EVE Search - Fury Holdings - Results/Updates Thread

All Channels

Market Discussions

Fury Holdings - Results/Updates Thread

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Shadow Manufacturer	Posted - 2007.10.14 11:24:00 - [31] COMBO BREAKER!
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.14 18:39:00 - [32] I believe when this first launched I had my reservations about it. Now I wish I had funded the entire thing myself Very nice reports and good job on this. I wish more corps provided information like this. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Prodigal Caldari New Genesis Project	Posted - 2007.10.15 01:37:00 - [33] Edited by: Prodigal on 15/10/2007 01:37:50 FL, thanks again for all the steady weekly details regarding the operation. Just two question regarding a trend that I can see in your numbers..... Your STOCK in minerals has been controlled and steady, however, the STOCK in T2/Named/Ships has been growing and growing. (Started at 7B and is now at 22B!!!) 1)Please correct me if I am wrong, but are those assets, assets that are left over that have not been sold yet? If this is the case, then the number represents potential sales that are not going to market which translates to profits that are not being realized. 2)The seemingly sudden arrival of a 22 Billion receivable represents what? Cheers,
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.15 09:06:00 - [34] Originally by: Prodigal Edited by: Prodigal on 15/10/2007 01:37:50 FL, thanks again for all the steady weekly details regarding the operation. Just two question regarding a trend that I can see in your numbers..... Your STOCK in minerals has been controlled and steady, however, the STOCK in T2/Named/Ships has been growing and growing. (Started at 7B and is now at 22B!!!) 1)Please correct me if I am wrong, but are those assets, assets that are left over that have not been sold yet? If this is the case, then the number represents potential sales that are not going to market which translates to profits that are not being realized. 2)The seemingly sudden arrival of a 22 Billion receivable represents what? Cheers, Got back online just now - will do a full report once I've finished checking all my buy/sell orders. I'll briefly answer your two questions now, though (#2 will be addressed in far more detail in the full report). 1) The increase in T2 etc stock. This is entirely planned - and is a trend which will continue. My main pmarket area is selling T2/best-names + some manufactured ships in 0.0 - with the vast majority of sales being to members of my own alliance (sold via the open market though). As more capital has become available I've increased the number of different items I sell. The reported value includes items actually up for sale in 2 locations, items in stock at those locations and items in transit to those locations from high-sec. Assuming all items to have a similar value and turnover it's fairly obvious that doubling the number of lines I do will double that particular value in the report. I keep a stock level of what I project to be around 2 weeks sales of each item - there's a lead time on delivery from high-sec (a two-stage operation) and demand isn't totally even. Over the course of the IPO, the number of stocked items has approximately trebled - in the near future it'll be increasing by an estimated 50% more, taking that value up to around 35 billion. There's also some changes in sales locations shortly - which will end up with a third sales outlet being used in a few weeks time. That'll take that value up to near 50 billion eventually. I disagree strongly that this represents profits which aren't being realised. I suspect you just weren't aware that my main business is buying in high-sec and selling in 0.0 (supplemented by some manufacturing, some invention and the odd bit of Jita trading where items never leave the station). The cost of not having stock when someone wants to buy something is high enough to warrant keeping a decent level of stock. 2) Moneys Receivable - these are loans. Two loans were issued last week (a third one is being issued tomorrow). One loan was to myself (more on that one in the full report), the other two are/will be fully secured (on a mix of BPOs, faction items and Fury Holdings shares). All three pay interest at a rate above the rate paid to depositors in the bank of course. There are also two more loans in negotiation.
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.15 11:57:00 - [35] OK, here's last week's report. Information On Entries In Weekly Report --------------------------------------- I'll start off by explaining a few new entries in the report. Some should be pretty obvious, others less so. Liabilities : This used to be just one value, now I've expanded it to seperately list funds on deposit in the two types of Accounts offered by Fury Bank. Receivable (Loans/Contracts) : This item has appeared in a few previous reports (only at a few hundred million maximum), but this time the value there is fairly significant. Obviously this value represents monies owed to Fury Bank or Fury Holdings from loans or outstanding contracts. Fury Bank issued it's first two loans last week - a fairly large one (to me) and a smaller one (to someone else). Normally my policy will be not to discuss the individual taking out a loan, the size of the loan or the details of collateral provided. But for a sizable loan made to myself I believe some disclosure is only reasonable. For a while I've been saving up for a mothership: the sudden influx of funds to Fruy Bank, together with a good offer becoming available, put me in a position to obtain one. Obviously (I HOPE it's obvious) I haven't provided collateral for the loan, but I'm paying the same rate of interest as any other borrower from the bank of a similar amount and on similar terms would. The loan was for significantly less than the cost of the ship - with the balance (and the cost of all faction/officer modules) being paid from my personal wallet. The mothership is privately owned by me - though it will obviously assist in logistics for Fury Holdings (as well as in combat for my alliance). Me taking the loan also allowed Fury Bank to accept more deposits than would otherwise be the case - though deposits are getting close to the limit I can comfortably pay interest on without reducing profits once more. Another loan due to be accepted tomorrow (with full collateral) will extend that limit slightly). Mobile Containers : This entry under Fixed Assets is another new one in the reports. These are fully rigged/expanded Iteron Vs, used for transporting goods in the ship maintenance array of the mothership. 9 such Iterons plus the corporate hangar allows movement of around 400k m3 at a time. Not only will this make movement of stock for Fury Holdings much easier (and safer) but a transportation service will be marketted to alliance members in the near future. Whilst the mothership itself is privately owned, these mobile containers are assets of Fury Holdings - as they have no private use for myself (all proceeds from the logistics service will go to Fury Holdings). Changes In Fury Holdings Sell Points ------------------------------------ At present Fury Holdings sells in two locations. One of those locations is being relocated to a new site - and a third site (though only selling a reduced range of goods) will be created in the near future. This is to deal with changing circumstances within the alliance (all of them good). This will, however, inevitably result in a dip in profits this week due to there effectively being only one sell location for a day or two. Once that move is completed, the range of goods sold by Fury Holdings is planned to rise by around 50%. This will deploy 10-15 million of investment, with another 5-10 million being deployed shortly thereafter when a third sales location (selling only a subset of stock) is opened. Fury Bank --------- The interest in Fury Bank's HIAs was much higher than I'd anticipated: luckily the mothership contingency allowed me to handle the scale of deposits with a beneficial outcome for Fury Holdings shareholders. That profits weren't quite as good this week as the week before was mainly due to the changing circumstances within the alliance making sales at one location drop off sharply. (cont)
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.15 12:00:00 - [36] It's likely I'll cease to take further deposits to Fury Bank within the next few days - so potential depositors should check the topic in "Fury Bank" chat channel before sending ISK. I'd anticipate more deposits being available within a week or two should that happen. Outlook For Current Week ------------------------ I expect profits to be down - but probably not much (if any) below 2 billion. Right at this instant sales are only occurring at one location. Profits should then rise to new record highs within a few weeks. As ever, I'll buy back any unwanted Fury Holdings shares at 100% of NAV - even if I have to take out a second loan to do so :)
bluejeansandpudding	Posted - 2007.10.15 14:19:00 - [37] When the time is right everyone will become rich from this.
Prodigal Caldari New Genesis Project	Posted - 2007.10.15 18:58:00 - [38] Edited by: Prodigal on 15/10/2007 18:58:44
Prodigal Caldari New Genesis Project	Posted - 2007.10.16 01:15:00 - [39] It appears your investors are happy with what they have seen so far anyways, so these arguments are simply academic of course. You are showing growth in profit week over week. This tells us you are moving product through your markets. You are showing varying levels of minerals left over week over week. This tells us you are controlling your material costs. You are showing an increase in STOCK left week over week. This tells us that at the end of a build/buy/deliver/sale cycle, you are not selling as much as you are building/buying. I hope this makes my point a bit more clearer. According to your reasoning, it is better to not run out of stock. I agree, however, can you realistically expect someone out of the blue to come up with an order requiring 20 Billion isk worth of goods AFTER you have allready built/bought/delivered/sold in your markets?? As I said above the argument is academic, but in the world I worked in, keeping that much extra inventory is inefficient. It says that you are building/buying/delivering ALOT more than you can actually sell. Cheers,
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.16 01:32:00 - [40] Originally by: Prodigal It appears your investors are happy with what they have seen so far anyways, so these arguments are simply academic of course. You are showing growth in profit week over week. This tells us you are moving product through your markets. You are showing varying levels of minerals left over week over week. This tells us you are controlling your material costs. You are showing an increase in STOCK left week over week. This tells us that at the end of a build/buy/deliver/sale cycle, you are not selling as much as you are building/buying. I hope this makes my point a bit more clearer. According to your reasoning, it is better to not run out of stock. I agree, however, can you realistically expect someone out of the blue to come up with an order requiring 20 Billion isk worth of goods AFTER you have allready built/bought/delivered/sold in your markets?? As I said above the argument is academic, but in the world I worked in, keeping that much extra inventory is inefficient. It says that you are building/buying/delivering ALOT more than you can actually sell. Cheers, I don't think you understand the way he is trading. It seems Fury and I have similar practices and we both show very similar profits for our effort. What you do not understand is that he has more capital to work with, thus he has to have more isk tied up in assets to keep the profits growing. If his assets never grew he couldn't grow his profits. Sorry, I really don't want to get more specific in to what he is doing with those assets... it could hurt his sales or even mine. But I can assure you that he is right in doing what he is doing. If you're a shareholder you should take my word for it that he is acting in the best way he could. I have no reason to back him up as I do not know him outside these forums and have no personal relationship with him. I just very much like that someone else has a similar playing style to myself and thus I can relate very much to the way he operates. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.16 22:19:00 - [41] Originally by: Prodigal It appears your investors are happy with what they have seen so far anyways, so these arguments are simply academic of course. You are showing growth in profit week over week. This tells us you are moving product through your markets. You are showing varying levels of minerals left over week over week. This tells us you are controlling your material costs. You are showing an increase in STOCK left week over week. This tells us that at the end of a build/buy/deliver/sale cycle, you are not selling as much as you are building/buying. I hope this makes my point a bit more clearer. According to your reasoning, it is better to not run out of stock. I agree, however, can you realistically expect someone out of the blue to come up with an order requiring 20 Billion isk worth of goods AFTER you have allready built/bought/delivered/sold in your markets?? As I said above the argument is academic, but in the world I worked in, keeping that much extra inventory is inefficient. It says that you are building/buying/delivering ALOT more than you can actually sell. Cheers, You need to look at the amount of capital tied up in stock compared to the amount of capital being used to trade - not just at the value of stock as a stand-alone figure. With your logic, you'd look at a small convenience store and think "hmm, 100k in stock, they seem to be doing well". Then you'd go to the local superstore, see millions in stock and conclude that they must be hopelessy infefficent with lots of capital tied up in unsold stock. The increase in ISK tied up in inventory in my company isn't because I'm holding increasingly large amonts of stock of each item - it's because I'm progressively trading in more and more items. Pick ANY level of stock you believe reasonable for a single item - and if you trade in 2X such types of item then you need double the stock as if you trade in X such items. A lot of my effort goes into determining optimal levels of stock for items - balancing the need to avoid holding stock for too long with the desire to avoid selling out of items. I may not always get it right - but the model of trading I use is one where a steady increase in stock is necessary and desirable.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.17 03:31:00 - [42] Originally by: FastLearner Originally by: Prodigal It appears your investors are happy with what they have seen so far anyways, so these arguments are simply academic of course. You are showing growth in profit week over week. This tells us you are moving product through your markets. You are showing varying levels of minerals left over week over week. This tells us you are controlling your material costs. You are showing an increase in STOCK left week over week. This tells us that at the end of a build/buy/deliver/sale cycle, you are not selling as much as you are building/buying. I hope this makes my point a bit more clearer. According to your reasoning, it is better to not run out of stock. I agree, however, can you realistically expect someone out of the blue to come up with an order requiring 20 Billion isk worth of goods AFTER you have allready built/bought/delivered/sold in your markets?? As I said above the argument is academic, but in the world I worked in, keeping that much extra inventory is inefficient. It says that you are building/buying/delivering ALOT more than you can actually sell. Cheers, You need to look at the amount of capital tied up in stock compared to the amount of capital being used to trade - not just at the value of stock as a stand-alone figure. With your logic, you'd look at a small convenience store and think "hmm, 100k in stock, they seem to be doing well". Then you'd go to the local superstore, see millions in stock and conclude that they must be hopelessy infefficent with lots of capital tied up in unsold stock. The increase in ISK tied up in inventory in my company isn't because I'm holding increasingly large amonts of stock of each item - it's because I'm progressively trading in more and more items. Pick ANY level of stock you believe reasonable for a single item - and if you trade in 2X such types of item then you need double the stock as if you trade in X such items. A lot of my effort goes into determining optimal levels of stock for items - balancing the need to avoid holding stock for too long with the desire to avoid selling out of items. I may not always get it right - but the model of trading I use is one where a steady increase in stock is necessary and desirable. I've noticed a lot of people do not understand this lately. It seems a lot of people seem to think that there are relatively few items worth trading. Thus everyone who trades will get roughly the same profit because they are all gonna trade those same items. They don't realize there are hundreds of items worth trading in every region, if not thousands in some. I was actually hoping you wouldn't explain what you just did because I'd rather people who don't get it not be told ways of trading they are currently unaware of Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Galtan Deus The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.17 22:27:00 - [43] Hi FL! What investors should be looking at is Fury's stock throughput (or "stockturn"). That's how often the value of the stock on hand is turned over in a period. With the figures & info FL has given, you should be looking for him to turn his stock over 26 times in a year if current cost of sales (or sales, depending on how stock is valued) and stock figures in a period are projected for 12 months. If it turns over at this level, his 2-week stock level is bang on.
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.18 15:20:00 - [44] Results for Week 13th October 2007 - 19th October 2007. Net Asset Value at start of week : 23.193 Billion ISK ---------- Breakdown of assets at end of period: Fixed Assets Ship/Major BPOs : 11.786 Billion POS : 999 million Freighter : 900 million Mobile Containers : 1.25 Billion Stock Minerals : 7.377 Billion Modules/Ships : 22.232 Billion Miscellaneous Odds and Ends : 0.83 Billion ISK In Wallet : 5.316 Billion Escrow : 2.266 Billion Receivable : 24.992 Billion Shares/Bonds Revelations Direct : 6 billion Gross Assets : 83.948 Billion Liabilities Current Accounts : (6.45 Billion) Higher Interest Accounts : (51.622 Billion) Total Liabilities : (58.072 Billion Net Assets : 25.876 billion ---------- Total Profit for week : 2.683 billion Salary : 1.3415 billion Distributed Dividend : 670.75 million (2.89%) Reinvested in Corporation : 670.75 million (2.89%) Total profit for shareholders (dividend + growth) : 5.78% --------- Share in circulation : 15000 Net Asset Value for period commencing 20th October 2007 : 23.864 billion (rounded to nearest million) NAV per share for period commencing 20th October 2007 : 1.591 million ((Report to follow shortly))
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.18 15:44:00 - [45] Edited by: FastLearner on 18/10/2007 15:45:51 Report for week 13th-19th October 2007 Report (and dividends) is a day early this week - this is due to me planning to be moving a lot of stock around tomorrow, making stock-taking tricky to do then. Despite my warnings of lowere profits this week, the company actually achieved record high profits - both in absolute and percentage terms. In part this was due to bulk purchasing of cheap minerals (which are valued above their buy price). Our alliance is in the process of taking over an area of space - and the fleeing old residents appear to be offloading minerals to market buy orders. And, obviously, the bulk of those market buy orders are Fury Holdings'. The relocation of a sales point went much smoother than anticipated: whilst jumping the goods by mothership to a friendly POS is safe enough, the risky part is unloading the goods one Iteron V full at a time. This proved to go very smoothly with no attempts at interruption by hostiles. So far the new sales location is only partially stocked - in particular it's not selling the battleships I usually sell (it's not practical to move them in bulk by mothership - and the area's not secured enough yet for me to fancy running a freighter in unescorted). I'll probably run some BPCs over and manufacture there for now. Initial sales at the new location are good - suggesting that moving the sales location right to the front-line was a good call. Fury Holdings has now invested for the first time in someone else's IPO - Revelations Direct. Very few IPOs meet the two criteria necessary for me to invest: 1. That the IPO either guarnateees 10%+ per month or is a higher risk one with a decent likelihood of delivering even more than that. 2. That the IPO is run by (or secured by) someone who I believe very unlikely to be a scammer. This one meets both of those criteria, with the potential of very high returns (but an associated risk of no discernable profit or even a slight loss). Fury Holdings' financial position is now such that I'm happy to "gamble" on ventures of this kind - so look to see more stock/share investments in the future. One new loan was issued this week - and two more are in discussion, so looks like I don't have to close taking deposits just yet. I would, however, advise anyone looking to deposit to check the topic in chat channel "Fury Bank" before sending ISK - in case deposits have been closed.
Prodigal Caldari New Genesis Project	Posted - 2007.10.19 01:20:00 - [46] Just as a final rebuttal to the arguement... Here you are concluding that your buy/build, deliver and sell cycle has gone even better than anticipated (meaning sales were great) and you still have 22+ Billion in stock left over. And now you are concluding another cycle. Q -So what happened to the 21+ Billion in stock you had left over at the end of the last report? A -Nothing, all you did was add another 1+ Billion to it. I still do not understand how you think this is ok, and even desirable, but like I said earlier, your investors dont really seem to care. So I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you and watch my deposit grow . Cheers,
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.19 01:58:00 - [47] Edited by: Shadarle on 19/10/2007 01:57:59 Originally by: Prodigal I still do not understand how you think this is ok, and even desirable, but like I said earlier, your investors dont really seem to care. So I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you and watch my deposit grow . It was explained in far more detail than it should have been already. I'm sorry, but if you don't get it from what was said already then no one should spell it out for you. You obviously do not trade the way FasterLearner does, I do. If his assets were going down he'd be in bad shape. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.19 07:40:00 - [48] Originally by: Prodigal Just as a final rebuttal to the arguement... Here you are concluding that your buy/build, deliver and sell cycle has gone even better than anticipated (meaning sales were great) and you still have 22+ Billion in stock left over. And now you are concluding another cycle. Q -So what happened to the 21+ Billion in stock you had left over at the end of the last report? A -Nothing, all you did was add another 1+ Billion to it. I still do not understand how you think this is ok, and even desirable, but like I said earlier, your investors dont really seem to care. So I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you and watch my deposit grow . Cheers, I really think you just don't understand what I do. I'm not buying and selling things in the same station. I'm buying in high-sec, moving to 0.0 via a staging point then reselling there. Stock includes goods at all stages of that process. I'd guesstimate I sold around 12 billion worth of goods last week and bought/made 13 billion worth. Which items sell well varies from week to week - so some items may well have had most of their stock sit on the shelves, while others all the stock at start of the week plus some replacement has already sold. I already explained one reason why stock level will tend to go up. There's actually a few more - but it's honestly not in my (or my shareholders') interest to explain them in any detail. I'd suggest the easiest way for you to feel comfortable with is for you to imagine that I trade one item. Decide for yourself what an efficient stock-level is for that item. Then divide 22 billion by the number you just thought of - and imagine that I trade in that number of different types of item. And as a parting thought: IF you're right and my method is horribly inefficient, then imagine how inefficient most other corporations must be :)
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.26 17:58:00 - [49] Results for Week 20th October 2007 - 26th October 2007. Net Asset Value at start of week : 23.864 Billion ISK ---------- Breakdown of assets at end of period: Fixed Assets Ship/Major BPOs : 11.786 Billion POS : 999 million Freighter : 900 million Mobile Containers : 1.25 Billion Stock Minerals : 9.626 Billion Modules/Ships : 24.926 Billion Miscellaneous Odds and Ends : 0.985 Billion ISK In Wallet : 8.169 Billion Escrow : 1.977 Billion Receivable : 23.658 Billion Shares/Bonds Revelations Direct : 6 billion Gross Assets : 90.276 Billion Liabilities Current Accounts : (7.03 Billion) Higher Interest Accounts : (56.877 Billion) Total Liabilities : (63.907 Billion Net Assets : 26.369 billion ---------- Total Profit for week : 2.505 billion Salary : 1.2525 billion Distributed Dividend : 626.25 million (2.62%) Reinvested in Corporation : 626.25 million (2.62%) Total profit for shareholders (dividend + growth) : 5.24% --------- Share in circulation : 15000 Net Asset Value for period commencing 27th October 2007 : 24.49 billion (rounded to nearest million) NAV per share for period commencing 27th October 2007 : 1.632 million --------- Report Profits were down slightly from last week, a few obvious (to me) reasons being: 1. Less purchases of cut-price minerals from ex-residents. 2. A misunderstanding by me of a scheduled freighter escort - resulting in a pretty large batch of stock sitting idle for 5 days, during which period some items ran out of stock. 3. I was ill for a few days this week - meaning I did little other than basic maintenance of orders in that period. New investment in Fury Bank trickled in - which is all I want at the moment: a large influx of cash would cause me to stop taking new deposits, which is something I'd rather not have to do. The launch of Premium Bonds is delayed indefinitely - launching now would likely cause a much larger influx of investment than I can comfortably handle. I have a few ideas kicking around to allow significant expansion - more details will come as and when I'm in a position to proceed with them. One key element of just about all future planned expansions is that they will begin to involve other people in Fury Holdings' investments - spreading the workload. In some instances that involvement will be behind the scenes, on other occasions it may well be more visible. Stock levels at the new sales location are now pretty much up to scratch - with the exception of manufactured goods which still lag a bit behind. That, in part, is the reason for the current high levels of mineral stockpiles. Those stockpiles will be reduced by producing and selling (mainly) battleships at near Jita mineral costs: while no great profit will be made on the ship manufacture, it will turn profits made from buying cheap minerals into actual ISK.
Nairb Ecrep	Posted - 2007.10.27 07:28:00 - [50] Are any shares of this stock available for sale? I glanced at the market and didn't see them, but then again way too tired..
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.27 16:01:00 - [51] Originally by: Nairb Ecrep Are any shares of this stock available for sale? I glanced at the market and didn't see them, but then again way too tired.. No shares have changed hands for a few months now. If any share-holders want to sell I'll try to find some brokers for EGSEX. Originally I'd intended it to be listed on both stock markets - but RESX never replied to my mail and EGSEX has no list of which brokers are actively taking new companies on. The two original shareholders who sold their shares to date did so privately.
Balogh Gallente Real-time EVE Stock Exchange	Posted - 2007.10.28 20:06:00 - [52] Originally by: FastLearner Originally I'd intended it to be listed on both stock markets - but RESX never replied to my mail and EGSEX has no list of which brokers are actively taking new companies on. It seems I have accidentally deleted the mail you mentioned. Either that, or something went wrong when you sent the mail. Could you contact me again? ________________ Real-time EVE Stock Exchange, Blog Feature request: Share transfer log
Block Ukx KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.10.29 11:11:00 - [53] Could you please provide the Fund's distribution profile relative to the FundÆs profits? Management Fees (__% of profits) Retained (__% of profits) Distributions (__% of profits) Other (__% of profits) Thanks in advanced
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.10.29 16:23:00 - [54] Edited by: FastLearner on 29/10/2007 16:24:52 Originally by: Block Ukx Could you please provide the Fund's distribution profile relative to the FundÆs profits? Management Fees (__% of profits) Retained (__% of profits) Distributions (__% of profits) Other (__% of profits) Thanks in advanced Fury Holdings profits are split as follows: 50% Management Fees 25% Dividended 25% Retained There's additionally a clause where by management fees are waived as necessary to achieve a 2% profit for shareholders in any week - but that's never needed to occur yet. What that clause means, in effect, is that I don't get any management fee if profits for a week fall below 2% and to get the full 50% management fee, profits for a week have to be at least 4%. As they're currently steady in the 8-11% range every week there's little chance of that happening. EDIT: To be clear it's NOT a guarantee of 2%, just a guarantee that I won't take any management fees which would drop shareholders' profits for a week below 2% (1% dividended, 1% retained for growth).
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.10.29 17:39:00 - [55] Originally by: FastLearner As they're currently steady in the 8-11% range every week there's little chance of that happening. This is the main reason I am so impressed with FastLearner. He's the only person I've seen able to produce such good profits and to actually detail them so well in his reports. Kinda throws out any claims people make that 0.0 isn't good for profits as well Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.02 19:55:00 - [56] Results for Week 27th October 2007 - 2nd November 2007. Net Asset Value at start of week : 24.49 Billion ISK ---------- Breakdown of assets at end of period: Fixed Assets Ship/Major BPOs : 11.786 Billion POS : 999 million Freighter : 900 million Mobile Containers : 1.25 Billion Stock Minerals : 9.318 Billion Modules/Ships : 26.936 Billion BPCS : 1.9 Billion Miscellaneous Odds and Ends : 0.94 Billion ISK In Wallet : 13.634 Billion Escrow : 2.432 Billion Receivable : 22.588 Billion Shares/Bonds Revelations Direct : 6 billion Gross Assets : 97.837 Billion Liabilities Current Accounts : (7.63 Billion) Higher Interest Accounts : (63.165 Billion) Total Liabilities : (70.795 Billion) Net Assets : 27.042 billion ---------- Total Profit for week : 2.552 billion Salary : 1.276 billion Distributed Dividend : 638 million (2.61%) Reinvested in Corporation : 638 million (2.61%) Total profit for shareholders (dividend + growth) : 5.22% --------- Share in circulation : 15000 Net Asset Value for period commencing 27th October 2007 : 25.128 billion (rounded to nearest million) NAV per share for period commencing 27th October 2007 : 1.675 million --------- Report A disappointing set of results - not so much because of what they actually are, but because of what they nearly were. Mineral prices crashed in general this week (all except Zydrine dropped). When I applied new valuations to minerals, the value of my mineral stockpile was 600 million less than it would have been using last week's prices. Had mineral prices stayed steady this would have been the first 3 billion+ net profit week (gross weekly profits are already well over 3 billion when you take into account the 1 billion+ paid out in interest each week). Cash ISK may look rather high at the end of the week - this is for three reasons: 1. Some deposits into the bank in the day or so before end of week accounts were sorted. 2. Cash had been allowed to build up slightly in preparation for POS/fuel purchasing (more on which later). 3. My main weekly shopping has not yet been done (was waiting until after 2. was sorted to see how much I had left to spend). POS bidding/allocation within our alliance is now pretty much completed. Fury Holdings will, by the looks of it, be deploying 4-5 POS. Anticipated profits on this are in the range of 1-1.2 billion per month for 5-7 billion capital tied up. Nothing too earth-shaking, but every little helps. I'm still deciding how best to "fiddle" the accounting of POS fuel/production materials to prevent the profits becoming too lumpy and also to minimise the amount of needless stock-taking. My current inclination is to treat POS fuel as being at a static level and to only add produced materials in when they actually go to market (i.e. no value assigned to produced but unsold inventory). This would, for the first week or two actually artifically inflate profits by a hundred million or so - and thereafter profits (and NAV) would be reported as lower than they actually were (lagging by a couple of weeks by the value of produced but unsold material). This has the attraction of being ridiculously simple for me from an accounting perspective - and prevents any huge changes in NAV caused by valueing stock based on market prices then having said market prices massively move. With the POS production being such a small part of Fury's overall portfolio of activities I think a simple robust system is preferable to one required loads of effort. And a system which tends towards under-valuation (after the first 2 weeks) is definitely preferable to one which tends towards over-valuation.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.11.02 20:05:00 - [57] Originally by: FastLearner My current inclination is to treat POS fuel as being at a static level and to only add produced materials in when they actually go to market (i.e. no value assigned to produced but unsold inventory). This is how I account for items I produce in my POS as well. It seems to work out well enough and is extremely simple to keep track of. It's not worth the detailed tracking imo as you're making the same money either way. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.02 20:12:00 - [58] Originally by: Shadarle Originally by: FastLearner My current inclination is to treat POS fuel as being at a static level and to only add produced materials in when they actually go to market (i.e. no value assigned to produced but unsold inventory). This is how I account for items I produce in my POS as well. It seems to work out well enough and is extremely simple to keep track of. It's not worth the detailed tracking imo as you're making the same money either way. Yeah. On fuel I'll start with 2 months fuel in stock and then once a month buy a month's worth. So treating it as a constant level of 2 months just simplifies accounting. With produced minerals, all I'm doing in effect is not adding them to the books until they're sold - at which point they enter the books as ISK or as produced items (if I use them in my own T2 manufacture).
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.11.02 20:22:00 - [59] Edited by: Shadarle on 02/11/2007 20:22:12 Originally by: FastLearner Originally by: Shadarle Originally by: FastLearner My current inclination is to treat POS fuel as being at a static level and to only add produced materials in when they actually go to market (i.e. no value assigned to produced but unsold inventory). This is how I account for items I produce in my POS as well. It seems to work out well enough and is extremely simple to keep track of. It's not worth the detailed tracking imo as you're making the same money either way. Yeah. On fuel I'll start with 2 months fuel in stock and then once a month buy a month's worth. So treating it as a constant level of 2 months just simplifies accounting. With produced minerals, all I'm doing in effect is not adding them to the books until they're sold - at which point they enter the books as ISK or as produced items (if I use them in my own T2 manufacture). Yup. I do basically the same thing, tho I don't actually add in my fuel costs to any particular part of my sheets atm because I don't have to do any reporting to shareholders. So I just track it in my head, but if I were to do it as part of an IPO I'd use your method. But keeping track of the value of items before they are sold is just way too much effort, using time of sale is much easier Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
RichThugster Gallente Invicta. Synchr0nicity	Posted - 2007.11.07 21:05:00 - [60] Edited by: RichThugster on 07/11/2007 21:15:11 Originally by: FastLearner For a while I've been saving up for a mothership: the sudden influx of funds to Fruy Bank, together with a good offer becoming available, put me in a position to obtain one. Obviously (I HOPE it's obvious) I haven't provided collateral for the loan, but I'm paying the same rate of interest as any other borrower from the bank of a similar amount and on similar terms would. The loan was for significantly less than the cost of the ship - with the balance (and the cost of all faction/officer modules) being paid from my personal wallet. The mothership is privately owned by me - though it will obviously assist in logistics for Fury Holdings (as well as in combat for my alliance). Me taking the loan also allowed Fury Bank to accept more deposits than would otherwise be the case - though deposits are getting close to the limit I can comfortably pay interest on without reducing profits once more. WAs this the mom which a member of Bruce lost last night? And how will this effect, if it is the same mothership? linkage in true CAOD style i feel compelled to put c/d? Originally by: Joeyboy When goons and company lose, it's because of lag, and when they win it's because of better tactics?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: 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.