| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
   |
Posted - 2007.05.09 18:31:00 -
[61]
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
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Frontier Trade League
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 05:37:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: TornSoul
Let me conclude with the numbers
101,440,000,000 ISK Total value of all shares sold
9,157,328,100 ISK total re-invested in the BMBE
1,300,000,000 ISK made from the skiff BPO's sofar
==================================================
111,897,328,100 ISK Total
Subtract from that the defaulted loan and you get
81,897,328,100 ISK Total
To that the value of the two Skiff BPO's should be added.
This is the total capital that the BMBE has available for loans as of this writting.
That's all folks.
Okay if at the time of the incident BMBE had 100 billion in capital available and then 30 billion was defaulted that would have left 70 billion plus the Skiff BPOs.
Now many months later we see a capital of almost 82 billion.
Under TornSoul and Ray it appears the fund has been steadily recovering. In 1 years time it has regained nearly half of what was lost.
That's a pretty good record, if you correspond it to real world business.
Someone mentioned that approximately they had received an 8% return on their investment thus far. 8% is a pretty good return.
Even though this is a game, most people seem to think of shares in the wrong way. They are not a short term investment. They are a long term investment, and indeed it is possible that EVE will not last long enough for some investments to work. Most investment bankers would look for 15 to 30 year returns.
If they want to replenish the fund more quickly, and that seems to be the desire, then really without going into some sort of side business which means tying up more capital and assuming more risk, the only really viable option would be to reduce the management fee. However it is unreasonable to assume that they should do it for free. Currently it is 40%, s small reduction in that towards only a 30% management fee would help replenish the fund more quickly while still giving them enough money to make it worthwhile I think.
I know well how long it takes in managing just a small corp with small bank account. I can only imagine all the extra time required to keep up with loans, make sure payments are made on time, etc. Plus all the extra bookkeeping.
I do have a question for Ray and TornSoul, have you read the new dev blog on corporations. Do you think the divisional corporate wallets will assist you once implemented?
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
Heikki
Gallente
Wreckless Abandon
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 10:26:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
extraneous activities
IMHO in share based economy it is better to issue extra capital as dividends, and let the investors make decisions on how to (re)invest that capital. That is, BMBE should stay focused on it's core business (and get rid of the Skiff BPOs).
Originally by: Sidrat Flush
it's a miracle it's been around as long as it has.
Would think quite it is quite opposite; BMBE has been structured in such way that it is likely to last.
- Shareholders gave TS mandate to keep 40-50% of all profits
- Shareholders did not insist on any oversight, nor did not require any power to close down the bank
- Shareholders excplicitly insisted on going to T2 BPO game, accepting the risks
- The only person with power to close the BMBE (TS) would lose his promised fee upon closing the bank -> makes no sense to that. Hence there motivation to keep the bank going even when it produces mere 1% monthly profit.
Reckon would be hard for TS or anyone else to raise another IPO with such conditions.
Asking (only) TS to give up his fee to recoup capital makes about as much sense as asking titan pilots to stop using DDD, or asking lawyers to charge only the minimal wage. Might make things more pleasant for the rest, but.. why should they?
-Lasse
|
Ezoran DuBlaidd
Rivers Enterprises
Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 17:11:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Mecinia Lua
That's a pretty good record, if you correspond it to real world business.
Someone mentioned that approximately they had received an 8% return on their investment thus far. 8% is a pretty good return.
Even though this is a game, most people seem to think of shares in the wrong way. They are not a short term investment. They are a long term investment, and indeed it is possible that EVE will not last long enough for some investments to work. Most investment bankers would look for 15 to 30 year returns.
you sort of made your own point against what you said here.
in the real world, 8% return in less than a year's time, could be a good investment.
in eve, 8% divs in 3 months isn't much to speak of at all, and is, honestly, pretty craptastic. if that 8% is from more than 3 months, yeah, it's definitely time to liquidate those shares and, if nothing else, hide them under your bed. at least the isk won't lose value.
your last paragraph, doesn't seem to apply to eve. it may apply to the real world; but, if you're not looking to see 100% of your investment back for 15-30 real world years, then i can make you a very happy investor for untold trillions of isk. and i promise that within 15-30 years, you'll have made back 100% of your investment plus a little.
but since you're talking about the real world a lot in this post i'm quoting, let's continue with the real world thought.
yes, in the real world, it could take years to get back 100% of your investment. in the real world, if your financial sheet is off a few dollars, you could be fined (tens/hundreds of) thousands of dollars. in the real world, any sort of cover up is fineable for quite a bit more, to include long jail terms.
don't see where this real world comparison is practical. |
Block Ukx
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 17:43:00 -
[65]
Actually, a voluntary fine is not a bad idea. The fine should be credited to the investors and should be a reasonable amount, like a monthÆs wages. These will give investors a sense of justice and will put the issue to rest. But first, TS is innocence till proven guilty of a ôpurposelyö cover up.
EVE first corporate trial!
|
Ionia
Advanced Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 18:47:00 -
[66]
If I understand the corporate charter correctly, the Skiff BPOs should have been sold right after the loan defaulted. I'd be interested in seeing the price of the BPO at that time compared to now.
If the value has dropped, then I would credit that loss directly to management because they made a decision that was not what the shareholders agreed to.
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 19:03:00 -
[67]
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
|
Rthor
Gallente
Smugglers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 19:10:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Ionia
If I understand the corporate charter correctly, the Skiff BPOs should have been sold right after the loan defaulted. I'd be interested in seeing the price of the BPO at that time compared to now.
If the value has dropped, then I would credit that loss directly to management because they made a decision that was not what the shareholders agreed to.
That's completely unreasonable!!! It is a fault of:
1. shareholders- because they did not have to invest
2. CCP- because they did not put divisional wallets in yet
3. Eefrit's- because he wanted to buy it
It is not a fault of:
1. Tornsoul- because he did Big Deal and Big Lottery
2. Baun- because he once was giving Tornsoul a hard time
3. Ray- because if it was a BIG member who defaulted on the loan Ray will give 30 billion of his own
There you have it. And oh Shar Tegral look up definition of Snowjob while you are browsing Wikipedia.
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 19:15:00 -
[69]
Rthor, would you mind explaining what about what Ionia said is unreasonable? I did not quite follow the reasoning you used.
Thanks,
Eefrit
|
Rthor
Gallente
Smugglers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 19:27:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Eefrit
Rthor, would you mind explaining what about what Ionia said is unreasonable? I did not quite follow the reasoning you used.
Thanks,
Eefrit
It is called sarcasm. Shaming them does not work. So my new strategy is to agree with them to the point of absurdity, which they are not all that far off anyhow. But hopefully they will try to continue arguing with me not realizing that it is their own position against which they are arguing. Then maybe a system overload will occur in their brains and something will snap or get fried and they will start thinking normally.
|
Ray McCormack
BIG
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 19:33:00 -
[71]
How about you don't, and just keep the discussion sensible? I'm willing to listen to any point of view in an effort to achieve something.
| Get A Loan For That Must Have Ship / Module | BMBE ISK Loans | |
Rthor
Gallente
Smugglers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 20:29:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
How about you don't, and just keep the discussion sensible? I'm willing to listen to any point of view in an effort to achieve something.
OK but you are not discussing. Questions were asked. They were not answered. All this thread is for you is a way to control the situation by allowing people to vent while you just nit pick from afar. You hope people will blow off steam here and slowly it will go away.
What do you mean "achieve something?" What exactly is the goal? This is not about making a first bank. This is about making a first bank WHILE creating a corporate compensation scheme that is practically criminal. If you want to really create a first Eve bank and you want that milestone and you want the game to benefit then concentrate ONLY on creating a bank AND NOT on stuffing your wallet.
|
Ray McCormack
BIG
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 20:42:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Rthor
Questions were asked. They were not answered.
Can you point out any unanswered questions to me and I'll get to them.
Originally by: Rthor
What do you mean "achieve something?" What exactly is the goal?
I want to come up with a viable proposal for regaining equity in an acceptable timeframe.
Originally by: Rthor
OK but you are not discussing.
But I am listening. I have also decided against replying to some suggestions above as I'm still fully investigating their possibilities.
| Get A Loan For That Must Have Ship / Module | BMBE ISK Loans | |
Rthor
Gallente
Smugglers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 22:15:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Rthor
Questions were asked. They were not answered.
Can you point out any unanswered questions to me and I'll get to them.
OK let's be constructive.
In order to make this bank secure you have to create "walls" which may not be in best interest for TS to create. The reason for these "walls" is to try to eliminate conflicts of interests and moral hazard issues.
If I understand correctly Ray you are doing day to day operations. It should be your decision and you should have the final say in overruling TS on whether to do a specific loan. There should be another person who is independent from both you and TS who would be able to at least look over the proposed collateral and tell you if it makes sense. Maybe one of your shareholders that you do not like and vice versa. This would create something of a wall between each one of you individually and the person seeking a loan. This would help prevent giving loans that are too risky or do not make sense to friends. You should also be on a lookout for loans that are just too large, as in 30 percent of your capital is too large for one type of a BPO. You should also sell off any BPOs that you got via default right away.
You should make an alt and have him handle all BMBE transactions and nobody besides the person who is in charge of the bank should have control over this alt. That alt could only enter into transactions that have something to do with BMBE. There should be no possibility of "loans on a side if things are slow with the bank, etc." This would clean up the books of BMBE. As it is nobody, besides certain ppl, even knows if skiff defaults were the only ones. Furthermore, you Ray do not know what is going on if some transactions are in your wallet and some are in TS's all mixed with all your personal transactions. The making of this alt would require TS to send billions in cash to this alt. If books are cooked TS cannot do this because he knows that he is sending his own money.
You should convert your 51 percent or whatever your ultimate control arrangement to actual shares and sell off half of them at least on the market or in a private transaction to somebody else. You would have to ask your shareholders approval of this restructuring if nothing else to start over with new and improved shareholder relations. Eefrit will probably try to buy them but thats OK. You would have some capital infusion anyhow and if Eefrit wants to keep buying shares your shareholders will be happy. You would also eliminate management fee. From then on your compensation would be based on share performance (so when you divest your controlling stake you should still leave something sizable like 20-30 percent of shares if your shareholders will allow you this) and from then on performance would be up to you. If share price fell enough then Eefrit would probably buy you out but he would be able to do this if books are in order and it would be of benefit to shareholders because you could negotiate a buyout premium. If Eefrit does not buy a large stake in BMBE once you divest your majority stake you can call BS on his buyout offer though this is just to score brownie points and should not be your priority.
You would have to report better because without better reporting your share price will fall. You need to regain trust of investors and so at least once a month you have to be candid. What other people suggested things like average percentage of capital that is loaned out, etc. should be in your report. You should also report names of people who defaulted. This really is a no-brainer because you will think that you will have to defend this decision when making a loan later, and it may be that it will stop some people from defaulting as they too may have their own reputations to protect.
If there is a real market for loans I think this arrangement would work so it maybe gives you some ideas how to proceed.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 22:38:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Rthor
And oh Shar Tegral look up definition of Snowjob while you are browsing Wikipedia.
SnowjobThe problem with you is that you seem to want there to be some sort of crime to have been committed. Furthermore, I only link to wikipedia when I use concepts or phrases that may not translate well into all languages. If you've got a problem with me doing that... tough.
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 |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 22:40:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Rthor
OK let's be constructive.
Very good post.
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 |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 22:45:00 -
[77]
I'd just like to voice my support for TS's (and Ray's) efforts here.
I've been critical in some of my posts but I want to be clear that I consider BMBE an undeniably successful business in no small part owed to the significant energy that it's management has displayed in handeling the venture.
I would like to say that I think BMBE should stick to it's core business model and avoid branching out. As has been stated above, this is the appropriate move. If TS wanted to start a different business I'm sure he wouldn't have much trouble raising the capital. He is a consistently honest and trustworthy character, and barring his one slip (the reporting snafu) he is one of the more established players in the market.
Hexxx LLP - Business Consulting Services - IPO's, Business Plans, Share/Stock Pricing, and general Consulting.
|
Ray McCormack
BIG
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 22:58:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Rthor
First Two Paragraphs
The 'walls' you describe already exist. I regularly bounce collateral figures off various people as a test, I don't feel this needs to be a regulated procedure. Putting a percentage limit on loan size is also a limiting factor. I understand most of the above suggestions are aimed at erradicating any conflicts of interest, but one of the things you need to appreciate is the only default we have had was over a year ago. The fact we never had a defaulted loan in the recent months also speaks a little of our understanding of BPO value.
Originally by: Rthor
Third Paragraph
I understand the apprehension behind keeping ISK in a multi-purpose wallet. I have recently begun using an alt (Ray's Cat - the new BMBE CEO) as a storage vessel for a certain percentage of BMBE ISK. But keeping it all in one character's wallet is another major limiting factor. One of the biggest complaints we've had is the timely availability of ISK. That is why it is shared between myself and TS, so only one of us needs to be available at any one time.
Originally by: Rthor
Fourth Paragraph
A bunch of ideas in there I'm not sure have any correlation to our current situation. Having shares as a profit incentive has proved to not be a good idea. Ionia can explain more. The BMBE does not own a controlling share in the company.
Originally by: Rthor
Fifth Paragraph
I will poke TS to start including more figures in his reports.
A final note on releasing defaultor's details. When someone takes a loan with the BMBE they enter into it with complete confidentiality. We cannot break that confidentiality agreement just because we lost out due to a default (which under normal operations would not happen). If we were to benefit from a default and then still publicly humiliate the person it would be in bad taste. And we cannot have a double standard for naming defaultors. So, no, we will not name them as it stands.
| Get A Loan For That Must Have Ship / Module | BMBE ISK Loans | |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 23:12:00 -
[79]
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
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari
AUS Corporation
CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 23:45:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Eefrit
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
Uhh, this helps me how? Your suggestions just make the price of my shares go down even farther. I want them to go back up to where they belong.
----
AUS Corp
Lead Megalomanic |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 23:54:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Eefrit
1)TornSoul has proven inept and as such should not be part of the management.
You had me with pretty much everything here. I think you could have said, " Most controversy surrounds TornSoul's management styles and as such it would be wise if TornSoul recuse himself from the Leadership role in managing BMBE." IMHO repeatedly stating things like this, specifically in this manner, only flames up the situation as many of us disagree with your uncharitable judgment. There are things to be solved with BMBE and I trust TornSoul enough that this discussion is not falling upon deaf ears... even if this is delegated to Ray. I guess my foolish wish is for this self-interested sniping or chest beating would stop so that serious matters can take the limelight.
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 |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 23:58:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Uhh, this helps me how? Your suggestions just make the price of my shares go down even farther. I want them to go back up to where they belong.
It wouldn't drive share prices down. It's just using shares as a vehicle for the management fee. However the suggested sell off to cover the bpo value default could also potentially allow someone else to gain shareholder majority of BMBE. Even if this person couldn't vote in another CEO they could block any administrative "votes" BMBE would need. Might as well just ask them to make up the loss from their own pockets. Less confusion and is exactly the same thing.
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 - 2007.05.11 00:07:00 -
[83]
OK so I was really constructive and I still wholeheartedly disagree with how you do business.
Moving some of the money sometimes to an alt is not a solution because it does not prove to you Ray that all the money is still in the bank. It has to be all and it has to be a permanent move to prove it that some money was not lost along the way. Yeah I hear you about the availability issue but somehow I dont think that either one of you is always on anyhow so if they are waiting anyhow maybe they can wait a little longer.
But actually it does not have to be entirely like this. You can say that TS has 50 billion and Ray has 50 billion and report their performance separately. And then if TS does not pull his weight he will be under pressure to move ISK to Ray's character. If Ray is loaning out his 50b and TS is not why should TS have 50 billion in his account.
We can go back and forth like this but I think many times just because you can make some kind of a counterargument that does not mean that the other person is wrong.
The naming of characters who default issue I just do not get TS's and Ray's logic. I would have zero qualms of naming people who defrauded my shareholders of 30 billion. You should go to war for your shareholders and not pull this "I am broke but I am a gentleman" crap. In your case it is even worse because it is "My shareholders are broke but I am a gentleman" crap. Ay ya yay. Come to think of this you should have a portion of proceeds saved up for hiring good mercs to take out deadbeats. :-) (And people who criticize you on forums for good measure also).
Anyway, I could go on but half measures are just half measures. Even getting really serious about saving BMBE may not save it but using half-measures just prolongs the inevitable. You will either have another huge default in due time or you will be so conservative in loaning money that your market will dry up.
|
Rthor
Gallente
Smugglers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 00:17:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Uhh, this helps me how? Your suggestions just make the price of my shares go down even farther. I want them to go back up to where they belong.
That is not because of Eefrit but because of TS if shares are down. If they are too cheap and all this current nay saying drove them down then buy more. I think that they might be sold on a cheap if there is a sell off by BMBE like it was suggested, but its hard to say what would happen then. It may be that they could be cheap and then take off if other reforms restore both faith and profitability and result in higher dividends.
|
Balogh
Gallente
Real-time EVE Stock Exchange
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 06:02:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Rthor
Third Paragraph
I understand the apprehension behind keeping ISK in a multi-purpose wallet. I have recently begun using an alt (Ray's Cat - the new BMBE CEO) as a storage vessel for a certain percentage of BMBE ISK. But keeping it all in one character's wallet is another major limiting factor. One of the biggest complaints we've had is the timely availability of ISK. That is why it is shared between myself and TS, so only one of us needs to be available at any one time.
Isn't the whole idea behind the corp wallet that everyone who has the appropriate roles (meaning, more than one character) has access?
______________________________
Real-time EVE Stock Exchange, Blog |
Ray McCormack
BIG
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 08:29:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Uhh, this helps me how? Your suggestions just make the price of my shares go down even farther. I want them to go back up to where they belong.
It wouldn't drive share prices down. It's just using shares as a vehicle for the management fee.
It would drive down share prices. It would be doubling shares without doubling capital. And I don't see any benefit to using a share scheme rather than a profit split. Maybe I'm missing something.
Originally by: Shar Tegral
However the suggested sell off to cover the bpo value default could also potentially allow someone else to gain shareholder majority of BMBE. Even if this person couldn't vote in another CEO they could block any administrative "votes" BMBE would need. Might as well just ask them to make up the loss from their own pockets.
Again, we do not own a share majority. And we do not require administrative votes to go through in order for us to continue operating in the manner we wish.
| Get A Loan For That Must Have Ship / Module | BMBE ISK Loans | |
Ray McCormack
BIG
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 08:33:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Balogh
Isn't the whole idea behind the corp wallet that everyone who has the appropriate roles (meaning, more than one character) has access?
There is only one character in the BMBE. And keeping BMBE ISK in the BIG corporation wallet will not happen. Possibly when divisional wallets come out we will employ the use of one only myself and TS have access to. That will allow us access to the same ISK and also alleviate Rthor's fears.
| Get A Loan For That Must Have Ship / Module | BMBE ISK Loans | |
Ray McCormack
BIG
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 09:01:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Rthor
OK so I was really constructive and I still wholeheartedly disagree with how you do business.
And you are more than welcome to and I will listen to your disagrements. Just because I argue against your ideas at first does not mean I will always. You present an option to me and the logic is clear in your mind. I need to argue the ideas out first to ensure the logic is clear in my mind.
Originally by: Rthor
Moving some of the money sometimes to an alt is not a solution because it does not prove to you Ray that all the money is still in the bank. It has to be all and it has to be a permanent move to prove it that some money was not lost along the way. Yeah I hear you about the availability issue but somehow I dont think that either one of you is always on anyhow so if they are waiting anyhow maybe they can wait a little longer.
Perhaps divisional wallets will solve this problem as you see it. But in my mind the ability to have readily available ISK on multi-characters far outweighs the apparent risks. But I see how you feel having the ISK in a multi-purpose wallet could arise to a potential conflict of interest situation.
Originally by: Rthor
The naming of characters who default issue I just do not get TS's and Ray's logic.
The problem I see is that this happened a year ago. If we were to name defaultors then we should have named him at the time. We cannot just drop him in this ****storm that has developed because it is expedient.
| Get A Loan For That Must Have Ship / Module | BMBE ISK Loans | |
Silmas
Gallente
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 11:16:00 -
[89]
What good would it do to anyone to name the defaulter?
He/she just took advantage of changing situation regarding value of his BPO. Something that quite many would've done I am sure. Imagine yourself in same situation, what would YOU do?
It's both bad luck and mistake on BMBE's part that such thing happened, things like that surprise alot of people quite often in this game. ISK is lost, ISK is gained. Move on. Repair damage.
|
Heikki
Gallente
Wreckless Abandon
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 11:43:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Eefrit
TornSoul hand all BMBE Isk .. changed to 50% of the shares
Those seem to be valid ideas for some new bank; yet not something the shareholders of BMBE have agreed to.
For the first one TS would pretty much need a clear majority vote; while the latter would be like giving TS rights for 50% capital currently belonging to shareholders.
Ray, for some concrete suggestion: I reckon the current model basicly allows customers to use the bank as insurance against BPO value changes. I.e. it is even morally fair to take loan and voluntary default it (and hence would be wrong to give up the name of the fellow who borrowed against Skiffs).
Would there be any point changing the loan rules to such that even if the loan defaults, the customer still has to pay the difference between remaining loan, and the price BMBE got from selling the BPO?
The major effect from this would be giving BMBE rights to announce names of the people who break the contract (==don't pay the difference). As side effect even BMBE members could freely take loans without causing suspicion.
-Lasse
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |