EVE Search - Short-Term Bonds [BMBE]

All Channels

Market Discussions

Short-Term Bonds [BMBE]

» 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 - 2 post(s)
Rthor Gallente Smugglers Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.25 17:18:00 - [31] My gosh somebody here makes sense. We cannot have that. I predict a quick and decisive flame war by the market forum players on FastLearner.
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.05.25 17:38:00 - [32] I don't see a real need to dwell on the default issue. A couple of things we know: * There has only been a single default recorded via BMBE, and that is over a 1+ year period. * Due to the severity of said previous default, I think we can be assured that TS/Ray won't fall into the same trap again. There may be better ways to word Ray's posts, but who really cares. We know BMBE is doing ok, and has been in the past. We know (beyond reasonable doubt) that neither Ray nor TS are going to scam us. We have the information provided to us to make a financial decision as to whether or not to invest in this. Now, BMBE raised what? 21 billion isk within approx a 48 hour period through this bond deal. So it is safe to assume that even since the recent unveiled scandal (failed reporting, for lack of a better word), people are still willing to offer funds to the cause. If I had the liquid cash, I wouldn't hesitate to jump into bed with this deal. In my opinion, it is the initial shareholders in BMBE that are getting scammed, as they continually get their crappy 3-5% dividends, whilst any other people can now jump into short term deals to secure 6% in a month, without feeling the need to run around offloading shares when things go haywire. Personally, I wish BMBE had been structured in this way from the start. Sick of the waits with empire research slots? Use mine!
Pang Grohl Gallente	Posted - 2007.05.25 18:01:00 - [33] Originally by: FastLearner Very important concerns about who is at risk in these bond/debt issues Flame, fume, conflagarate, ignite, incindiate, etc Now that that's out of the way, what FastLearner has to say is very important to current BMBE shareholders, and holders of these new debt issues. I think it's obvious that the debt issues are being used to met demand for loans that current BMBE cash can't cover. What's not obvious is how Ray/BMBE will prioritize this new class of obligations. IRL, creditors have priority over equity holders, but EVE is not RL. As neither a shareholder or a creditor of BMBE I have no stake in whatever the final outcome of this discussion is. If it were me doing this, I would make sure first that I have shareholder approval to incur a debt for BMBE, and approval for how much debt could be incurred. Next I would make sure that everyone is aware of the conditions surrounding the debts (payment, interest accrual, term, relative priority to shareholder obligations, etc). Si non adjuvas, noces (If you're not helping, you're hurting)
FastLearner	Posted - 2007.05.25 18:39:00 - [34] Originally by: Ricdic I don't see a real need to dwell on the default issue. A couple of things we know: * There has only been a single default recorded via BMBE, and that is over a 1+ year period. * Due to the severity of said previous default, I think we can be assured that TS/Ray won't fall into the same trap again. I think you're missing at least part of my point here. IF defaulting is no big deal (i.e. unlikely to happen and with no real rsik of adverse consequences if it does) then why wasn't this structured as a genuine bond issue - where the current share-holders (and management) take on the risk of default in return for their share of the profits? It's not ME who made defaulting an issue - it's Ray when he decided that the risk should be placed on the bond-holders, rather than on the share-holders (which would be normal practice). I note also that Ray's wording, if taken literally, means that if there's a default the bond-holders only get paid a maximum of their principal (i.e. no interest) even if the sale of collateral generates sufficient revenue to cover the interest as well.
FastLearner	Posted - 2007.05.25 18:45:00 - [35] Originally by: Ricdic In my opinion, it is the initial shareholders in BMBE that are getting scammed, as they continually get their crappy 3-5% dividends, whilst any other people can now jump into short term deals to secure 6% in a month, without feeling the need to run around offloading shares when things go haywire. I either disagree with your statement here - or believe that you're changing the topic. Let me explain: As far as this particular short-term issue is concerned the original share-holders are getting a VERY good deal - they stand to gain profit from loans which aren't funded by their own capital and in which they have absolutely zero risk: so on that basis I'd disagree with you. With enough of these types of short-term bond the original shareholders could end up making decently monthly returns. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that the original BMBE investment is a bad one (or a "scam" in your words) then that's a change of topic - and should have it's own thread.
FastLearner	Posted - 2007.05.25 18:51:00 - [36] Originally by: Pang Grohl What's not obvious is how Ray/BMBE will prioritize this new class of obligations. IRL, creditors have priority over equity holders, but EVE is not RL. As neither a shareholder or a creditor of BMBE I have no stake in whatever the final outcome of this discussion is. If it were me doing this, I would make sure first that I have shareholder approval to incur a debt for BMBE, and approval for how much debt could be incurred. Next I would make sure that everyone is aware of the conditions surrounding the debts (payment, interest accrual, term, relative priority to shareholder obligations, etc). edit: PS I think that Ray has made a good decision in acting on the opportunity that presented itself. Coming back now to establish guideline for future needs should be of benefit to shareholders and creditors alike. Glad someone sees the point I'm raising. By creating a share/bond issue which is "neither fish nor fowl" a whole raft of potential problems arise down-stream. It's not clear, for example, what happens if a loan is part-funded by "bonds" and partly by BMBE capital and then defaults. Are the proceeds of collateral sale distributed proprtionately between share-holders and bond-holders or do the bond-holders assume all the losses? I'm in no way knocking the general principle of what Ray's doing - it clearly makes plenty of sense - but WHY issue a bond and then back-pedal on the fundamental principle of bonds: that payment is fixed and secured against the corporation's total assets. If default is no big deal - then why make it one? If, on the other hand, defaulting IS a big deal then far more disclosure should be provided.
Rthor Gallente Smugglers Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.25 19:19:00 - [37] This actually is a decent business idea, although it would work better if the information was not so secret. What FastLearner said about the potential for scamming because of the lack of disclosure is precisely what bothers me the most with all the Eve IPOs. If you take for example any pyramid scheme the first few times dividends are paid out they will be good, and it is still scam. If somebody takes out a given amount then he or she can afford to pay out 8 percent of that amount each month for 12 months after doing absolutely nothing. With Eve IPOs you also have the issue with ever increasing earning power. 100 billion now is not what it used to be a year or two ago. So if you and your shareholders have a time horizon of years it is very easy to bet that whatever money you borrow now from shareholders will be easier to make in the future because of level 8 missions or whatever improvement in ability to make ISK will likely occur a year from now. Then you also have the issue with people quiting a game. If they buy your shares and quit the game after 6 months then nobody will ask anything about the money they invested in your IPO. And let's face it with average lifespan of 9 months it is not a bad idea to bet on your shareholders quiting the game before your IPO liabilities catch up to you. So I think that because of these factors it is I think in the best interest of management of an IPO to be candid with their business issues. This I think would actually increase their reputation. However, it does not seem like this is how Eve IPO management people think. And it is a fact that many of the people who profess desire to make Eve stock market work are the same people who attack public's pleas for disclosure which is what allows scams and bad performance permeate this market. Here you have a good business idea and yet again this idea seems to be a slave to path dependency. BMBE has secrets and so will these bonds. I think that if Ray said OK this is how much money we made and these are the loans we made and this is how we made money this could actually be a pretty good business. But since it is a BMBE business it will be secret. Now somebody will say well but we cannot give out secrets because then somebody else will come along and duplicate it. Well that is why your reputation is important and that is what insulates you from your competition and this is what you want to develop. And you get that good rep by being straightforward. So again here you have a good idea that could possibly be really well implemented on its own without TS and without BMBE connection at all. As it is it is kind of rolling a dice in attempt to shore up BMBE profits/assets. It could work or you could see defaults but only the bondholders will get burned. It is similar to how BMBE was started. BIG had a good rep so they were able to raise money for BMBE. But maybe the business is simply to cash in on BIG good name again. If it is not why the BMBE connection?
FastLearner	Posted - 2007.05.25 19:42:00 - [38] Originally by: Rthor This actually is a decent business idea, although it would work better if the information was not so secret. What FastLearner said about the potential for scamming because of the lack of disclosure is precisely what bothers me the most with all the Eve IPOs. So I think that because of these factors it is I think in the best interest of management of an IPO to be candid with their business issues. This I think would actually increase their reputation. However, it does not seem like this is how Eve IPO management people think. And it is a fact that many of the people who profess desire to make Eve stock market work are the same people who attack public's pleas for disclosure which is what allows scams and bad performance permeate this market. Here you have a good business idea and yet again this idea seems to be a slave to path dependency. BMBE has secrets and so will these bonds. I think that if Ray said OK this is how much money we made and these are the loans we made and this is how we made money this could actually be a pretty good business. But since it is a BMBE business it will be secret. Now somebody will say well but we cannot give out secrets because then somebody else will come along and duplicate it. Well that is why your reputation is important and that is what insulates you from your competition and this is what you want to develop. And you get that good rep by being straightforward. So again here you have a good idea that could possibly be really well implemented on its own without TS and without BMBE connection at all. As it is it is kind of rolling a dice in attempt to shore up BMBE profits/assets. It could work or you could see defaults but only the bondholders will get burned. It is similar to how BMBE was started. BIG had a good rep so they were able to raise money for BMBE. But maybe the business is simply to cash in on BIG good name again. If it is not why the BMBE connection? I think the BMBE connection here is actually perfectly understandable and reasonable - the most likely scenario is that B<BE have been approached for a larger loan than they have cash to cover, hence the Bond issue. If it were run as a seperate IPO then it would take way longer to organise and raise funds - and the trust issue would be much larger. My concern is simply that BMBE doesn't appear to have enough confidence in it's own judgement to run it as a genuine Bond issue - but assumes bond-buyers should have that level of confidence. Disclosure in general is always going to be an issue with IPOs - there are very legitimate reasons why, for example, BMBE shouldn't post a list identifying who loans are made to (not the least of which being that many people wouldn't take loans without confidentiality). Similarly, in my own IPO, while I will disclose the value of stock I hold (and the profit realised if it's sold) there's no way I'd list the specific items I manufacture/resell. And in both of those cases (BMBE not naming people loaned to, and me not listing my actual stock on the market) there's no REAL disclosure at all - as nothing is able to be independently verified. Eve lacks any genuinely independent "third party" to verify confidential information - while plenty of people may CLAIM to be independent, trust-worthy, etc. those claims ultimately are no more enforcable or measurable than the actual IPOs themselves. Hence, the best that can reasonably be achieved is to at least define what the risks are - and to run IPOs in a fashion where at least if a scam occurs it will be detectable (albeit too latet o help much sometimes). And that's where this particular offering falls down - as it gives the potential to scam one bunch of investors without it EVER being detectable.
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2007.05.25 19:51:00 - [39] Edited by: Ricdic on 25/05/2007 19:50:32 You guys had to go ruin the thread with all your techno-babble. You should be ashamed. Fastlearner is a cr4ckup, 1 month ago he was unheard of and had probably never ever posted in market forums, and now he w***es every thread he can find Just let the guy sell his bonds. If you don't want them, don't take them and I will. I am too lazy to fight with you over stupid points that have little or no chance of happening. Sick of the waits with empire research slots? Use mine!
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:11:00 - [40] Originally by: FastLearner 1. They're risking nothing, however they're sharing the profit with outside investors in an already established business that is (sometimes) in need of extra capital. Originally by: FastLearner 2. The same goes for current shareholders in the BMBE. So there is no distinct situation between the two investor parties on those grounds. Originally by: FastLearner The risk of default should be accepted by the primary BMBE shareholders - making it a genuine bond. I could not make that decision for them. Nor will it be put to a vote. The risk for bond holders will remain as it is currently. We've had four recent high-profile unsecured bond releases lately. Three of them offer a set dividend, the other a felxible dividend. It is not guaranteed against anything. Now if they cannot pay out that promised divdend they will suffer a blow to their reputation. I am in the same boat. Nothing seperates us on that ground. The risks associated with these bonds are a little more precise though (in fact, there is little secrecy regarding these bonds compared to other issues). Originally by: FastLearner 2. It should be treated as a seperate IPO - with disclosure of the use of the funds, to secure "Bond"-holders against transfer of loss/default from loans originally funded from main BMBE capital. In an ideal situation we would be launching another Public Offering and increasing the base BMBE capital to 150b. The likelyhood of that happening is close to zero considering both stock price and the recent publicised equity loss. I am simply taking the steps I deem necessary to secure extra capital when and as it is needed. Bond purchasers need suffer no delusions of what their ISK is used for, nor what extra earnings will be placed in BMBE coffers. Originally by: FastLearner The only real argument against securing it vs the main BMBE funds would be if the management aren't confident in their own valuations (or if they believe their share-holders have such a lack of confidence). I am extremely confident in our collateral evaluations. However I bear no candy-coated impressions of what BMBE shareholder confidence is. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:19:00 - [41] Originally by: FastLearner I think you're missing at least part of my point here. IF defaulting is no big deal (i.e. unlikely to happen and with no real rsik of adverse consequences if it does) then why wasn't this structured as a genuine bond issue - where the current share-holders (and management) take on the risk of default in return for their share of the profits? Because I do not have a mandate to secure loans against shareholders' ISK. And the management cannot secure one product without securing the other. Originally by: FastLearner It's not ME who made defaulting an issue - it's Ray when he decided that the risk should be placed on the bond-holders, rather than on the share-holders (which would be normal practice). The issue was actually raised by another high-profile community member. I had not initially thought it to be a problem. Ideally I would not want the risk to be placed on the bond holders, however precident allows no other alternative in this case. Originally by: FastLearner I note also that Ray's wording, if taken literally, means that if there's a default the bond-holders only get paid a maximum of their principal (i.e. no interest) even if the sale of collateral generates sufficient revenue to cover the interest as well. Sorry, I did miss a bit of detail out. Payouts will be up to a maximum of what collateral sale generates, including interest. I will adress the issue of split-collateral in another reply. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:23:00 - [42] Originally by: FastLearner As far as this particular short-term issue is concerned the original share-holders are getting a VERY good deal - they stand to gain profit from loans which aren't funded by their own capital and in which they have absolutely zero risk: so on that basis I'd disagree with you. With enough of these types of short-term bond the original shareholders could end up making decently monthly returns. In a reply above I mentioned that bond purchasers should suffer no delusions as to what the profit from their ISK will be. It's fairly easy to calculate using our interest rates as a guide. However, the same goes for all other bond issues, except ours is more transparent in this regards. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:28:00 - [43] Originally by: FastLearner Glad someone sees the point I'm raising. By creating a share/bond issue which is "neither fish nor fowl" a whole raft of potential problems arise down-stream. It's not clear, for example, what happens if a loan is part-funded by "bonds" and partly by BMBE capital and then defaults. Are the proceeds of collateral sale distributed proprtionately between share-holders and bond-holders or do the bond-holders assume all the losses? There are a few variations to the above situation. If the collateral sale exceeds the loan amount, bond holders will be paid out as normal and the excess ISK will be returned to the BMBE base capital. If the collateral sale falls short of the loan amount (again, I'd like to stress this has only happened once, a year ago) then the ISK will be split proportionately. Originally by: FastLearner but WHY issue a bond and then back-pedal on the fundamental principle of bonds I adapted a commonly understandable form of lending to suit my purposes. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:31:00 - [44] Ray has done well here. Some good questions asked, some bad accusations made. The Good 1. Ray is offering the market a short-term investment. There are no other ones like this available in the public domain that I am aware of. This fills a gap in the securities market. 2. Ray is going above and beyond what he is required to do in BMBE go generate additional profits for BMBE shareholders. You should all be applauding him for this venture. He is sacrificing his own time and putting up with a lot of bull** to do this. 3. He is increasing availability of loans to the public, which is, in my opinion, a very important service in this part of EVE. The Bad 1. There is a risk of default with these bonds. There is a risk with all public investments. BMBE has had one default in the past and in that particular case, BMBE suffered a loss because of the drop in value of the collateral. After that lesson learned, I know they are much more vigilant now in assessing those types of situations, so the risk of a loss is minimal. The Ugly** 1. BMBE's reputation over the recent unfolding over not-so-recent events, as well as poor dividends and communication in the past. This is the source of some of the comments so far in this thread. You should all keep in mind that those were not the fault of Ray, and if you look at his record, he has stuck by shareholders, and I know from personal chats that he works from inside BMBE to make changes that are positive for shareholders. He has also stuck to his job all this time while all the mud was being thrown around.
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:38:00 - [45] Originally by: Rthor disclosure I will disclose how many bonds were issued and realised at the shareholder report. A lot of that was directed in general at the operational procedure of the BMBE though, however, it is true that the general construct and disclosure issues of this bond is limited by the precedents set by the BMBE. Originally by: Rthor If it is not why the BMBE connection? It is not unusual for a company to take out a loan that will in turn benefit its shareholders. Think of these bonds as a loan in an environment that allows me to do it like this. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:43:00 - [46] Originally by: FastLearner My concern is simply that BMBE doesn't appear to have enough confidence in it's own judgement to run it as a genuine Bond issue - but assumes bond-buyers should have that level of confidence. It is not a case of us lacking in confidence, quite the opposite I might say. We're talking a bold approach to an awkward situation and running with the best product we can establish given the situation. With regards to securing the bonds either against shareholder capital or management's, I have responded above. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:46:00 - [47] Originally by: Ricdic I am too lazy to fight with you over stupid points that have little or no chance of happening. Ooh, great sentence, let me change it slightly to suit my needs : I am willing to constructively argue with you over secondary points that have little or no chance of happening. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:49:00 - [48] Originally by: Ionia Ray has done well here. Some good questions asked, some bad accusations made. The Good 1. Ray is offering the market a short-term investment. There are no other ones like this available in the public domain that I am aware of. This fills a gap in the securities market. 2. Ray is going above and beyond what he is required to do in BMBE go generate additional profits for BMBE shareholders. You should all be applauding him for this venture. He is sacrificing his own time and putting up with a lot of bull** to do this. 3. He is increasing availability of loans to the public, which is, in my opinion, a very important service in this part of EVE. The Bad 1. There is a risk of default with these bonds. There is a risk with all public investments. BMBE has had one default in the past and in that particular case, BMBE suffered a loss because of the drop in value of the collateral. After that lesson learned, I know they are much more vigilant now in assessing those types of situations, so the risk of a loss is minimal. The Ugly** 1. BMBE's reputation over the recent unfolding over not-so-recent events, as well as poor dividends and communication in the past. This is the source of some of the comments so far in this thread. You should all keep in mind that those were not the fault of Ray, and if you look at his record, he has stuck by shareholders, and I know from personal chats that he works from inside BMBE to make changes that are positive for shareholders. He has also stuck to his job all this time while all the mud was being thrown around. Thanks for the kind, weighted words. Pretty much sums up any argument I could make without discussing the finer details. \| All Current Tech II BPO Auctions \| BMBE ISK Loans \|

Jacques Archambault Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2007.05.26 16:50:00 - [49] Thread cleaned. Please keep your replies polite and on-topic. Anti-competitive behaviour and trolling will not be tolerated. -Jacques forum rules \| [email protected] \| Our Website!

Clara Mismer	Posted - 2007.06.01 10:01:00 - [50] The reason you can't figure out what to call it is because it varies in name by where you live. In the US you are taling about a seconday loan market ( although the part missing in game is the credit rating). Usually the intrest is set by reverse auction but that would not be effective here due to the TZ issues and no common form of real-time communication. / off topic at hand I would guess there is a possability to create a credit risk / loan ranking by using a formula Char run length * Mod for position in corp/Alliance * Collateral value / laon amount / back to topic You might try a blind reverse auction to maximize the profitability of the loans you need financing for, it will just be a little harder since your intrest rates are public knoledge.
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.07.03 13:50:00 - [51] There is a potential for 6 - 10b in bonds from today. Wire ISK to Ray McCormack for bonds. Any ISK that isn't required will be returned by the 5th of July (Thursday) at the latest. \| How To Afford A Tech II BPO \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2007.07.03 14:19:00 - [52] This patch is a surprise to me or I'd have sent you money. Can I be penciled in for half bil? The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it. Shar Tegral> Well someone please say something quotable for this month!!!!
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.07.03 14:32:00 - [53] Originally by: Shar Tegral This patch is a surprise to me or I'd have sent you money. Can I be penciled in for half bil? Of course. \| Short Term Bonds Available \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2007.07.03 16:25:00 - [54] I may be on a few hours after uptime though as I'm taking the miss out for lunch (Local specialty burger place), Die Hard 4, dinner (Japanese -Wasabi Overload!!!!), and then Transformers. That is of course to thank her for a kindness she gave me earlier today. I'll leave my gratitude to you as a simple: Why thank you very kindly sir. The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it. Shar Tegral> Well someone please say something quotable for this month!!!!
Ray McCormack BIG	Posted - 2007.07.03 20:28:00 - [55] Well, I'm afraid the bond issue is no longer required for this evening. Someone repaid a loan off early which covers the extra ISK needed. We did manage to raise 7.5b though, from different sources to the first issue, which is quite encouraging. I'm just sorry they weren't required to run their course. All ISK will be returned to investors shortly. Shar, if this ruins what happened to be (and sounds like) a magical evening, my apologies. If your missus is willing, she can make it up to you on my behalf. \| Short Term Bonds Available \| BMBE ISK Loans \|
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2007.07.04 03:42:00 - [56] Originally by: Ray McCormack I'm just sorry they weren't required to run their course. All ISK will be returned to investors shortly. Got me all excited... darn. You isk tease. The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it. Shar Tegral> Well someone please say something quotable for this month!!!!

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.