment about the chances of you running off with the isk.
Personally, I think that if you were going to run it would have happened a long time ago, and I am perfectly comfortable with a 50% or so ratio.
|
Venantius
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 18:13:00 -
[30]
To be honest I think option 1 is the best. It is the safest and we all new that it could happen when we invested. I would be okay with 4% and I think a lot of other people would too. Honestly the market changes make me leery, the options to change the security on the bonds make me leery, and (no offense) you seemingly getting flustered and fighting with EMFi makes me leery. It seems to me that option one is the safest and most stable course of action until everything calms. (But what do I know I am a newb at this)
I think I speak for everyone when I say we trust you, but FIN is one of my "safe" investments because of the security and the 4% guarentee. I dont think changing that should be done lightly (or at all) and I respect your diligence in bringing this to us.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |