| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
   |
Posted - 2007.05.07 16:18:00 -
[1]
Okay, it appears that this it where TornSoul will answer questions, so here goes:
1) You now claim that the default resulted in a capital loss of about 30 Billion Isk almost immediately which left no time to sell them for a decent sum. Assuming that is the case could you please explain the post two months later in one of the BMBE reports that total assets were 102+ Billion Isk?
2) You claim that the details of the default were not intentionally withheld, but everyone that seems to have known also seems to have been under the impression that it was not "okay" to tell. This includes a few BIG members and supporters.
3) You claim that you did not sell the BPOs as you could not recoup the losses. A quick check using eve-search shows that Skiff BPOs sold for just short of 10 Billion Isk after the event in question. Did you expect the general usage of Skiff's to increase and thus hold on to recover even more of the Isk?
4) Please describe the due diligence process that BMBE followed/follows when valuing T2 BPOs, and let us know what went wrong with the Skiffs and if you still believe the due diligence was carried out to the best of BMBE managements efforts given the information publicly available at the time? If no, do you or BIG accept any responsibility for the losses as a management failure rather than a general swing in the Eve economy?
I look forward to your reply now that your PC power supply is fixed.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 17:14:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: TornSoul
@Eefrit
1 : Already explained, read the threads
2 : Not a question but a statement.
3 : Also already elaborated on, in length, read the threads...
4 : Several questions, some already answered, pretty much the same as #3 really
I'm aware you most liekly wont be satisfied with the responses above.
Feel free to ask clarifying questions. (and read the thread for questions already answered in advance please)
I have read the threads and fail to see where 1, 3 or 4 are explained. Yes you have made vague hand waving comments but nothing that would come close to the manager of a public company answering questions. In the past you have said to me that you do not believe that real world fraud and ethics rules should apply in Eve (I have the logs if you have lost yours), and maybe that is where we differ, in which case I doubt I will ever get a reconciliation of statements and facts along lines that you don't hold to.
You are correct, I phrased 2 badly. I meant to ask for your comment on how you can reconcile your insistance that it was not kept secret when everyone that seems to have knew (including BIG members) felt it was. Yes, you have said it should have been declared at the time, but have not explained why it was so secretive.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 23:29:00 -
[3]
Unfortunately what happens with the future of BMBE is something that shareholders literally have no say in, so it is more a hope for issue than a discuss issue.
A murderer can not argue that he was not as bad as Stalin, ****** or Mao. If he murdered someone he is guilty of murder and charged on those crimed.
In this situation, BMBE intentionally kept quiet and lied about a rather large management mess up which resulted in the loss of 30 Bill Isk (minus the current value of the Skiff BPOs). That in itself is not really worth harping on about. Mistakes happen and as long as they are learnt from, we move on.
The issue is that lying about it was not a mistake. Covering it up was not a mistake. Those had to be thought through and a decision made to do just that.
So when an investor questions trust based on lies and coverups by management it really does not matter how much you villify their oposition for bringing it into the public. The person could be satan incarnate and be responsible for every scam Eve has ever had. It still does not change the issue of whether BMBE should be trusted given their history when dealing with shareholders.
Once again though, the trust discussion is a moot point as there is nothing shareholders can do about it.
/Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 00:59:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Baun
What BMBE should do is what they should have done a long time ago; drastically reduce their management fee in order to bring the business in line with the market. Taking 40% of the profits is ludicrous. The only scenario in which it was not ludicrous is when the bank was opearting as a pawn shop and collecting on goods would have required an enormous amount of legwork.
As things stand right now the BMBE, especially in light of some poor judgment, has no leg to stand on for maintaining its current management fee. A retroactive application (within reaosns) of something more reasonable (like 20%) and dumping the excess back into the coffers to bring the equity backup is the most sound plan. It will increase the profitability for shareholders, punish BMBE for bad judgment (apparently alot of people want to do this), still be fair to BMBE management going forward and it will correct mistakes from the past using only isk generated by the business already.
I think hell just froze over!
Besides the insistance not to think through what I have and have not specifically denied, there are actually some good suggestions.
Of course we will have to find something else to freeze over if they are now actually followed!
/Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 18:31:00 -
[5]
I agree on this. BMBE has a mandate to act as a bank be that a short term (the original mandate) or longer term T2 (updated mandate). I would not be ethical to change this, and tbh I doubt TornSoul would change it.
Keep to being a Bank and just be a good bank.
/Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 19:03:00 -
[6]
When comparing return in general between RL and Eve it is a fairly accurate comparison to compare the expected RL (real) returns per year to expected Eve returns per month. It is harder to work out real returns in eve as we have no inflation figures published, but I would guess right now we have a general deflation situation so it would not be relevant.
Ionia, as far as I recall, there were a few skiffs auctioned off after the default and at least one that I know of was over 9 Bill Isk. I don't think it would be reasonable to assume they would have both achieved that but looking back historically it would be very fair to expect them both to have fetched a 15 Bill Isk total.
/Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 19:15:00 -
[7]
Rthor, would you mind explaining what about what Ionia said is unreasonable? I did not quite follow the reasoning you used.
Thanks,
Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 23:12:00 -
[8]
It is pretty common knowledge that I think that TornSoul has done a appalingly bad job with BMBE, however I think that since Ray has taken over most of the management good policies and practices have been put in place.
Most of the problems with BMBE are from when TornSoul was running (I use the term loosely) the company. TornSoul may have the best intentions, but when it comes to business understanding he is quite frankly clueles and his good intentions come across as major stuff ups. Ray has shown himself to have both good intentions and a business understanding and thus far has performed very well given the limited amount of control he actually has in BMBE.
Lets all give Ray time to correct issues and move on from there.
Changes I would like to see:
1) I would like to see TornSoul hand all BMBE Isk over to Ray and have Ray run BMBE as he sees fit. TornSoul has proven inept and as such should not be part of the management. Yes once again, he may be a nice guy, and he may have nice ideas etc, but that does not mean he is competent when it comes to business.
2) I think the 50% of distributed profit that BIG has a right to should be changed to 50% of the shares. i.e. another 2000 shares should be issued and those given to BIG. From then on the profits should be distributed entirely to shareholders.
3) BIG should sell off some of these new shares to make up for the losses that would not have been incured had the BPOs been sold off immediately. That in my estimation (second opinions welcomed) should be 15 Billion Isk. Asking them to cover the full 30 Billion is not reasonable imho.
4) We all give Ray our support in trying to "fix" things.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 12:41:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Eefrit on 11/05/2007 12:41:52
Ray, I understand the argument for witholding the defulters identity, but see no argument for witholding the details of the default.
Could you please give us:
a) the date the loan was taken out
b) the dates (if any) of any interest payments
c) what the BPOs were valued at at the time (i.e. what loan to value was given)
d) essentially all information that you have other than the persons identity.
e) if the person is affiliated in any way with BIG or a close friend of anyone in BIG. I think this is important.
If you can't, would you mind explaining why not as this is not breaking confidence and something that should by all rights be reported on to investors anyway. I personally would accept your word on these, and if it is clear from your answers that nothing untoward was going on, then it will at least appease myself.
Thanks,
Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 12:40:00 -
[10]
I will grant that current performace has been fair of late, but it does not matter to long term investors what the current performance is if it has not been consistent.
If you are going to compare BMBE to other public corps, you should look at the average dividend as a % of value over the last 6 months to a year. Doing that paints a rather different picture.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
| |
|