| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
NobodyOfAnyImportance
   |
Posted - 2007.11.09 19:56:00 -
[181]
No communication.. that sounds familiar..
I wonder what alliance most of the people in Phyrrus Sicarii used to be in ;)
|
LaVista Vista
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 20:29:00 -
[182]
 Originally by: Shadarle
Communication communication communication, it all comes down to that. That's the difference between the great IPO's and the ones that get lots of complaints.
As to the problems Wylker seems to be having turning a profit, if we all turn back to page 1 of this thread Ionia asked right away if it was smart getting into capital production when this IPO started.
Thats indeed true. But at least i was open about this, paid out anyways, and didnt whine about mineral prices making it harder 
Anyone wanna take bets on how long it will take for Wylker to respond in here?
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 23:39:00 -
[183]
I still assume good faith on Wylker's part, so in the worst case scenario he now has rather a lot of capital ship/component BPOs that have depreciated somewhat in value, and it'll take a while to liquidate them, for a moderate loss, but against that we can set the profit from the 1 carrier sold. Also, if there are components lying around that he can't profitably use, they can be reprocessed.
I don't think writing off the shares as a loss makes sense just yet (not that we have any idea of what his inventory is like - FastLearner does a much better job).
Perhaps it might be time to try switching to freighter/Rorqual production? There's been a buff on the test server and the latter can now haul more than 125k m^3.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 00:49:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
I still assume good faith on Wylker's part, so in the worst case scenario he now has rather a lot of capital ship/component BPOs that have depreciated somewhat in value, and it'll take a while to liquidate them, for a moderate loss, but against that we can set the profit from the 1 carrier sold. Also, if there are components lying around that he can't profitably use, they can be reprocessed.
I don't think writing off the shares as a loss makes sense just yet (not that we have any idea of what his inventory is like - FastLearner does a much better job).
Perhaps it might be time to try switching to freighter/Rorqual production? There's been a buff on the test server and the latter can now haul more than 125k m^3.
I asume incompetence on his part, not good faith. Smae thing as I assume on CAP4U. Both started cap-ship production when anyone with a clue said it was a silly idea. At the time I rated Wylker's venture as the better of the two - I was wrong about that. Neither's working, neither seems to have any intention of refunding shareholders (a common fault in Eve - IPO launchers who fail believe they were given some god-given mandate to look after ISK even after whatever their abortive plan was failed).
At least La Vista still hangs around and posts reasons why he shouldn't just hand the money back having failed. Wykler hasn't even the courage (front) to manage that. No doubt eventually he'll blame his lack of response on the criticism he got (taking a page from ISSO's book) rather than just admit he was plain wrong in the first place.
Yes I've had a few beers. No, I don't care who I offend. Ye.s anyone who opened a cap-ship IPO after it was obvious the market was collapsing desreves approbation (seems like the right word when I've had a few beers but could be totally wrong).
Thanks for the compliment (I think) Kazuo. I wouldn't swap to freighter/rorqual production though - I think freighter BPC production will pay more than making the actual ships in the short/medium term.
|
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 01:08:00 -
[185]
Originally by: FastLearner
I asume incompetence on his part, not good faith. Smae thing as I assume on CAP4U.Yes anyone who opened a cap-ship IPO after it was obvious the market was collapsing desreves approbation
Sure, but one could call it incompetence for a bank owner to loan himself half the funds the bank has and then lose a mothership as well could they not?
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 01:30:00 -
[186]
Edited by: FastLearner on 10/11/2007 01:30:06
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe
Originally by: FastLearner
I asume incompetence on his part, not good faith. Smae thing as I assume on CAP4U.Yes anyone who opened a cap-ship IPO after it was obvious the market was collapsing desreves approbation
Sure, but one could call it incompetence for a bank owner to loan himself half the funds the bank has and then lose a mothership as well could they not?
If that owner had no other assets or source of income, definitely yes.
Similarly someone could consider it incompetence if someone running a bank either:
1) Claimed all directors were actively participating then next day sacked two for non-particpance.
2) Claimed 15 billion was maximum investment allowed for security reasons then changed it to a minimum of 15 billion,
3) Stated no identites of users would be given out then gave out not just every user's name but also their password.
4) Claimed the bank's target was 15% return on secured investment then next day claimed to have invested in an unsecured 8% return investment with the bank's funds.
But we're talking hypothetically, yes?
|
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 01:35:00 -
[187]
most of your points are wrong but I will refrain in the intererests of keeping this thread from going off-topic. I actually posted what I did, and then had a shower and decided to come back and remove the post as i found it inappropriate.
I will remove it anyway, so you are free to remove your quoting of it as well if you choose 
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 01:38:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe
most of your points are wrong but I will refrain in the intererests of keeping this thread from going off-topic. I actually posted what I did, and then had a shower and decided to come back and remove the post as i found it inappropriate.
I will remove it anyway, so you are free to remove your quoting of it as well if you choose
I'll leave mine up, as we were only talking hypothetically.
|
Ricdic's Hoe
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 01:45:00 -
[189]
well what I posted was fact was it not? Did you loan half (give or take) the funds in the bank, and then lose them? Yes or no?
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 01:48:00 -
[190]
Edited by: FastLearner on 10/11/2007 01:48:55
Originally by: Ricdic's Hoe
well what I posted was fact was it not? Did you loan half (give or take) the funds in the bank, and then lose them? Yes or no?
Oh dear, we're moving away from hypothetically. You sure you want to go there?
EDIT: This could be amusing - get the popcorn out guys.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 02:05:00 -
[191]
Was tempted to start a new thread, but I suspect the owener of this one won't be posting in a rush so we can at least provide some interesting bumps.
Warning: The next exchange of posts may cause investors to want to withdraw their savings from Fury Bank and/or their loose change from EBank. Withdrawals from Fury bank HIAs are subject to a 1 week notice period but I'll refund as fast as possible if you so desire. I'll be online for the next hour or so in case there's a sudden rush as a result of Ricdic's question (lol). Then you can invest in EBank and have a "safe" 0%-3% interest per month. Next post will be in about 20 minutes once I've found all the relevant links regarding EBank (plus 10 seconds to answer Ricdic's question about Fury Bank).
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 03:29:00 -
[192]
Edited by: FastLearner on 10/11/2007 03:32:23
Ok, first to address Ricdic's question to me - namely "Did you loan half (give or take) the funds in the bank, and then lose them?". The answer to that is no - on two
counts:
1. The amount I borrowed wasn't "half (give or take)" the funds in the bank,
2. When I lost the mothership it had no impact on what I owed to the bank - nor on my ability to repay it. The mothership was never somethign which was going to pay off the loan, it was an enjoyable luxury (which provided a useful logistic adjunct to Fury Holdings) but the means of repayment was always my income from Fury Holdings and my existing assets - neither of which has changed.
AS far as point 1 gos, my current debt to Fury Bank is approximately 12 billion. Insurance payout on the mothershp was 5.9 billion - which currently sits in an alt's account. The lack of change in Fury Bank deposits/debts this week should be a fairly clear indication that the 5.9 hasn't been deposited or used to pay off my debt.
Obviously you need to understand my reports to appreciate that, something Ricdic has problems with : XXX. Now let's look at point 2. Anyone who PvPs (and I don't count suiciding vs mercs as pvP) will know that securing anyhting (especially a loan) vs a PvP ship is ludicrous. I'd never do that. I have personal assets worth more than what I borrowed. Now that isn't easily demonsrated. But consider RL loans - most aren't offered because of what you own, but because of what you earn. My earnings (at least part of them) are clearly stated on the forums. I earn half of Fury Holdings' profits plus I am also (just about) a majority shareholder in FH. My earnings from Fury Holdings, alone, were around 2 billion last week (not counting the growth in my shares' value). An Aeon costs around 20-22 billion to buy and we already know that I have 5.9 billion base insurance payout from the lost one. So even ignoring all my other assets that only equates to 8 weeks income from Fury Holdings for me personally. And that's totally ignoring my other assets and the fact that I'm rather decent at running level 4 missions in my faction raven (check around killboards and you'll find various of those lost, including a 4 bill one to Privateers).
While losing 15 billion may seem a huge amount to a low income individual like Ricdic, it's not actually a huge issue to me: yo ucan tell how badly it traumatised me if you look at the combat report - you'll find my alt came back after dieing in a dreadnaught (also privately owned) and got top damage on the dread that assisted in killing my mothership.
Obviously all of my reports for the last siz months could be fake - maybe I don't do any business at all and have given shareholders a 150% return on their initial investment out of my own pocket. Alternatively, maybe Ricidic just doesn't like the fact that some "upstart" who has only played the game for a year has rather more ability than him and isn't that interested in sucking up to some established crowd of semi-competent online businessmen.
Ricidic was wrong about what percentage of the bank's funds I borrowed, totally ignorant (intentionally I can only assume) of how paltry the loss of a mothership is when you have decent income and apparently credits me with believing that having a mothership was a major source of income (if not, then his whole argument is specious anyway).
On, next to the brief points I raised about EBank. They were just a few quick points which occurred to me, whilst semi-drunk, but as I raised them I ought to substantiate them I guess.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 03:34:00 -
[193]
1) Claimed all directors were actively participating then next day sacked two for non-particpance.
In this thread XXX post XXX ricdic states that all directors in EBank are contributing nicely to it. Then the very next day, in this thread, XXX he states two directors left/were kicked out for not contributing. Now if "all" means "all except those who aren't" then the word suddenly ceases to have any meaning.
Of course, he could mean "all current" - but as he surely knows the public hadn't been formed of the kickings then he'd be intentionally misleading: as he'd KNOW that those not in his circle of confidants would have no reason to assume anyone had been kicked. Intentionally misleading/exaggerating is, of course, a skill he has some practice in (I'll hold my hands up to being outclassed by him at that).
2) Claimed 15 billion was maximum investment allowed for security reasons then changed it to a minimum of 15 billion,
When EBank launched, two reasons were given for a 15 billion investment - that they weren't confident of their competence to generate regular income on more than that, and that they didn't believe the public would trust them with more than that. I'm paraphrasing rather liberally there - but I really CBA to trawl through all 50 EBank threads to find the relevant quotes. At some stage the thought crossed their mind that, rather than just pay out crap interest rates, why not pay out nothing at all - and at that stage the 15 billion maximum vanished. Now I don't claim the 15 billion limit should have been set in the first place - I'm sure there's enough new IPOs Ricdic can fool into "securing" themselves then allowing the security to be "reinvested" to cover interest on more than that. But when you've stated a limit AND two reasons for it, one reason ceasing to be relevant doesn't just make the second reason vanish into thin air.
3) Stated no identites of users would be given out then gave out not just every user's name but also their password.
This one's simple. Ricdic stated identities of investors wouldn't be given out. Hexx said the first batch of ivnestors would be listed. I posted in that thread, uoting Hexx and asking whether that was a change of policy. My question was ignored. User list was published DESPITE the default password being known. A board of directors of 4/5/6 (however many it is minus however many have been kicked for being useless) and noone realised that listing user names AND password could just possibly be a security risk? As the saying gos - a camel is a horse designed by a committee. EBank seems to be a committee.
4) Claimed the bank's target was 15% return on secured investment then next day claimed to have invested in an unsecured 8% return investment with the bank's funds.
Ricidic, in hone of his ebullient moods claimed EBank's aim was to invest in secured investments paying 15% per month. The next day he claimed to have EBank funds invested in an unsecured 8% (or thereabouts) return bond issue. The owner of the bonds called him on this - but, of course, Ricdic never responded. Exageration's all fine and well - until you then contradict yourself before people have forgotten your exagerations.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 03:37:00 -
[194]
Moving on to a few general points. Ricdic's main argument (if you give it that much credit) vs Fury Bank has been that FB is a one-man company (true) while EBank is run by a group of people (also true). This argument, to me, falls down on two counts:
1. Quantity is, of itself, no substitute for quality. The foundation of a bank is (or should be) an investment/revenue source able to generate income on deposited funds . Fury Bank has that, in spades, with Fury Holdings. 10 people who can each generate 3% per month income can't, together, generate 30% - in fact it's unliley they can even generate 3%. To make ISK requires quality not quantity. That's not to say there's no quality in EBank - there is: just not in proven ability to make income.
You can have all the fancy features you want on a bank - but at the end of the day people want a return from it. Security they can get by leaving in their own wallet in the first place.
2. Ricdic's argument seems to be (no doubt he'll correct me if he's spinning it a different way today) that spreading ISK amongst more people reduces the risk of scam compared to having it all with one person. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and credit him with being partially correct with that (even a blind dartsman will hit the board occasionally).
Let's assume everyone has an equal chance of scamming. If that assumption were correct then a one-man operation WOULD be more liekly to commit a 100% scam, but a multiple-person operation would be more likely to scam you of part of your investment. I'll cross my figners and hope even Ricdic understands the math behind that. Obviously, however, not everyone has the same likelihood of scamming - but how to decide who is the most likely to scam? Well, here's a simple proposition for anyone who's got this far: those with the ability to do well without scamming have less need (and hence are less likely) to scam than those who struggle to make decent money honestly. Think about that. Does it make sense? Then consider Fury Holdings/Bank (makes good ISK, never missed a dividend) and compare it to Ricdic (one failed IPO - which he's still strugglign to payoff, one cap-ship one which he expanded when everyone else knew it was a bad move, one research labs one where he runs round like a headless chicken if some newbie merc alliance war decs it) and consider who actually needs/has incentive to scam? If I'm a scammer I'm pretty bad at it - I should be advertising on the sell forums, trying to con (sorry Ricidc, assist) new IPOs by getting them to secure with me for no interest then buying their shares and pocketing their profits for no risk while denying them any genuine chance of promotion etc. And if anyone calls me on it I could always get Hexx to claim I was acting as an underwriter when I kept most of the shares myself (ignoring the obligations an underwriter actually has).
Gah, I'm starting to sober up now and the fun's going out of this. Hopefully Ricdic will write a nice retort (move it to a new thread if you want - and I'll move mine across as well) and we can make this an ongoing and entertaining thread.
P.S. Never did get round to looking up the URLs - but if Ricdic claims any are false then I'll happily dig them out.
|
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 03:51:00 -
[195]
Just on this last post. I have not tried comparing EBANK to Fury bank in this post. I am not sure why you feel the need to justify your business. I am more than happy with the way things are. At first (months back) I did feel that Fury bank would be competition to EBANK, but this has not been the case. Obviously they are two different kettles of fish.
Either way, EBANK has a lot of customers, and I am sure Fury Bank has some too. We can stretch Epeens by comparing deposits but lets not bother with that.
Simply put, I posted a response to you claiming that LaVista was incompetent for starting a Capital Ship IPO. I posted that some may see you as also being incompetent for losing a mothership that is currently being loaned (the isk or some percentage of it) through your own bank. If as you say you never take out a loan for a PvP ship, then why would you even mention it? Either way everyone makes mistakes. LV may have gotten into a market that wasn't optimal, and you may have jumped into a system without scanning it correctly prior. If you feel you have the right to call LV incompetent for his actions, then you should also accept similar treatment for your own mistakes.
Obviously you chose to take the personal attack route, and I won't indulge you by responding as it's irelevant to this conversation. Not everyone is perfect. You have shown ways in which I am not perfect. I accept that. Now it's time to accept that you can also make mistakes.
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 04:11:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Ricdic
Just on this last post. I have not tried comparing EBANK to Fury bank in this post. I am not sure why you feel the need to justify your business. I am more than happy with the way things are. At first (months back) I did feel that Fury bank would be competition to EBANK, but this has not been the case. Obviously they are two different kettles of fish.
Either way, EBANK has a lot of customers, and I am sure Fury Bank has some too. We can stretch Epeens by comparing deposits but lets not bother with that.
Simply put, I posted a response to you claiming that LaVista was incompetent for starting a Capital Ship IPO. I posted that some may see you as also being incompetent for losing a mothership that is currently being loaned (the isk or some percentage of it) through your own bank. If as you say you never take out a loan for a PvP ship, then why would you even mention it? Either way everyone makes mistakes. LV may have gotten into a market that wasn't optimal, and you may have jumped into a system without scanning it correctly prior. If you feel you have the right to call LV incompetent for his actions, then you should also accept similar treatment for your own mistakes.
Obviously you chose to take the personal attack route, and I won't indulge you by responding as it's irelevant to this conversation. Not everyone is perfect. You have shown ways in which I am not perfect. I accept that. Now it's time to accept that you can also make mistakes.
On the (non)competition issue I agree. Ironically, I think that I priced my returns so high that the competition issue never arose. Had I paid a lower rate of interest I'd have had to advertise for ISK - when instead I've ended up having to keep a low profile to avoid getting to the stage where I end up shutting down deposits.
I DID take a loan out towards buying the mothership - and I still owe approximately 12 billion of it (though could pay half of that off with just the default insurance). My point wasn't that I didn't borrow ISK to buy it, rather that the mothership itself was never in any way the source of repayment or the security of the debt: and hence it's loss becomes irrelevant to the loan.
I'm guessing you've never flown a capital ship in combat - and probably haven't read the thread about my mothership's demise. I jumped nowhere: I intentionally engaged hostiles in the system I was already in, because I wanted some combat. I died - and so did just about all of the hostiles. Yes, I made some errors of judgment in what I did (though it was good fun). But noone other than me (and the hostiles) suffered from my actions. And I didn't engage after a bunch of other mothership pilots had told me not to. So I really don't see how it's comparable to any comments made about IPOs.
My errors regarding my mothership loss have been deabted in three seperate threads in our alliance forums (public one, military one and corp reps one). If/when you have a clue about what happened we can have a fourth such thread here. I have a track record of jumping into combat when I've had a few beers (and when I haven't): sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. I always, however, foot the bill myself, don't whine about it and carry on as normal - it's fun and I can afford to do it.
IF I'd been trying to claim back interest paid to Fury Bank, or take a bigger salary cut from Fury Holdings then you'd 100% have a point. But I'm not - and you don't.
|
Benvie
Benvie Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 04:11:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Ricdic
I posted that some may see you as also being incompetent for losing a mothership that is currently being loaned (the isk or some percentage of it) through your own bank. If as you say you never take out a loan for a PvP ship, then why would you even mention it?
I may be wrong, but I believe what he meant was that the ship itself was not the collateral for the loan. Rather his income from Fury Holdings was the collateral.
|
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 04:23:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Benvie
I may be wrong, but I believe what he meant was that the ship itself was not the collateral for the loan. Rather his income from Fury Holdings was the collateral.
So in other words, Fastlearner as a single individual is incompetent for loosing his mothership. FuryBank is not as they just provided a loan. But then one could also say that LaVista is not the incompetent one, he just offered the business. Those who invested in him should be the incompetent ones for investing in an industry that had a higher chance of failure.
Is that correct?
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 04:39:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Ricdic
Originally by: Benvie
I may be wrong, but I believe what he meant was that the ship itself was not the collateral for the loan. Rather his income from Fury Holdings was the collateral.
So in other words, Fastlearner as a single individual is incompetent for loosing his mothership. FuryBank is not as they just provided a loan. But then one could also say that LaVista is not the incompetent one, he just offered the business. Those who invested in him should be the incompetent ones for investing in an industry that had a higher chance of failure.
Is that correct?
No?
I was commenting in the Market Discussions forums about competence in making business decisions. You, apparently, believe that PvP mistakes are somehow relevant to competence at running a business - I assert that they're different skill-sets. I don't claim that zzz's combat losses to that crappy merc outfit have any relevance to your ability (or otherwise) to manage a business/bank. Not sure why you believe that me losing a ship somehow reflects on my ability to run a business/bank.
Your initial objection appeared to be that somehow when that mothership died the status of my loan to purchase it was affected. Now you're moving the goal posts (by the looks of it to some game which doesn't even use goals).
Here's what I hope is a simple summary for you:
1. The loss of the mothership had no impact on my ability to repay my loan, nor on the rate of interest I pay (which is exactly the same as anyone else with a gradually-repaid 10 bill+ loan would pay - the terms of it actually prevent me swamping the bank with my insurance payout even if I wanted to).
2. Any error(s) of judgement I (or anyone else) made in a PvP situation have no relationship to my ability to manage a business and/or bank. On the flip-side, any erros I (or anyone else) made in business situations do (rather self-evidently) have a relationship to my (or their) ability to manage a business/bank.
I'll take it as a compliment that the best attack you can come up with on my business skills/trustworthiness is that I lost a ship in PvP. I'll probably lose another ship in the next few days and you can have another go at me :)
|
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 04:43:00 -
[200]
Though it is indeed entertaining to watch the two of you trade jabs, I'd like to commend both of you for paying regular dividends, no matter how incompetent each of you may or may not be.
I've made a promise to behave myself in this thread for another few weeks, so I'm somewhat limited in what I can say here... but after having invested in Portsmouth, both of you are looking like Warren Buffet to me.
Though you guys obviously have differences of opinion, lets not forget who the real bad guy is here.
P.S. Hi Wylker! Hope things are well 
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 04:49:00 -
[201]
Good point Kitex, I will shut up now
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 04:51:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Kitex
Though it is indeed entertaining to watch the two of you trade jabs, I'd like to commend both of you for paying regular dividends, no matter how incompetent each of you may or may not be.
I've made a promise to behave myself in this thread for another few weeks, so I'm somewhat limited in what I can say here... but after having invested in Portsmouth, both of you are looking like Warren Buffet to me.
Though you guys obviously have differences of opinion, lets not forget who the real bad guy is here.
P.S. Hi Wylker! Hope things are well
Yeah, I think the diversion has run it's course.
Whatever other complaints/criticisms people may have of Ricdic/myself I think it's safe to say neither of us exactly hides from addressing criticism of ourselves or our projects :)
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 06:08:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Ricdic
So in other words, Fastlearner as a single individual is incompetent for loosing his mothership. FuryBank is not as they just provided a loan. But then one could also say that LaVista is not the incompetent one, he just offered the business. Those who invested in him should be the incompetent ones for investing in an industry that had a higher chance of failure.
I would say people who invested in any of these cap production ventures was foolish, perhaps not incompetent. It was clear there was no way the market would sustain itself for long as it was already dying a bad death when these IPO's launched. Several of us said as much through personal experience in the market. I personally sold out my own capital production capabilities just as these guys were all starting up because my profits weren't high enough back then.
But I'd say I don't quite see how ignoring clear evidence and trends about the capital market and losing a ship in PvP are comparable at all. First of all, FL's loss of his Mothership has no real relevance to his IPO at all. He took a loan out with the bank he runs... and as long as he pays back that loan according to the rules of the bank that is all there is to it, correct? What he does with that money is not anyones business unless he violates his loan rules. He could give it all away to strangers if he chooses to.
In any case, I still have the max possible in FuryBank and see no reason to withdraw it. Thankfully I have nothing in the venture being discussed here.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Unified
Capital Productions Unified
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 06:59:00 -
[204]
Originally by: FastLearner
I asume incompetence on his part, not good faith. Smae thing as I assume on CAP4U. Both started cap-ship production when anyone with a clue said it was a silly idea. At the time I rated Wylker's venture as the better of the two - I was wrong about that. Neither's working, neither seems to have any intention of refunding shareholders (a common fault in Eve - IPO launchers who fail believe they were given some god-given mandate to look after ISK even after whatever their abortive plan was failed).
Its fine you call me incompetent, i heard that all the time.
But please, do look into your facts.
Fine, it might, or might not, have been a good idea to go into capital production. I like to think it was, as that paid out 25% of the total value of CAP4U, in 3 months. Anyways, that doesnt matter.
Now when i made the post about refocusing(Read: Im NOT stopping to do capitals), i clearly wrote several times that ill buy back shares.
PP came around and stated that whatever i do, i should stick to his investment, or if i create a new IPO, invest them in there.
I convoed a large part of the investors i have, even them with just 1 share, to hear what they thought, and asked them if they were happy, and if they were aware that its possible to sell back shares to me. Not one person actually wanted to sell back their shares(Yeah, i want some CAP4U shares too, tbh). And everybody supported me that i should refocus.
Fastlearner, how can you judge my intention, without having read up on it? If i remember this correctly, i have stated the above several times. You make me sound like i wanna scam, or is stupid(Different from incompetent, mind you)
|
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 07:01:00 -
[205]
Well the way I see it is that it's the investor who should be weighing up the pro's and con's of these businesses. ie, myself as a CAP4U shareholder should decide to or not to invest based on my belief in his plan. Now I can understand that the plan was probably fluffed a bit too much with high percent return expectations so some may have invested under what they believe were unclear circumstances.
See, some of those bonds you guys are seeing now, some of the biggest ones out there, do deal in capital production. Sure, they are disguised as bonds (so basically hiding all internal activities). So should we call all of their CEO's incompetent by default?
Going back on topic, let's not call names at those who are working their asses off to meet the expectations they offered their investors (ie, LaVista). This thread is about the way PSI are handling their commitments. Putting LV and PSI into the same boat is totally unfair. Sure, they are both in the capital industry but one freely offers information, looks for alternatives, and is actually paying dividends.
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 07:03:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Shadarle
I would say people who invested in any of these cap production ventures was foolish, perhaps not incompetent.
I wish I could argue with that.
The best (and only) offer I received when trying to dump these shares was 25% of purchase price. At this point, I'm not hoping for a dividend for the sake of a dividend, but rather as proof that this isn't a scam, which should enable me to dump them at less of a loss.
Needless to say, I'll be looking to bail on this as soon as it's prudent to do so. Until then... yeah, I'm feeling foolish.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
LaVista Vista
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 07:04:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Ricdic
is actually paying dividends.
Paying dividends is just a bonus. At least writing on the forums is start, before you start paying out
|
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 07:11:00 -
[208]
Though I don't own any CAP4U, I actually wish I did. Not because cap production is so great (obviously), but because LV strikes me as an active and conscientious money manager. You can't polish a turd, but from what I've seen I do truly believe that he's made a very sincere effort at it. More important than the business plan is the man pulling the strings, and I do intend to put some money into LV if the opportunity ever presents itself.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 07:22:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Ricdic
See, some of those bonds you guys are seeing now, some of the biggest ones out there, do deal in capital production. Sure, they are disguised as bonds (so basically hiding all internal activities). So should we call all of their CEO's incompetent by default?
A bond is a bond, we don't care what profit the person makes as long as they pay out as they stated they would when releasing the bond. I don't care if Ionia is making capital ships with the money in FRPB or speculating on datacores, all I care about is that the payments on the bond are made.
But if someone says they are going to do something specific and pay out a percentage profits then it is quite important that the person understand what they are getting into. It is also important that they don't mislead their investors with false estimates on profits. I personally think issuing a bond is the smartest course for someone who has a good way to make a lot of profit but doesn't want to disclose it nor share those profits. But in order to issue a bond you have to be trusted, so you run an IPO or two first to show you can be trusted and that you're a good business person.
I would agree LV shouldn't be compared to someone who goes MIA for stretches and has yet to pay dividends. The only comparison in their combined lack of judgment in starting such a venture when they did. It ends there though as LV has actually tried to turn lemons into lemonade.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.10 07:46:00 -
[210]
Absolutely Shadarle I agree with basically everything you said. The annoyance I had was that LV was being called incompetent for making a bad call. He has since been working his butt off to provide alternates and ensure his investors get the returns that he did tell people of, plus he has the buyback in place.
At this point regardless of the poor way the capital market has gone, LV has exceeded his projection every month. That's not a sign of incompetence. It's a bad call, but we all make those. As has been advertised by myself and others of late trying to smear my appearance I have had plenty of bad calls in my time too (read: C-P-H IPO) and I don't consider myself incompetent as a result.
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |