EVE Search - FIN - Updates and Feedback Request

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Market Discussions

FIN - Updates and Feedback Request

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
David H'Levi Sniggerdly	Posted - 2007.03.27 01:18:00 - [31] Would liquidation work? Sell off all the FIN-owned BPOs and dividend out all the ISK to shareholders in a month or two (after putting up an EGSX/RESX freeze). I'm not saying that you should, necessary, and I'm certainly not calling for it, but if you're starting to feel annoyed by making ISK for us (however small the annoyance may be), it might be a good time to end the venture -- at a highly successful juncture -- and get your BPOs back. That is, of course, unless a liquidation would entail a substantial loss (25% or more, for example) due to a drop in BPO values. Just a thought to keep in mind. Option 1 also seems fine to me, and I much prefer it to the other ones. That's where I'll be voting, anyway. As much as you may love me, your signature must pertain to your in-game persona, and thus I must remove it. -Conuion Meow
Alain DeMorgan	Posted - 2007.03.27 04:09:00 - [32] One more thought.. Originally by: Eefrit 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. IRL, the return on a bond is (theoretically) related to the risk that the issuer will not be able to service its interest/principal commitments. If you are going to increase that risk by reducing the assets backing the bond, you need to increase the guaranteed payout. So a more reasonable option would be to say "80% backing, and 6% guaranteed payout + optional bonus" or something similar. Personally I'd vote for a change along those lines (because I don't mind the increased risk). As it stands this option boils down to "Please take more risk without any guarantee of a higher return", which doesn't sound very good to me.
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.03.27 05:44:00 - [33] calling eefrit is anybody home calling eefrit im here all alone did he leave the station or did he just lose a clone calling eefrit im here all alone
David H'Levi Sniggerdly	Posted - 2007.03.27 06:16:00 - [34] Originally by: Ionia calling eefrit is anybody home calling eefrit im here all alone did he leave the station or did he just lose a clone calling eefrit im here all alone Let's not antagonize or pressure the person making us money for free, please. As much as you may love me, your signature must pertain to your in-game persona, and thus I must remove it. -Conuion Meow
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.03.27 07:21:00 - [35] Originally by: David H'Levi Let's not antagonize or pressure the person making us money for free, please. You and Your Friend need not worry, we're all Brothers in Arms after all. I wasn't expecting the Iron Hand :\| The Man's too Strong to be bothered by a joke :p Why Worry? the Local Hero that gives us Money for Nothing just seems So Far Away this weekend. I hope you got the reference and are not just Setting Me Up for Your Latest Trick. How Long before he's back? I don't know, but i do know hes had problems on Telegraph Road (his ISP), he was on a few days ago and Boom, Like That, he was gone :( What Is It? a joke :p When It Comes To You im sure you'll see I wasnt trying to do any harm. This Lady Writer will continue her Private Invetigations, and in the mean time take her spot In the Gallery. ...Fade to Black
Imperius Blackheart Caldari Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.03.27 12:33:00 - [36] Originally by: Ionia Originally by: David H'Levi Let's not antagonize or pressure the person making us money for free, please. You and Your Friend need not worry, we're all Brothers in Arms after all. I wasn't expecting the Iron Hand :\| The Man's too Strong to be bothered by a joke :p Why Worry? the Local Hero that gives us Money for Nothing just seems So Far Away this weekend. I hope you got the reference and are not just Setting Me Up for Your Latest Trick. How Long before he's back? I don't know, but i do know hes had problems on Telegraph Road (his ISP), he was on a few days ago and Boom, Like That, he was gone :( What Is It? a joke :p When It Comes To You im sure you'll see I wasnt trying to do any harm. This Lady Writer will continue her Private Invetigations, and in the mean time take her spot In the Gallery. ...Fade to Black Your weird, its not cool to be weird.
LlamaOfPoon	Posted - 2007.03.28 09:38:00 - [37] Give the 4% return as guaranteed. Anyone who bought into this venture with other ideas is a fool. The IPO clearly stated that 4% was guaranteed, anything more was a bonus. Take whatever measures you think are in best interests of the compant (be that expanding wallet for liquid isk or re-investing in more BPOs/capital manu/T1 manufacturing) to stabilise the value of the company such that assets are secure (sale isk will cover bonds) and get the company back above the 4% return level. Fire EMFI Manager if he's being a ****. No skin off the shareholders nose and he never comes across on forums as anything but difficult to deal with. Dude, if you aint enjoying it.... get out! Its a game! We all play for fun of some form and if you aren't having it, why are you playing? If its out of obligation to the shareholders: Do what you can for 4 weeks to increase company value, liquidate all assets and pay out the holders to what value you can.
EMFi Manager EvE Mutual Fund Inc.	Posted - 2007.03.28 10:14:00 - [38] Originally by: LlamaOfPoon Give the 4% return as guaranteed. Anyone who bought into this venture with other ideas is a fool. The IPO clearly stated that 4% was guaranteed, anything more was a bonus. Take whatever measures you think are in best interests of the compant (be that expanding wallet for liquid isk or re-investing in more BPOs/capital manu/T1 manufacturing) to stabilise the value of the company such that assets are secure (sale isk will cover bonds) and get the company back above the 4% return level. Fire EMFI Manager if he's being a ****. No skin off the shareholders nose and he never comes across on forums as anything but difficult to deal with. Dude, if you aint enjoying it.... get out! Its a game! We all play for fun of some form and if you aren't having it, why are you playing? If its out of obligation to the shareholders: Do what you can for 4 weeks to increase company value, liquidate all assets and pay out the holders to what value you can. WTS a clue... a BIG one..
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.03.28 14:48:00 - [39] Edited by: Riley Craven on 28/03/2007 14:45:04 Originally by: EMFi Manager Originally by: LlamaOfPoon Give the 4% return as guaranteed. Anyone who bought into this venture with other ideas is a fool. The IPO clearly stated that 4% was guaranteed, anything more was a bonus. Take whatever measures you think are in best interests of the compant (be that expanding wallet for liquid isk or re-investing in more BPOs/capital manu/T1 manufacturing) to stabilise the value of the company such that assets are secure (sale isk will cover bonds) and get the company back above the 4% return level. Fire EMFI Manager if he's being a ****. No skin off the shareholders nose and he never comes across on forums as anything but difficult to deal with. Dude, if you aint enjoying it.... get out! Its a game! We all play for fun of some form and if you aren't having it, why are you playing? If its out of obligation to the shareholders: Do what you can for 4 weeks to increase company value, liquidate all assets and pay out the holders to what value you can. WTS a clue... a BIG one.. Maybe you should start an IPO based off that...
Markessa Hrethnor	Posted - 2007.03.28 15:46:00 - [40] Originally by: EMFi Manager Originally by: LlamaOfPoon Give the 4% return as guaranteed. Anyone who bought into this venture with other ideas is a fool. The IPO clearly stated that 4% was guaranteed, anything more was a bonus. Take whatever measures you think are in best interests of the compant (be that expanding wallet for liquid isk or re-investing in more BPOs/capital manu/T1 manufacturing) to stabilise the value of the company such that assets are secure (sale isk will cover bonds) and get the company back above the 4% return level. Fire EMFI Manager if he's being a ****. No skin off the shareholders nose and he never comes across on forums as anything but difficult to deal with. Dude, if you aint enjoying it.... get out! Its a game! We all play for fun of some form and if you aren't having it, why are you playing? If its out of obligation to the shareholders: Do what you can for 4 weeks to increase company value, liquidate all assets and pay out the holders to what value you can. WTS a clue... a BIG one.. cuz he's wrong? and i quote, "no divs for 0-20 months"...

LlamaOfPoon	Posted - 2007.03.28 19:10:00 - [41] Please feel free to attack and de-construct my argument one piece at a time. If I've said anything blatantly wrong I'll withdraw the comments or if anyone can give me a better way to get a good, long term return on my investment, I'm happy to listen. [rant, not constructive to thread and no need to read if you're not interested in rants] Eefrit has done (in my opinion (yes, we all have them), an excellent job of managing this venture. I'm happy for that to continue. I want a continued guaranteed return for as long as the company is viable and Eefrit wants to run it (seriously, I expect noone to play a game if they're not having fun). If Eefrit chose to close (he hasn't even mentioned it, this is 10000% pure speculation) I would like the option to sell my shares before another manager took over. But honestly? None of the above is relevant and I shouldn't have to post in here to defend myself until you attack my actual post rather than saying I need a clue. [/rant]
azurisk Caldari Black Lance NBSI Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.29 08:27:00 - [42] I will vote with my 2,5M shares whatever you seem best to recover FIN to previous state. As long as there is not a risk to lose my investment.
Unfamed II FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2007.03.30 14:27:00 - [43] I say drop the security to whatever you see fit (60-80% range perhaps) and try to keep dividends at previous levels. At least I've already got a lot of my invested isk back thru dividends, and somehow it makes sense to drop the security level. Worst case, this could leave me (and most of everyone else) around 90% what I initially invested. And this number increases everytime dividends are paid. Investing in something is always a risk, and everyone knows that. - - Seriously, it's not that great being an amarr, is it?
Qece	Posted - 2007.03.31 10:22:00 - [44] Edited by: Qece on 31/03/2007 10:21:00 Those options most centre along the lines of less security. I'm not overly comfortable with not having my ISKs refundable. I own a substantial amount of bonds and I would not wish to see anything lower than a 95% security level. Without knowledge of the market situation I cannot form a proper opinion on this. When you say that the BPO value has dropped, by how much do you mean? Are we talking 5%, 25%, god forbid, 50%? Here's 2 options that I've thought of. There's a disclaimer at the end in case I sound insane or in case my ideas are stupid beyond belief. 1) With the trustees holding 120% security maybe we could shave from that. Possibly FIN could take it down to a 100% security and use the 20% to invest in option 4. Considering that Eefrit has made 11% profit over the previous months doing personal ventures in option 4 I see no reason to not expect a 5% profit from this. By doing this FIN could pay 2.5% of the profit back to the trustees until such time that the original 120% is again secured and the rest of the profit can be spent securing our bonds and given out in dividends. This means that the trustees are paid back within 8 months and that the BPO's that secure FIN that belong to Eefrit are redeemed to him faster than any other option I can see. This next option is purely to juggle the ISK around, I'm not sure if it works or how feasible it would be. I'll state it here and see what people think but I'm sure that it won't work. It does have some incentives though. 2) I feel that another option is to split payments into weekly cycles. Every 3rd week you do not receive a payment and that ISK is given to Eefrit so he can remove his BPO's from the security package. Each week the investors get the full profit divident whether that be 4% or 15% but on the third week the investors get nothing. The payment can have a top-end cap at 10% or 8% per week and the rest can go to Eefrit to bail his BPO's out faster if we so wished. I think that this idea gives the investors a carrot to stick around but also helps Eefrit get his BPO's out of FIN faster than a flat 4% per month would do. In this case Eefrit himself has a carrot on a stick because he has a vested interest in redeeming his BPO's from the FIN security but also in keeping the investors happy. This idea could be financially flawed but I'm just I'm no accountant and I'm certainly not a trader so I don't know how viable this option is. It's just my input on the situation and without proper figures and trends I can't really give any other answer. This is not a signature.
EMFi Manager EvE Mutual Fund Inc.	Posted - 2007.03.31 12:31:00 - [45] 5% 120% 100% 90% whatever.. The issue in this thread is the arbitrary split between "eefrit" and "fin" bpo's personal or non-personal.. which firstly is incorrect "fin doesn't hold BPOs ALL bpo's are Eefrit owned and therefore any drop or rise his own risk". secondly it is frankly untracable... fin started with some eefrit bpo's some were sold some were bought, some were bought from bonds, some were resold again and bought again... it is impossible to earmark any of hte BPOs as "bought with bond isk" or "personal isk" so I think this whole "have to secure with personal bpos" is silly. Also remember that FIN started to be 100% secured by "so called" personal BPOs... there was security FIRST before even 1 bond was sold, so this isn't new either. The debate should be about: 1) Do I want less security to secure my investments? meh, I cna see how Eefrit feels, BPO's drop, he isn't a public corp but a Bond so it is his own wallet being hit... but REMEMBER guys... if all BPO's doubled in value, your bond would have still be worth 10.000.... That is how Eefrit designed it.. a bond, not a share.. a guaranteed secured payment... not a participation in a BPO...
Qece	Posted - 2007.03.31 12:52:00 - [46] Originally by: EMFi Manager 5% 120% 100% 90% whatever.. The issue in this thread is the arbitrary split between "eefrit" and "fin" bpo's personal or non-personal.. which firstly is incorrect "fin doesn't hold BPOs ALL bpo's are Eefrit owned and therefore any drop or rise his own risk". secondly it is frankly untracable... fin started with some eefrit bpo's some were sold some were bought, some were bought from bonds, some were resold again and bought again... it is impossible to earmark any of hte BPOs as "bought with bond isk" or "personal isk" so I think this whole "have to secure with personal bpos" is silly. Also remember that FIN started to be 100% secured by "so called" personal BPOs... there was security FIRST before even 1 bond was sold, so this isn't new either. The debate should be about: 1) Do I want less security to secure my investments? meh, I cna see how Eefrit feels, BPO's drop, he isn't a public corp but a Bond so it is his own wallet being hit... but REMEMBER guys... if all BPO's doubled in value, your bond would have still be worth 10.000.... That is how Eefrit designed it.. a bond, not a share.. a guaranteed secured payment... not a participation in a BPO... So what you're saying is "Tough S**t Baby" and if you can't take it then liquidise? I'm struggling to get a handle on this situation as the facts aren't being fully brought to the table. This is not a signature.
Alain DeMorgan	Posted - 2007.03.31 14:36:00 - [47] EMFi has it right. The main thing to remember is: buying bonds is making a loan to the issuer of the bonds. You are lending money in return for an ongoing stream of interest payments. What Eefrit does with that loan is pretty much his business (within the framework set up by the bond). Conversely, if Eefrit discovers that he's not making the return on capital that he wanted.. that's also his business, and not the problem of the bondholders. The value and performance of his tech2 production corp is (or at least should be) pretty much irrelevant. (That's why the "bonus" dividend is a bit bogus). If you mortgaged your house to start a company -- and the company does not perform as well as you hoped -- you don't go and say "well, mr. bank manager, the company I started with that loan isn't worth so much now, so I'm going to pay less interest on my mortgage.". If you're really having trouble making payments the bank will probably cut you a deal to avoid having to repossess -- which is really a last resort for them -- but otherwise you're not going to get much sympathy.
Eefrit Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2007.04.01 12:01:00 - [48] Okay, lots to answer here but first of all let me apologise for not being online recently. My DSL connection has been either 100% broken or having such bad packet loss I could not use it for the last week. I am still having some issues but it is usable at the moment so I can try deal with all the backlog that is waiting for me. 1) I realise that the bonds are late for the first time, but I am on it and it should be sorted out very soon. 2) In lines with this discussion, EMFi and I ALWAYS fight about things. I don't think of this as a bad thing, as in our disagreements we always come to a better solution than any of us had at the start. And on a bit of comfort you know that we are not going to team up to scam anyone. 3) My intention was to reduce interest payments to build up the security, which I am withing the agreement to do. However I am also within the egreement to give options to shareholders subject to a vote. That is what I am doing now. If you want the agreement to stay as it is then simply vote along those lines if a vote comes up, as is your right to do. Please give me a day or so before everyone starts crying that I need to get xyz done, as I am trying to get over a weeks worth of FIN work done now. Thanks, Eefrit
Florio Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.04.04 01:11:00 - [49] it's your baby eefrit, just keep that income coming in on time.
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.04.04 16:12:00 - [50] FIN has paid out at a rate of 4.53% today. This includes 4 days of penalty interest because of the late payment. Eefrit has finally been able to log in to his account again after GM assistance, but is still unable to post on the forums. As has been discussed recently, the fall in T2 BPO prices has affected the collateral that Eefrit provides to make FIN the most secure investment in EVE, so investors have got a slightly lower than usual return, although still meeting the guarantees, to build up this collateral to protect investors into the future. Posted on behalf of Eefrit.

Alain DeMorgan	Posted - 2007.04.05 00:31:00 - [51] Originally by: Ionia As has been discussed recently, the fall in T2 BPO prices has affected the collateral that Eefrit provides to make FIN the most secure investment in EVE, so investors have got a slightly lower than usual return, although still meeting the guarantees, to build up this collateral to protect investors into the future. Eefrit -- please explain why your corp profits have anything to do with "building up the bond collateral"? The collateral is already there and currently at 120%, correct?
Riley Craven Caldari Copacetic Corporation	Posted - 2007.04.05 03:15:00 - [52] Edited by: Riley Craven on 05/04/2007 03:12:56 Originally by: Alain DeMorgan Originally by: Ionia As has been discussed recently, the fall in T2 BPO prices has affected the collateral that Eefrit provides to make FIN the most secure investment in EVE, so investors have got a slightly lower than usual return, although still meeting the guarantees, to build up this collateral to protect investors into the future. Eefrit -- please explain why your corp profits have anything to do with "building up the bond collateral"? The collateral is already there and currently at 120%, correct? I think I can answer this for him. The bpos are there yes. The problem is that they arent worth the same they were before. Lets give you some numbers to help Lets say people invest 1bil isk This means that the bpo he bought with the 1bil isk must be worth 1.2bil isk This ensures that if he has to sell the bpo at a loss he can still give investors their money back What happened is that 1.2bil bpo he bought in the example above is now worth closer to 800-900mil So if he sells it at a loss again, he has even less to return to the bond holders in this case. I should note that just because the bpo might be worth less, doesnt mean that the mods it makes are worth less, Eefrit has stated that profits have remained at around the same levels. So you dont see it affecting your short term investment, but should the company fail you will see it affect your long term one. In short the profits have nothing to do with collateral. The collateral is only there to make you feel safe. The current collateral does not equal 120% but is somewhere around 80-90%
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.04.05 09:08:00 - [53] Riley Craven is spot on. Because of Invention the T2 BPOs have been devalued to some extent. Eefrit has still fulfilled his obligations to shareholders in terms of the dividends, but in stead of paying extra like he usually does each month, he is putting that isk back in to assets that secure FIN in the first place. He is doing this so that his obligations in the shareholder agreement are met, and to ensure that all owners of FIN bonds have their investment secured 120% as FIN's trademark is being the most secure investment on the market.
Alain DeMorgan	Posted - 2007.04.05 11:41:00 - [54] Edited by: Alain DeMorgan on 05/04/2007 11:42:20 Edited by: Alain DeMorgan on 05/04/2007 11:40:49 Originally by: Riley Craven Edited by: Riley Craven on 05/04/2007 03:12:56 Originally by: Alain DeMorgan Originally by: Ionia As has been discussed recently, the fall in T2 BPO prices has affected the collateral that Eefrit provides to make FIN the most secure investment in EVE, so investors have got a slightly lower than usual return, although still meeting the guarantees, to build up this collateral to protect investors into the future. Eefrit -- please explain why your corp profits have anything to do with "building up the bond collateral"? The collateral is already there and currently at 120%, correct? I think I can answer this for him. The bpos are there yes. The problem is that they arent worth the same they were before. Lets give you some numbers to help Lets say people invest 1bil isk This means that the bpo he bought with the 1bil isk must be worth 1.2bil isk This ensures that if he has to sell the bpo at a loss he can still give investors their money back No, that can't be right. The collateral existed before any isk was invested; they were existing BPOs that Eefrit owned. The new BPOs bought with the proceeds of the bond issue are not part of the collateral. If the collateral has been devalued, then Eefrit is in breach of the bond's investment plan unless he has put up additonal collateral to cover the shortfall. I can understand Eefrit not wanting to pay out a bonus for whatever reason -- that's his call. But I am concerned that Eefrit appears to be confusing BPOs held as collateral with BPOs bought with the bond proceeds. The two should be clearly distinguished. edit: I guess it's just a wording thing. It is not "the collateral devalued, so you get less return on the bond". it is "the collateral devalued, so Eefrit must provide more collateral. He is doing this by taking more personal profit and using it to provide additional collateral. Therefore there is a smaller bonus payout." And this is why the bonus payout is bogus, again!
Alain DeMorgan	Posted - 2007.04.05 11:50:00 - [55] One more thing. Can I ask the trustees to confirm that they currently have locked-down assets covering 120% of the bond's value right now? Eefrit was talking about it taking 12-18 months of no bonus payouts to "recover"; given the explanation above it implies that the current value of the collateral is perhaps 24-36% below where it should be, which is a bit concerning.
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.04.05 11:53:00 - [56] Originally by: Alain DeMorgan Edited by: Alain DeMorgan on 05/04/2007 11:42:20 Edited by: Alain DeMorgan on 05/04/2007 11:40:49 Originally by: Riley Craven Edited by: Riley Craven on 05/04/2007 03:12:56 Originally by: Alain DeMorgan Originally by: Ionia As has been discussed recently, the fall in T2 BPO prices has affected the collateral that Eefrit provides to make FIN the most secure investment in EVE, so investors have got a slightly lower than usual return, although still meeting the guarantees, to build up this collateral to protect investors into the future. Eefrit -- please explain why your corp profits have anything to do with "building up the bond collateral"? The collateral is already there and currently at 120%, correct? I think I can answer this for him. The bpos are there yes. The problem is that they arent worth the same they were before. Lets give you some numbers to help Lets say people invest 1bil isk This means that the bpo he bought with the 1bil isk must be worth 1.2bil isk This ensures that if he has to sell the bpo at a loss he can still give investors their money back No, that can't be right. The collateral existed before any isk was invested; they were existing BPOs that Eefrit owned. The new BPOs bought with the proceeds of the bond issue are not part of the collateral. If the collateral has been devalued, then Eefrit is in breach of the bond's investment plan unless he has put up additonal collateral to cover the shortfall. I can understand Eefrit not wanting to pay out a bonus for whatever reason -- that's his call. But I am concerned that Eefrit appears to be confusing BPOs held as collateral with BPOs bought with the bond proceeds. The two should be clearly distinguished. edit: I guess it's just a wording thing. It is not "the collateral devalued, so you get less return on the bond". it is "the collateral devalued, so Eefrit must provide more collateral. He is doing this by taking more personal profit and using it to provide additional collateral. Therefore there is a smaller bonus payout." And this is why the bonus payout is bogus, again! This is simply incorrect, BPOs bought with the isk he raised from the bond sales could be used as collateral if he so wished. There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't be.
Alain DeMorgan	Posted - 2007.04.05 12:48:00 - [57] Originally by: Ionia This is simply incorrect, BPOs bought with the isk he raised from the bond sales could be used as collateral if he so wished. There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't be. Um. The collateral was in place before the isk was raised, so there is no way that the BPOs purchased with the isk could have been part of the original collateral. They could later have become part of the collateral if, for example, additional collateral was needed because of a drop in BPO value (hey, does that sound familiar to you?)
Eefrit Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2007.04.05 13:48:00 - [58] Originally by: Alain DeMorgan One more thing. Can I ask the trustees to confirm that they currently have locked-down assets covering 120% of the bond's value right now? Eefrit was talking about it taking 12-18 months of no bonus payouts to "recover"; given the explanation above it implies that the current value of the collateral is perhaps 24-36% below where it should be, which is a bit concerning. No offence intended here, but I suggest you read the first post before commenting on it. The first post deals specifically with the fact that my personal BPOs are what is holding the collateral right now - which is exactly the problem to me. Feel free to evemail EMFi or Femintaki to ask them if you like but what you are asking is basically "can the trustees confirm they are doing their jobs". /Eefrit
Eefrit Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2007.04.05 13:57:00 - [59] Originally by: Alain DeMorgan ..if Eefrit discovers that he's not making the return on capital that he wanted.. that's also his business, and not the problem of the bondholders. Once again for those that don't read everything let me clear this up here. I don't make ANY Isk from FIN Lets hope that was clear enough. I have never made Isk from FIN and never intend to do so. I started it as an effort to get some sort of trust back into investment after the whole EIB fiasco and not as a profit. The easiest way to think of it is as a mutual investment bank. As I have said many times before I will keep to the shareholders agreement even if it costs me Isk and I will do so purely because I gave my word I would. The issue at hand is security from market fluctuations vs. income. Right now assuming nothing is changed, income will be curtailed to increase capital value (otherwise known as security in this case). The other option is to decrease security and increase income. This is a choice I am putting forward for discussion, nothing more. If you want the one option then vote for that. If you want the other then vote for that one. In the end it will be votes that count and not who is more vocal or not, and whatever the result of that vote is, I will honour it. Sincerely, Eefrit


Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.