EVE Search - (#15 - 2007.04) BMBE Shareholder Report (version 2)

All Channels

Market Discussions

(#15 - 2007.04) BMBE Shareholder Report (version 2)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2007.05.07 12:15:00 - [31] Originally by: Ray McCormack Now I'm not looking to get into an argument over what should have been done differently. I am also not interested in getting into a flaming match over how this information came to light. I am looking for viable options to rectify the current situation. In case anyone misses the critical point... this is why BIG is trusted. PS: This Monday morning isn't too bad. How's yours? The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it. Arknox > shar with bad hair day >>> solution = suicide and spawn fresh clone :D
Ezoran DuBlaidd Rivers Enterprises Power Corrupts Industry's	Posted - 2007.05.07 13:06:00 - [32] Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: Ray McCormack Now I'm not looking to get into an argument over what should have been done differently. I am also not interested in getting into a flaming match over how this information came to light. I am looking for viable options to rectify the current situation. In case anyone misses the critical point... this is why BIG is trusted. PS: This Monday morning isn't too bad. How's yours? you do see the irony in your statement, right?
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2007.05.07 13:09:00 - [33] Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd you do see the irony in your statement, right? Actually no... I did write that before my first cup of coffee though. Still sipping it now. So I won't be offended in the least if you share with me the irony of it as you see it. The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it. Arknox > shar with bad hair day >>> solution = suicide and spawn fresh clone :D
Rthor Gallente Smugglers Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.07 16:12:00 - [34] Originally by: DeathGrip Originally by: Rthor Originally by: TornSoul Edited by: TornSoul on 07/05/2007 00:07:04 Rthor - The ISK is kept in my wallet (and Ray's). The only way to find out the value of the BMBE is to calculate it - I have other ISK in my wallet as well. Do you think its a good idea that your personal wallet is also a public company's wallet? I ran my IPO through my personal wallets. Not a great idea, but much easier. No offense but the question was for Tornsoul and not for you. If you answer it then he might ignore my question as "being answered." So the question remains: Tornsoul do you think it's a good idea to have one wallet for yourself and a public corporation? I realize that it is easier but I am sure that there are drawbacks outweighing that "benefit" to shareholders. For once I think that any kind of RL taxing authority or real life shareholders would be unhappy about such arrangement. So again do you think that it is OK? And if not are you going to change this from now on?
Eefrit Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2007.05.07 16:18:00 - [35] 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
TornSoul BIG Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.05.07 16:52:00 - [36] Originally by: Rthor So the question remains: Tornsoul do you think it's a good idea to have one wallet for yourself and a public corporation? I realize that it is easier but I am sure that there are drawbacks outweighing that "benefit" to shareholders. If I could have personal "divisional wallets" I would much prefer that arrangement. For drawbacks - The only drawbacks I'm aware of is the extra bookkeeping to know how much of the ISK in my wallet is BMBE ISK and how much is BIG ISK. From your comments, reading between the lines, it would seem to me that you have other drawbacks in mind? Care to elaborate? BIG Lottery
TornSoul BIG Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.05.07 16:58:00 - [37] @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) BIG Lottery
Eefrit Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2007.05.07 17:14:00 - [38] 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
Sortiario Fair Trade Organization	Posted - 2007.05.07 17:18:00 - [39] 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) As I see it, it is in your very own interest to clarify that your intentions were not that twisting evil as we all want to think. I encourage you to make a thorough statement concerning all questions put forth in the raging debate. From a communicative point of view, and in the light of recent events, this is the right thing to do. You latest report doesn't clarify on all questions put forth in all threads. ___________________ Sortiario Communication Consulting - SCConsult Communication advisory service
TornSoul BIG Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.05.07 17:34:00 - [40] Edited by: TornSoul on 07/05/2007 17:32:02 Originally by: Sortiario Edit: A Q&A-thread might also be an idea. If you answer any questions regarding BMBE that shareowners has the right to know, that is. I've seen you've already tried to collect all the posts in an "index". Feel free to try and do the same with all the lingering questions. I belive it would save us all a lot of reading/typing :-) I'll stop posting for a day or two (unless new lies arises) and see what you come up with. (You are probably trying to be objective, but from my PoV your preferences are quite clear - Be that as it may. Please dont take this as an insult, but more of a knudge towards the middle line) BIG Lottery
Rthor Gallente Smugglers Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.07 17:37:00 - [41] Originally by: TornSoul Originally by: Rthor So the question remains: Tornsoul do you think it's a good idea to have one wallet for yourself and a public corporation? I realize that it is easier but I am sure that there are drawbacks outweighing that "benefit" to shareholders. If I could have personal "divisional wallets" I would much prefer that arrangement. For drawbacks - The only drawbacks I'm aware of is the extra bookkeeping to know how much of the ISK in my wallet is BMBE ISK and how much is BIG ISK. From your comments, reading between the lines, it would seem to me that you have other drawbacks in mind? Care to elaborate? Could not you have had an alt handle all BMBE transactions? The advantage of this is that at the end of the month if you looked at the wallet amount and the number were different from what you think it was then you would know that some kind of a mistake of some kind happenned. If you have one wallet the only way you can tell what the assets of BMBE are is to theorize what it should be. Theorizing is fine but I would save it as a back up. As far as a drawback to having one wallet. Imagine a situation where you want to use BMBE capital for your own purposes. Let us say that you do this and you do not even realize that you have used BMBE capital and bought some kind of a tech2 BPO that tanked for yourself. Now you are stuck with it and BMBE has a liqudity crisis. This would be not possible if you have distinct wallets. Even if you have not taken shareholders money this arrangement of one wallet gives you liquidity. In essence BMBE capital is free for you to use for no interest charge if you so choose.
Sortiario Fair Trade Organization	Posted - 2007.05.07 17:53:00 - [42] Originally by: TornSoul Edited by: TornSoul on 07/05/2007 17:32:02 Originally by: Sortiario Edit: A Q&A-thread might also be an idea. If you answer any questions regarding BMBE that shareowners has the right to know, that is. I've seen you've already tried to collect all the posts in an "index". Feel free to try and do the same with all the lingering questions. I belive it would save us all a lot of reading/typing :-) I'll stop posting for a day or two (unless new lies arises) and see what you come up with. (You are probably trying to be objective, but from my PoV your preferences are quite clear - Be that as it may. Please dont take this as an insult, but more of a knudge towards the middle line) I'm quite aware that I'm considered on Eefrits side in this discussion, and that I am, in fact, backing him up. This doesn't stop me from trying to find out everything that I can about the information that is released, and when we knew what and what we knew about it at that time. As you'll see after a bit of forum browsing, I'm not afraid to change oppinion if I come across better arguments. Arguments I find convincing, and is not politically motivated. The quote you've... quoted... is just a word of advice if you wish to keep your public image as good as possible. ___________________ And, just to make absolutely clear, criticizing a person for wrongdoings or bad intentions in business does not mean you have to hate or dislike him on a personal plane. Judging from many of the posts in all the threads, not all people are aware that you can call your opponent in politics and business a numb imbecile one moment, and the next go out and have a laugh and a drink with him. This should be highlighted in big bold letters and sent in EVE-mail to all active forum players in EVE. ___________________ Sortiario Communication Consulting - SCConsult Communication advisory service
Rthor Gallente Smugglers Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.07 18:11:00 - [43] Tornsoul, who was the character who defaulted on the 30B loan and can you prove it?
Rusom Rokath Amarr 1m95	Posted - 2007.05.07 19:53:00 - [44] Edited by: Rusom Rokath on 07/05/2007 19:50:45 Originally by: Ray McCormack If we used our admin fee to shore up the equity loss it would amount to the same thing as us increasing our admin fee if collateral was sold for a profit. Technically you're right, but there's a difference. The ground rule has always been to value collateral for 75% of its worth, so in case of a defaulted loan, selling off the collateral should normally increase the total of BMBE funds, as per the original business plan. Only if you managed to sell the collateral for more than the 100% of its 'real' worth at the time it was valued, could it be possible to see that as more than reasonable performance by BMBE management, therefore warranting a one time increase in management fees. Quote: An option was also discussed whereby both dividends, admin fee and re-investment be used to shore up the equity (a la EMFI); but that is currently not within the business plan. At the moment, any gain or loss from the sale of collateral affects overall capital. We could also follow extraneous activities to regain equity (as was suggested for FIN to increase security) but that may tie up ISK that could be needed for loans. Investers in the BMBE took a risk, as you do with any investment. There's a difference between acceptable risk, and a major foul up by BMBE management. Nobody could reasonably expect TS to make a 30 billion mistake, shifting the financial burden of that mistake to the investers isn't something you should even consider. Quote: Now I'm not looking to get into an argument over what should have been done differently. I am also not interested in getting into a flaming match over how this information came to light. I am looking for viable options to rectify the current situation. At best we're looking at a combination of all possible options. No, at best we're looking at the possibily that TS admits he messed things up badly, and takes responsibility for his actions (yeah, I know, not in a million years is that ever going to happen). A good start would be to temporarily lower the management fee to 10%, and put the remaining 30% back into the BMBE, along with the profits of the skiff BPO's, until full equity is reached. If he had been more forthcoming with this information when the situation actually occurred, I'd be happy with him doing that until 95% or even 90% of full equity was reached, but let's not forget that this situation has gone unanswered for a while now.
JP Moregain Gallente EVE Reserve Bank	Posted - 2007.05.07 23:21:00 - [45] Wow I get busy with RL for a few days and this happens. So I guess what I don't understand is that you state in your old report a year or so ago that. " the change in sell price, compared to the loan they where used as security for, will be a change in how much capital the BMBE has available for loans." Which is reasonably close to RL accounting: write the value of the loan down to the net realizable value of the collateral and mark it to market until it is sold... Yet you didn't make any attempt do that until now. Do you have any reasons for that delay? I am not attempting to be a smart arse, just trying to understand the situation. Regards, JP http://www.evereserve.com
Silmas Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.08 07:22:00 - [46] Edited by: Silmas on 08/05/2007 07:18:43 All the mud-slinging aside, I have one question to BMBE representants: As it is clear that management made a mistake and BMBE as a corporation suffered loss of approximately 30% of it's value, are you going to do anything about it? The possible procedures after such huge loss of assets would be for example: - Fixing the problem somehow, ie have a solid plan how to regain the isk lost - Major changes in management who made the wrong decision, maybe changes to the operation procedures aswell, including management fee. - Allowing shareholders possibility to cash-out their shares for example at 50m/share, which would make most of the shareholders even or slightly profitable after all this. Could consider this as a vote of confidence aswell. (if all would cash-out, I guess it would be BIG then being on the losing end...) - - Some other option... those two I just quickly thought out.
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.08 20:12:00 - [47] Edited by: Baun on 08/05/2007 20:08:02 Fair questions posed by Sillmas. I don't think BMBE will give a buyback option but I think they should commit to assuring full capital to back the investments within some timeframe. This could most easily be done by reducing the management fee for the next several months or simply dumping isk directly into the BMBE that comes from previous management fees. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Verite Rendition Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.	Posted - 2007.05.08 20:53:00 - [48] Originally by: Silmas Edited by: Silmas on 08/05/2007 07:18:43 All the mud-slinging aside, I have one question to BMBE representants: As it is clear that management made a mistake and BMBE as a corporation suffered loss of approximately 30% of it's value, are you going to do anything about it? The possible procedures after such huge loss of assets would be for example: - Fixing the problem somehow, ie have a solid plan how to regain the isk lost - Major changes in management who made the wrong decision, maybe changes to the operation procedures aswell, including management fee. - Allowing shareholders possibility to cash-out their shares for example at 50m/share, which would make most of the shareholders even or slightly profitable after all this. Could consider this as a vote of confidence aswell. (if all would cash-out, I guess it would be BIG then being on the losing end...) - - Some other option... those two I just quickly thought out. A 3 step plan to restore the lost ISK and fix the bank's operations 1) Return all management fees acquired since the incident, as possible. 2) Stop collecting all future management fees until the last of the ISK has been removed 3) Sell the bank; the current management is no longer capable of running it. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.08 22:57:00 - [49] Originally by: Verite Rendition 3) Sell the bank; the current management is no longer capable of running it. They have done a pretty crap job over the life of the bank but their performance lately has been quite good. There is really no indication that they are not capable of running it. It may be that you no longer trust them to do so. That is a fair viewpoint but it would be kind of sad if you let a sleazeball manipulate you like that. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Eefrit Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2007.05.08 23:29:00 - [50] 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
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.09 00:48:00 - [51] Originally by: Eefrit Once again though, the trust discussion is a moot point as there is nothing shareholders can do about it. /Eefrit A great reason for you to keep talking about it then right? Maybe even a better reason for you to drum of malcontent by lieing? BMBE has the isk and they have never indicated there would be a buyback option. There is little reason to assume that they will contemplate one. 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. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Eefrit Eve Financial Services	Posted - 2007.05.09 00:59:00 - [52] 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
Verite Rendition Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.	Posted - 2007.05.09 01:04:00 - [53] Edited by: Verite Rendition on 09/05/2007 01:00:52 Originally by: Baun Originally by: Verite Rendition 3) Sell the bank; the current management is no longer capable of running it. There is really no indication that they are not capable of running it. It may be that you no longer trust them to do so. That is a fair viewpoint but it would be kind of sad if you let a sleazeball manipulate you like that. They have a track record of being inept and of lacking integrity; that's a pretty good reason as far as I'm concerned for them to not run it. As for "let[ing] a sleazeball manipulate you like that", please do not ever mistake me for an idiot. I'm quite aware of what's going on, and I've been *****ing about things well before Eerfit made his post(I was the first one to even ask what BPO was lost, back at the start of this whole ordeal). I'm not the AUS corp lead megalomaniac for nothing you know. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.09 01:41:00 - [54] Edited by: Baun on 09/05/2007 01:38:42 Originally by: Verite Rendition As for "let[ing] a sleazeball manipulate you like that", please do not ever mistake me for an idiot. I'm quite aware of what's going on, and I've been ****ing about things well before Eerfit made his post(I was the first one to even ask what BPO was lost, back at the start of this whole ordeal). I'm not the AUS corp lead megalomaniac for nothing you know. There are independent reasons to be angry about what happened, but it is important that you explicitly separate anger over mismanagement and the concomittant distrust sourced therein from anger over accusations of theft that are only on the table because someone explicitly and repeatedly lied to foment public outrage. Trust me, I am not happy with the defaulted loan. What am I noting is that the dividends have been very good for several months running now (mostly since Ray took over). There is no indication that they cannot run the bank now and, as such, there is no reason to insist that they sell it. If the default had just happened* and the dividends were crap I might agree with you (though I would be more likely to argue that the situation warranted reduction in management fee. You should note that I in fact did just that in the past). As it stands now you are trying to argue for immediate sale on the basis of something that happened 1 year ago and when, in the present, the business appears to be operating succesfully. I find that to be non-sensical. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Callan Skiderlar LIfeline Incorporated	Posted - 2007.05.09 02:22:00 - [55] Taking a step back for a second, what I think this whole debacle points to is a flaw in the compensation structure of the bank. As has been pointed out, the shareholders have no real recourse to express displeasure with management's performance. The normal course of action would be to sell off the shares, which would tank the price and force those with majority control to make changes in leadership. That mechanism does not exist here. In hindsight, a good way to ensure accountability would be to tie management's compensation to the share price. So a better model might have been to set aside a block of shares for the management team as their compensation. However, I don't know if you could make this model work in such a way to make it worthwhile without giving up a majority, or close to majority, stake, which would foul up the entire shareholder feedback loop. --- "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." - John Keynes
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.09 02:25:00 - [56] Originally by: Callan Skiderlar Taking a step back for a second, what I think this whole debacle points to is a flaw in the compensation structure of the bank. As has been pointed out, the shareholders have no real recourse to express displeasure with management's performance. The normal course of action would be to sell off the shares, which would tank the price and force those with majority control to make changes in leadership. That mechanism does not exist here. In hindsight, a good way to ensure accountability would be to tie management's compensation to the share price. So a better model might have been to set aside a block of shares for the management team as their compensation. However, I don't know if you could make this model work in such a way to make it worthwhile without giving up a majority, or close to majority, stake, which would foul up the entire shareholder feedback loop. I agree that this is probably the main problem with the BMBE. Such a lack of accountability would never be accepted in modern IPO. --23 Member-- Listen to EVE-Trance Radio!
SonOfAGhost Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.05.09 12:11:00 - [57] Originally by: Baun Fair questions posed by Sillmas. I don't think BMBE will give a buyback option but I think they should commit to assuring full capital to back the investments within some timeframe. This could most easily be done by reducing the management fee for the next several months or simply dumping isk directly into the BMBE that comes from previous management fees. It's been over a year so far, what sort of timeframe do you think is reasonable?
Sidrat Flush Caldari Private Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.05.09 13:07:00 - [58] what a hullabaloo about nothing much. For a company that's public and in these game mechanics so very lacking in terms of oversight, it's a miracle it's been around as long as it has. 30B is about the cost of an outpost. Not including the time it takes to organise one. How quickly can this company get back that 30B? Who cares. dividends are still being paid out, in this game that's a ceo's perogative, not an automatic action. Some ipos are scams. They last a week, a month at the most. Others deserve the benefit of the doubt and instead of whining about an event keep looking for the future. There's a shortage of empire research slots. A chronic shortage. Invest capital in them and see a return, as well as first refusal to slots. But then I'm not a shareholder so I have nothing to lose or gain from this matter. Life is about memories the more the better. Looking for CCP to improve availability of their GTC's, for non card carriers!
Hangman69 Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.09 13:52:00 - [59] Originally by: Ray McCormack What are people's opinions on extraneous activities, things outside the original mandate, to recoup equity at a faster rate? Possibilites include research facilities, capital construction, component construction and market trading. All have the ability to rapidly increase capital at a greater rate than any re-investment could, and are also quite secure in regards to any possibe capital drop (the BMBE would always get out at least what it put in). Ray, I bought into a bank, not some research outpost, I wanted steady but possibly low returns. If the bank model is broken sell off the assets back to the shareholders and start up a research model if you're telling us you can't get us good returns.
Verite Rendition Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.	Posted - 2007.05.09 18:17:00 - [60] Originally by: Hangman69 Originally by: Ray McCormack What are people's opinions on extraneous activities, things outside the original mandate, to recoup equity at a faster rate? Possibilites include research facilities, capital construction, component construction and market trading. All have the ability to rapidly increase capital at a greater rate than any re-investment could, and are also quite secure in regards to any possibe capital drop (the BMBE would always get out at least what it put in). Ray, I bought into a bank, not some research outpost, I wanted steady but possibly low returns. If the bank model is broken sell off the assets back to the shareholders and start up a research model if you're telling us you can't get us good returns. I second this statement. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: 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.