Originally by: Ricdic

---

drama, drama, drama

Personally whilst I haven't had much interaction with Stins I reckon he is a good bloke and doubt he would do anything foolish like lie to his investors in such a way.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

sorry if questions bother you.

---

Originally by: Ricdic

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

sorry if questions bother you.

---

I'm not bothered

But innocent until proven guilty comes to mind

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

Edited by: Ezoran DuBlaidd on 03/10/2007 12:05:31
a quick question -- will RISE renting from ISS affect ISSO profits? i.e. cause an increase...

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I'm a little curious how many people ISSO has working on this "team". Is it a team of 3 for example or 20+? I'm curious because I'm really starting to wonder how a "team" can't manage to make more money than I personally can when I spend less than 2 hours actively playing per day. And before you get into the "We deal with 300 billion isk" stuff, no, you actually do not. You deal with 200 billion (100 bil are in loans which are generating 10% if I recall, meaning you are actually making even less money with the other 200 bil in order to pull the overall percentage down so far). And then, before you try saying that it's harder to make good returns with 200 bill than whatever I'm working with... no, it's not as we are not working with such differing amounts. I, as a solo player who spends very little time actively trading, is able to make the same level of ISK returns as your entire "team" is. I have no access to a mothership or fleet of ships, I have no one to help me, I have no group to ferry items around, I have no list of suppliers, I have no list of buyers. Yet I can somehow manage to equal your "team". Can you possibly clear this up for me?

The reason I invested in ISSO when you first started was I did not have anywhere near your level of funds at the time. I was making massively higher profits, but I figured if I had your level of funds I prob would be making only 5% too. But I also figured that your entire corp would have no problem making more than 10%, as several solo IPO owners have been able to do that. Now, after 9-10 months or whatever, I'm no longer in a different playing field ISK wise than ISSO... and yet I still make profits at least equal to if not greater than ISSO.

Again, how is this possible?

---

Originally by: Stins

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I'm a little curious how many people ISSO has working on this "team". Is it a team of 3 for example or 20+? I'm curious because I'm really starting to wonder how a "team" can't manage to make more money than I personally can when I spend less than 2 hours actively playing per day. And before you get into the "We deal with 300 billion isk" stuff, no, you actually do not. You deal with 200 billion (100 bil are in loans which are generating 10% if I recall, meaning you are actually making even less money with the other 200 bil in order to pull the overall percentage down so far). And then, before you try saying that it's harder to make good returns with 200 bill than whatever I'm working with... no, it's not as we are not working with such differing amounts. I, as a solo player who spends very little time actively trading, is able to make the same level of ISK returns as your entire "team" is. I have no access to a mothership or fleet of ships, I have no one to help me, I have no group to ferry items around, I have no list of suppliers, I have no list of buyers. Yet I can somehow manage to equal your "team". Can you possibly clear this up for me?

The reason I invested in ISSO when you first started was I did not have anywhere near your level of funds at the time. I was making massively higher profits, but I figured if I had your level of funds I prob would be making only 5% too. But I also figured that your entire corp would have no problem making more than 10%, as several solo IPO owners have been able to do that. Now, after 9-10 months or whatever, I'm no longer in a different playing field ISK wise than ISSO... and yet I still make profits at least equal to if not greater than ISSO.

Again, how is this possible?

---

If you make 23 Bn isk per month on your own, for months in a row, you do an extremely good job.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

actually, i don't think you understand that level of isk.

...

it's not one person trying to turn a profit with a huge sum. it's quite a number, according to the ipo literature, working with quite manageable amounts.

---

Originally by: Galgorth

---

As Shadarle mentions, a 13 billion ISK profit on assets of 200 billion ISK is dubious. I wonder how much their t2 bpos will "depreciate" once the Redswarm Federation comes knocking on their doors and they lose massive numbers of ships. I'm guessing their bpos will "depreciate" by the ISK value of the ships they lose in combat. I haven't bothered to check ISSO's business plan lately, but if I recall correctly a lot of their profits come from empire -> 0.0 importation. I doubt ISS will be able to import effectively once they lose all their 0.0 space. And trust me, they WILL lose it... BoB abandoned Feythabolis and threw RISE, ISS, and the rest of its pets to the wolves.

Sell your ISS shares before it's too late.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

Does anyone have any idea at all what Eefrit does? Ionia? Motivated Prophet?

---

Quote:

---

Assets
20569 shares in wallet
94.8 bn ISK loans
138.4 bn ISK industrial assets (BPOs, inventory, POS)
8 bn ISK trade assets/market orders
10 bn ISK shopping baskets
43.1 bn ISK cash
----------
294,3 bill ISK

Liabilities
29431 shares outstanding
10 Misk per share IPO price
------------
294,3 bill ISK

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Edited by: Shadarle on 04/10/2007 00:38:27
This is nothing but doom and gloom stuff. I have never been to 0.0 and have no problems making profits, ISSO shouldn't either. In fact, they may actually make more money as they clearly aren't making much as it is.

But I still want an answer, that isn't a sarcastic attempt to attack me by ISSO's CEO. If the answer if your entire corp/alliance is unable to out-earn a single player who has none of the advantages of ISSO then that's fine. I just want a real reply.

EDIT> I am a shareholder by the way, I have been since day one. I supported ISSO for 6-7 months... agreeing that they couldn't help being over-run like they were and such. But seriously... after 9 months it's a bit pathetic if you can't figure out how to make a bit more money.

---

Originally by: Nummb

---

Quote:

---

Assets
20569 shares in wallet
94.8 bn ISK loans
138.4 bn ISK industrial assets (BPOs, inventory, POS)
8 bn ISK trade assets/market orders
10 bn ISK shopping baskets
43.1 bn ISK cash
----------
294,3 bill ISK

Liabilities
29431 shares outstanding
10 Misk per share IPO price
------------
294,3 bill ISK

---

Ok, I have read this about four times now and I am completely confused. According to this statement the Assets and Liabilities are both 294,3 bill isk...does this mean that they cancel each other out?

Example:
Assets: I have a golden watch worth $5 and I have a $5 bill in my pocket.
Liabilities: John has a $10 I OWE U in his pocket.

Therefore if John decides to cash in his I OWE U then I have $0.

If this is not the case and I am just not capable of understanding then please let me know. All I do know is that I invested 200 mil isk in ISSO in September and on 2 Oct received 10 mil isk in dividends so all in all I see no reason to "sell" my ISSO shares.

---

Originally by: Nummb

---

Quote:

---

Assets
20569 shares in wallet
94.8 bn ISK loans
138.4 bn ISK industrial assets (BPOs, inventory, POS)
8 bn ISK trade assets/market orders
10 bn ISK shopping baskets
43.1 bn ISK cash
----------
294,3 bill ISK

Liabilities
29431 shares outstanding
10 Misk per share IPO price
------------
294,3 bill ISK

---

Ok, I have read this about four times now and I am completely confused. According to this statement the Assets and Liabilities are both 294,3 bill isk...does this mean that they cancel each other out?

Example:
Assets: I have a golden watch worth $5 and I have a $5 bill in my pocket.
Liabilities: John has a $10 I OWE U in his pocket.

Therefore if John decides to cash in his I OWE U then I have $0.

If this is not the case and I am just not capable of understanding then please let me know. All I do know is that I invested 200 mil isk in ISSO in September and on 2 Oct received 10 mil isk in dividends so all in all I see no reason to "sell" my ISSO shares.

---

Originally by: Galgorth

---

Your French-sounding name makes it easy to understand why you downplay military defeat. ISS is, was, and always will be a joke. They were first destroyed on a drunken lark by IAC (Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate) and will now certainly be kicked out of 0.0 space again by the RSF war machine. Hell, just this month they BARELY managed to earn above 5% to pay their required 5% dividend. And that's with a team.

---

Originally by: Ambo

---

Originally by: Nummb

---

Quote:

---

Assets
20569 shares in wallet
94.8 bn ISK loans
138.4 bn ISK industrial assets (BPOs, inventory, POS)
8 bn ISK trade assets/market orders
10 bn ISK shopping baskets
43.1 bn ISK cash
----------
294,3 bill ISK

Liabilities
29431 shares outstanding
10 Misk per share IPO price
------------
294,3 bill ISK

---

Ok, I have read this about four times now and I am completely confused. According to this statement the Assets and Liabilities are both 294,3 bill isk...does this mean that they cancel each other out?

Example:
Assets: I have a golden watch worth $5 and I have a $5 bill in my pocket.
Liabilities: John has a $10 I OWE U in his pocket.

Therefore if John decides to cash in his I OWE U then I have $0.

If this is not the case and I am just not capable of understanding then please let me know. All I do know is that I invested 200 mil isk in ISSO in September and on 2 Oct received 10 mil isk in dividends so all in all I see no reason to "sell" my ISSO shares.

---

It's a balance sheet


On the general subject of ISSO profits, it seems to me that a lot of the gross profit goes towards salaries, fleet maintenance, etc. Shardale, you mention that ISSO gets benefits because they are a group of people working in an aliance but don't forget that they also get a lot of negatives from that.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

a quick question -- will RISE renting from ISS affect ISSO profits? i.e. cause an increase...

---

Originally by: Anton Marvik

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

a quick question -- will RISE renting from ISS affect ISSO profits? i.e. cause an increase...

---

As Stins pointed out, that was entirely fictitious.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

for salaries, if they make above 5% profit, they are to take 1% for salary (meaning, they have to make at least 6% profit to take that 1%)

1-2% of the 5.1-10% profit range is for logistics. 1-2% is for iss navy, NOT 25 billion in order to replace a mom.

that, is assuming they make 8-10% total profit. everything up to 5% is hands-off.

---

Originally by: Ambo

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

for salaries, if they make above 5% profit, they are to take 1% for salary (meaning, they have to make at least 6% profit to take that 1%)

1-2% of the 5.1-10% profit range is for logistics. 1-2% is for iss navy, NOT 25 billion in order to replace a mom.

that, is assuming they make 8-10% total profit. everything up to 5% is hands-off.

---

Ah, I see.

Well I dunno, maybe they are just not that great at making money?

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

Now my ISSO shares I only paid about 7.2mil for so I'm getting a lot higher return then most and in (I think) 2 or 3 months I will have got my full investment back. If I used the Buy back I'm making a nice little return even right now if I sold them.

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

Everyone time someone says something about ISSO it makes me laugh, because I'm not an ISSO fan, I think their original prospectus was a little misleading. I can't, however, deny the fact they have stuck to their guns and paid 5% return every month.

Personally I consider my ISSO shares a write off that just happens to be giving me a little surprise every month. When they started the buy back I did consider selling them. Now my ISSO shares I only paid about 7.2mil for so I'm getting a lot higher return then most and in (I think) 2 or 3 months I will have got my full investment back. If I used the Buy back I'm making a nice little return even right now if I sold them.

I guess it's how you look at them, a loss, a liability, a solid company. My view point on them is "OK they could cave any minute, but I accept that, and I'm getting what they said they where going to pay.. 5% on IPO value.

Can't ask for much more really, if they are cooking their books, or pocketing billions they are still doing what they said they would do.

---

Originally by: Fury Banker

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

Now my ISSO shares I only paid about 7.2mil for so I'm getting a lot higher return then most and in (I think) 2 or 3 months I will have got my full investment back. If I used the Buy back I'm making a nice little return even right now if I sold them.

---

The argument that you're getting a higher return than most is flawed - it's exactly the same argument used to claim that mined minerals are free. Your ISSO shares have a realisable value of 10 mill ISK - and hence returns have to be measured vs that. You made a profit of 2.8 mill per share either when you bought them for 7.2 or when the buyback was announced - but, thereafter, you're getting the same 5% as everyone else.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Which is the same argument people make when they consider the minerals they mined are free.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Which is the same argument people make when they consider the minerals they mined are free.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Which is the same argument people make when they consider the minerals they mined are free.

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

Just for clarity:

ROI = Return on Investment
Investment = The amount of ISK that was paid for shares.

Therefore the lower the investment the higher the ROI.

Ergo Scenecs is right.

This is not comparable to the "free minerals" argument, in fact its completely different. This is a cold hard equation that is balanced which can't be disputed.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

Just for clarity:

ROI = Return on Investment
Investment = The amount of ISK that was paid for shares.

Therefore the lower the investment the higher the ROI.

Ergo Scenecs is right.

This is not comparable to the "free minerals" argument, in fact its completely different. This is a cold hard equation that is balanced which can't be disputed.

---

However it would not be balanced if the shares were listed as a 10 million isk asset.

As I said, if you want to assume your shares are still only worth 7 million (which is incorrect) then sure, you can say you're making returns on the 7 million.

ROI itself is an over-simplified way to account for shares. You have to calculate the value of the shares and calculate the return on that. And for this reason it is exactly like people who do not consider the money they could get for selling minerals when producing. Which is generally the same people who assume mined minerals are free.

But again, if you really think I'm wrong start a new thread about it. It obviously doesn't belong in this one. This thread is about ISSO and some of us are waiting for a REAL reply from ISSO/Stins.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

And you'll notice you're arguing a totally different point. I have not argued ROI, I have argued the proper way to account for things. ROI is a meaningless piece of information. If I buy minerals for 1 million ISK (that were actually worth 2.5 million isk) and build a ship and sell it for 2 million then my ROI was 100%, but that is a meaningless number. It doesn't account for what else I could do with the minerals. So it would seem like I'm doing great making an ROI of 100% but I should have made a lot more money.

Opportunity cost is key. If you ignore it then you're likely not maximizing your profits. I don't care about ROI as trying to maximize your initial ROI while ignoring the true value of your assets is foolish and is only giving you a false sense of reality.

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

And you'll notice you're arguing a totally different point. I have not argued ROI, I have argued the proper way to account for things. ROI is a meaningless piece of information. If I buy minerals for 1 million ISK (that were actually worth 2.5 million isk) and build a ship and sell it for 2 million then my ROI was 100%, but that is a meaningless number. It doesn't account for what else I could do with the minerals. So it would seem like I'm doing great making an ROI of 100% but I should have made a lot more money.

Opportunity cost is key. If you ignore it then you're likely not maximizing your profits. I don't care about ROI as trying to maximize your initial ROI while ignoring the true value of your assets is foolish and is only giving you a false sense of reality.

---

ROI isn't meaningless its a yard stick that can be used to relate IPO's and their rate of return. Comparing the size of an IPO and the ROI they provide gives you a good idea of the corporations current standing compared to another IPO of equal size.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

And you'll notice you're arguing a totally different point. I have not argued ROI, I have argued the proper way to account for things. ROI is a meaningless piece of information. If I buy minerals for 1 million ISK (that were actually worth 2.5 million isk) and build a ship and sell it for 2 million then my ROI was 100%, but that is a meaningless number. It doesn't account for what else I could do with the minerals. So it would seem like I'm doing great making an ROI of 100% but I should have made a lot more money.

Opportunity cost is key. If you ignore it then you're likely not maximizing your profits. I don't care about ROI as trying to maximize your initial ROI while ignoring the true value of your assets is foolish and is only giving you a false sense of reality.

---

ROI isn't meaningless its a yard stick that can be used to relate IPO's and their rate of return. Comparing the size of an IPO and the ROI they provide gives you a good idea of the corporations current standing compared to another IPO of equal size.

---

Ok... but that really isn't what we're discussing as the IPO in question is not being judged by its actual ROI but by the ROI based on a reduced purchase price. It doesn't mean the IPO is any better than it would be if it was purchased for full price. The only difference is the 3 million/share profit made.

Though I am a bit curious. When IPO's pay dividends, do they do so on initial investment or on NAV? It seems NAV would be the correct way to do it... but on initial investment is much easier and less confusing for investors. It seems to me they all do it on initial investment, so I guess my real question is: Do any do it on NAV instead?

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

Just for clarity:

ROI = Return on Investment
Investment = The amount of ISK that was paid for shares.

Therefore the lower the investment the higher the ROI.

Ergo Scenecs is right.

This is not comparable to the "free minerals" argument, in fact its completely different. This is a cold hard equation that is balanced which can't be disputed.

---

However it would not be balanced if the shares were listed as a 10 million isk asset.

As I said, if you want to assume your shares are still only worth 7 million (which is incorrect) then sure, you can say you're making returns on the 7 million.

ROI itself is an over-simplified way to account for shares. You have to calculate the value of the shares and calculate the return on that. And for this reason it is exactly like people who do not consider the money they could get for selling minerals when producing. Which is generally the same people who assume mined minerals are free.

But again, if you really think I'm wrong start a new thread about it. It obviously doesn't belong in this one. This thread is about ISSO and some of us are waiting for a REAL reply from ISSO/Stins.

---

I don't really care if I derail a thread, besides its not like Stins is going to answer you.

I never said the shares weren't worth the 10m ISK buy back option, they in fact are worth that much. BUT that doesn't change the fact that Scences investment was only 7m a share and thus has a higher ROI. ROI is relative to the investment, not the value of the share. Just because a share is worth more less does not change the amount of ISK invested. Investment in ROI is a constant, unchanging variable (unless you invest more or sell shares).

---

Originally by: Fury Banker

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

Just for clarity:

ROI = Return on Investment
Investment = The amount of ISK that was paid for shares.

Therefore the lower the investment the higher the ROI.

Ergo Scenecs is right.

This is not comparable to the "free minerals" argument, in fact its completely different. This is a cold hard equation that is balanced which can't be disputed.

---

However it would not be balanced if the shares were listed as a 10 million isk asset.

As I said, if you want to assume your shares are still only worth 7 million (which is incorrect) then sure, you can say you're making returns on the 7 million.

ROI itself is an over-simplified way to account for shares. You have to calculate the value of the shares and calculate the return on that. And for this reason it is exactly like people who do not consider the money they could get for selling minerals when producing. Which is generally the same people who assume mined minerals are free.

But again, if you really think I'm wrong start a new thread about it. It obviously doesn't belong in this one. This thread is about ISSO and some of us are waiting for a REAL reply from ISSO/Stins.

---

I don't really care if I derail a thread, besides its not like Stins is going to answer you.

I never said the shares weren't worth the 10m ISK buy back option, they in fact are worth that much. BUT that doesn't change the fact that Scences investment was only 7m a share and thus has a higher ROI. ROI is relative to the investment, not the value of the share. Just because a share is worth more less does not change the amount of ISK invested. Investment in ROI is a constant, unchanging variable (unless you invest more or sell shares).

---

The mistake you're making is that you're assuming that your investment doesn't change in value. If you buy something for 7 million which is worth 10 million then although you invested 7 million, your investment is now worth 10 million. It doesn't matter how you word it, the fact is that you have a share worth 10 million which is giving 5% profit per month. The 3 million difference between 7 million and 10 million is profit you made in the past.

The mistake I was pointing out was believing that buying that share at 7 million meant you got a higher rate of dividend than someone who bought at 10 million. You don't - you both get the same. Dividends are measured either as a percentage of issue price or as a percentage of the share's value - both of which are identical for both shares (though it's anyone's guess what the latter actually is).

---

 Trees Forest
 __|__ |
 | | |
 V V V

 ^ ^ ^^^^^^
 ^ ^ ^^^^^^
 ^ ^ ^^^^^^
 ^ ^ ^^^^^^
 | | ||||||

Originally by: Fury Banker

---

Ricidc made a similar error. If the minerals to build a ship are worth 18.5 but you buy them on contract for 17 million then you DON'Y make 1.5 million more profit building that ship than someone who bought the minerals for 18.5 million (assuming you both sell it for the same price). You made exactly the same profit on the ship - but you also made 1.5 million profit on the minerals.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

i'm not arguing the point. i'm still asking when the shareholder vote occured, which authorized ISS to make an offensive war happen.

along with all the other things that have been asked.

---

Originally by: Ricdic

---

Originally by: Fury Banker

---

Ricidc made a similar error. If the minerals to build a ship are worth 18.5 but you buy them on contract for 17 million then you DON'Y make 1.5 million more profit building that ship than someone who bought the minerals for 18.5 million (assuming you both sell it for the same price). You made exactly the same profit on the ship - but you also made 1.5 million profit on the minerals.

---

Kinda silly argument though. Either way you made a profit. If you want to attribute that profit to your secondary tier (manufacturing after purchasing) then it still relates to a higher profit margin regardless

I won't release business plans that say I made a 3% profit margin on minerals purchased along with a 2% profit margin on ships produced. Whilst one could argue that this was the case it really is irrelevant in the big picture as the profit margin stays the same in both instances.

Are we all really this bored arguing such trivial points?

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Buying minerals cheaper does not mean you make a larger profit producing items, it means you make more profit overall. The difference is huge. You can't let yourself believe production is profitable just because you bought the components cheaply. You always have to remember the opportunity cost. You have to know that you could sell those minerals. You then must make more producing then you could selling the minerals. If you don't split out your profit centers then you won't know if you're maximizing your profits.

---

Originally by: Ricdic

---

Simple question. In my above example (paragraph 1) am I making more, less, or the same isk overall by selling the minerals separately? (not counting brokerage fee's in this instance)

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Edited by: Shadarle on 06/10/2007 17:33:13

Originally by: Ricdic

---

Simple question. In my above example (paragraph 1) am I making more, less, or the same isk overall by selling the minerals separately? (not counting brokerage fee's in this instance)

---

Obviously the same. But you have to know where the profit is coming from or you will make false assumptions as to the profitable of any given item. You may understand that, but most do not.

Assuming your shares are worth 7 million so you can assume you're making 7% profit instead of 5% is a false way of looking at things as it is not looking at opportunity cost or real values.

---

Originally by: Nummb

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Edited by: Shadarle on 06/10/2007 17:33:13

Originally by: Ricdic

---

Simple question. In my above example (paragraph 1) am I making more, less, or the same isk overall by selling the minerals separately? (not counting brokerage fee's in this instance)

---

Obviously the same. But you have to know where the profit is coming from or you will make false assumptions as to the profitable of any given item. You may understand that, but most do not.

Assuming your shares are worth 7 million so you can assume you're making 7% profit instead of 5% is a false way of looking at things as it is not looking at opportunity cost or real values.

---

So, if he sells back all his shares for 10mil isk each then he will have earned a profit from purchasing his shares for 7 mil plus collecting dividends from the begining. Now if he repurchases shares at 10 mil isk each he will get a 5% return like everyone else but he will be way ahead of new investors because he already made 3 mil isk profit per share.

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

Now my ISSO shares I only paid about 7.2mil for so I'm getting a lot higher return then most

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

I can't believe I got top post on page 2 and 3, now everyone stop hi-jacking this thread.

My original post was about ISSO and how they are doing what they said they would do which was not a Hi-jack.

---

Originally by: Ramblin Man

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

I can't believe I got top post on page 2 and 3, now everyone stop hi-jacking this thread.

My original post was about ISSO and how they are doing what they said they would do which was not a Hi-jack.

---

QFT.

I can't believe you guys argued over acounting semantics for two pages.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

But it does keep this thread up at the top so it will be nice and easy for Stins to reply to it.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

welp, historically speaking, the smart ass reply he gave, was more than iss normally gives. so yea, don't expect anything else.

at the moment, stins bush is busy engaging in a war to which his congressional shareholders never received a vote in regards to whether they believe that iac has wmd or not.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

welp, historically speaking, the smart ass reply he gave, was more than iss normally gives. so yea, don't expect anything else.

at the moment, stins bush is busy engaging in a war to which his congressional shareholders never received a vote in regards to whether they believe that iac has wmd or not.

---

Originally by: Lilan Kahn

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

welp, historically speaking, the smart ass reply he gave, was more than iss normally gives. so yea, don't expect anything else.

at the moment, stins bush is busy engaging in a war to which his congressional shareholders never received a vote in regards to whether they believe that iac has wmd or not.

---

and some one failed to read the isso ipo again

---

Originally by: Mark Weston

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

welp, historically speaking, the smart ass reply he gave, was more than iss normally gives. so yea, don't expect anything else.

at the moment, stins bush is busy engaging in a war to which his congressional shareholders never received a vote in regards to whether they believe that iac has wmd or not.

---

Anyone who bought ISSO shares expecting that entitled them to a share in political control of the ISS alliance should run, not walk, over to my upcoming IPO for the Brooklyn Bridge.

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

Edited by: Treelox on 07/10/2007 09:28:18

Originally by: Shadarle

---

But it does keep this thread up at the top so it will be nice and easy for Stins to reply to it.

---

You sir, have way more faith than me, and I would imagine most others.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

Originally by: Lilan Kahn

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

welp, historically speaking, the smart ass reply he gave, was more than iss normally gives. so yea, don't expect anything else.

at the moment, stins bush is busy engaging in a war to which his congressional shareholders never received a vote in regards to whether they believe that iac has wmd or not.

---

and some one failed to read the isso ipo again

---

If you want you're investmetn to become worthless real fast we'll wit for you to vote while the 0.0 assets from it are being shot to pieces

I know where the isk for teh replacement mothership came from, you don't so shut up about it cauxse it wasn't out of you're investment


read up in the thread, the things i quoted are DIRECTLY from the isso ipo as of the date i posted them. they state that in order for ISS to declare war, there must be a shareholder vote. does that mean that it's alright for ISS to be an aggressor in a war in 0.0 because they didn't DECLARE (read - pay isk) for said war?

pretty ****ty interpretation and would make people think scam. especially when iss loses a mom and mysteriously decides to depreciate 25b worth of unnamed BPOs the next month.

from ISS posters themselves, it's quite obvious they've been engaged in an aggressive war in FAT (along with the other MC pets).

so feel free to rewrite history however you desire. i'm presenting facts which continue to be ignored.

thank you, please drive thru.

---

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

Edited by: Senator Martin''Lefouret on 08/10/2007 20:47:37

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

Originally by: Lilan Kahn

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

welp, historically speaking, the smart ass reply he gave, was more than iss normally gives. so yea, don't expect anything else.

at the moment, stins bush is busy engaging in a war to which his congressional shareholders never received a vote in regards to whether they believe that iac has wmd or not.

---

and some one failed to read the isso ipo again

---

If you want you're investmetn to become worthless real fast we'll wit for you to vote while the 0.0 assets from it are being shot to pieces

I know where the isk for teh replacement mothership came from, you don't so shut up about it cauxse it wasn't out of you're investment


read up in the thread, the things i quoted are DIRECTLY from the isso ipo as of the date i posted them. they state that in order for ISS to declare war, there must be a shareholder vote. does that mean that it's alright for ISS to be an aggressor in a war in 0.0 because they didn't DECLARE (read - pay isk) for said war?

pretty ****ty interpretation and would make people think scam. especially when iss loses a mom and mysteriously decides to depreciate 25b worth of unnamed BPOs the next month.

from ISS posters themselves, it's quite obvious they've been engaged in an aggressive war in FAT (along with the other MC pets).

so feel free to rewrite history however you desire. i'm presenting facts which continue to be ignored.

thank you, please drive thru.

---

if you realy want you're investmetn to become worthless, we'll happy await you're vote while you're nvestment gets shot to pieces

And about the mothership, the isk did not come out of isso.

---

Originally by: Lilan Kahn

---

if you realy want you're investmetn to become worthless, we'll happy await you're vote while you're nvestment gets shot to pieces

And about the mothership, the isk did not come out of isso.

---

Quote:

---

http://eve-iss.com/ISSO/12.asp << that page just says iss can't declare war on anyone without shareholder consent. i just thought that was... interesting.

---

Quote:

---

FAQ CONTINUED...

What influence do the shareholders have on ISSO policy?

ISS cannot declare war on anyone without shareholder consent. We have never declared war on anyone so far, and we doubt we'll need it in the future, but it deserves to be mentioned.

---

Quote:

---

this page ( http://eve-iss.com/ISSO/9.asp ) talks about where the 5-10% gap is spent. 1% of profits goes towards salaries. that's it. 1-2% goes into the iss navy, 1-2% goes into logistics.

---

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

if you realy want you're investmetn to become worthless, we'll happy await you're vote while you're nvestment gets shot to pieces

And about the mothership, the isk did not come out of isso.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Edited by: Shadarle on 08/10/2007 21:04:19

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

if you realy want you're investmetn to become worthless, we'll happy await you're vote while you're nvestment gets shot to pieces

And about the mothership, the isk did not come out of isso.

---

If it's an AGGRESSIVE war then obviously it wouldn't get shot to pieces until you declared it without the vote the ISSO IPO plan specified would take place on aggressive wars.

And if you're going to post on behalf of ISSO, as you seem to be, then post with your main or whatever character is in ISSO. Otherwise I'll have to assume you are nobody with no knowledge of anything. Tho if you do happen to be in ISSO, point Stins back to this thread so he can explain to me how you guys are making less money than solo players are making with a fraction of the money you guys have.

---

Originally by: Martin Lefouret

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Edited by: Shadarle on 08/10/2007 21:04:19

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

if you realy want you're investmetn to become worthless, we'll happy await you're vote while you're nvestment gets shot to pieces

And about the mothership, the isk did not come out of isso.

---

If it's an AGGRESSIVE war then obviously it wouldn't get shot to pieces until you declared it without the vote the ISSO IPO plan specified would take place on aggressive wars.

And if you're going to post on behalf of ISSO, as you seem to be, then post with your main or whatever character is in ISSO. Otherwise I'll have to assume you are nobody with no knowledge of anything. Tho if you do happen to be in ISSO, point Stins back to this thread so he can explain to me how you guys are making less money than solo players are making with a fraction of the money you guys have.

---

war is war, hostile gangs, invaders, attacks on sovereignity etc. are not going to wait till you guys pass a vote, they will come and destroy stuff. Best way to minimize the risk is keep the frontlies as far away as posible

every iss pillot who contributed to the replacement mothership knows where that isk came from

Ans as for posting with my main, everyone with 1 functioning braincell could figure this one out

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

so he can explain to me how you guys are making less money than solo players are making with a fraction of the money you guys have.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

so he can explain to me how you guys are making less money than solo players are making with a fraction of the money you guys have.

---

Do you ever get tired of the epeen stroking, I'm an isk-making machine act? Jesus Christ.

It says explicitly in the prospectus that they will not answer to details about their operations, though they offer significant guidance as to the kinds of activities they undertake. Of course, after that, half the Eve community decided to gank them, so evidently adjustments had to be made.

Basically, you have no right to demand anything. All you're doing is jacking off here, and it's a pretty old act. We all get that you make a lot of isk in game. How about you give us all the full details on how you do that? In fact, I'll just keep asking you to do that. And while you're at it, why don't you pressure Ionia, Eefrit and all the rest to go completely public and explicit about the details of their operations?

Stins should tell everyone to kiss his ass.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

so he can explain to me how you guys are making less money than solo players are making with a fraction of the money you guys have.

---

Do you ever get tired of the epeen stroking, I'm an isk-making machine act? Jesus Christ.

It says explicitly in the prospectus that they will not answer to details about their operations, though they offer significant guidance as to the kinds of activities they undertake. Of course, after that, half the Eve community decided to gank them, so evidently adjustments had to be made.

Basically, you have no right to demand anything. All you're doing is jacking off here, and it's a pretty old act. We all get that you make a lot of isk in game. How about you give us all the full details on how you do that? In fact, I'll just keep asking you to do that. And while you're at it, why don't you pressure Ionia, Eefrit and all the rest to go completely public and explicit about the details of their operations?

Stins should tell everyone to kiss his ass.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I like how you bring up their business plan when it suits your purposes, but you fail to care when they completely ignore their business plan. You can't say it's OK that they do things not in their business plan because of circumstances, but then say that we can't criticize them because they are following their plan. That makes no sense.

---

Originally by: Shardarle

---

I am not demanding anything. I am asking them pretty darn politely, compared to many other people with complaints. And what do I get, I get a snarky reply from the CEO. He obviously knows that he is making horrible profits and he doesn't have the strength of character to come out and admit that they've not been running a very efficient corp. If he at least admitted it I would be fine, but he refuses to.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

They share as much as anyone and more than most

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

You're probably some business competitor tired of getting his ass kicked by ISSO and bringing it here in some kind of lame meta-game effort to damage them.

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

I had a large lump of ISK when ISSO launched. I even considered investing in it. I'm glad I didn't now because I would be rather aggravated with the way it has been run so far.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

I had a large lump of ISK when ISSO launched. I even considered investing in it. I'm glad I didn't now because I would be rather aggravated with the way it has been run so far.

---

If someone is actually happy with the way it is being run then they must have very low expectations.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Dr Slurm

---

I had a large lump of ISK when ISSO launched. I even considered investing in it. I'm glad I didn't now because I would be rather aggravated with the way it has been run so far.

---

If someone is actually happy with the way it is being run then they must have very low expectations.

---

Originally by: Treelox

---

ReeRee, I want to say that I remeber you even having said in one of the past threads, that you dont even own any ISS shares. Am I remebering that right?

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

I'm not sure people really grasp the consequence of game mechanics here. There are no regulatory or enforcement agencies. All these play-IPOs with their little reports amount to little more than role-playing. The bottom-line is that trust is the only basis on which IPOs in Eve can function.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Edited by: Oron on 12/10/2007 01:49:12

Shadarle, they do not loose trust. As far as I can see they payout the granted minimum. Its just not the surplus you expected. If you say a Alliance of this size could make more money, than this just suggest a positive trend for the future.

If the granted minimum is not enough for you - I would advice you to sell your shares and invest the money in something... different.

Currently you seem to talk them bad, for some reason.

fly safe (or leave at least the station once a day for a dog walk)

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

How can you possibly tell me that ISSO is not losing my trust? You can only say you still trust them 100%, you cannot make claims on others trust.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

You did not talked about your trust, but sayed: "ISSO is losing all trust that some of us have in them.". So its you who make claims on others trust, not me.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Its not a trust question anyway. They promised 5% they pay 5%.Period. ISSO are not some unknowns, and Stins is not a scammer. Your conotationes are hair-raising, and show a decent attempt to damage the image of ISSO.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

I can understand that you are a outraged, about ISSO not performing as well as you thought - but this seems to be more your over expectations than ISSOs under performance, cause they perform as they promised and pay 5% interest.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Then they return 5%, which they could do for 20 months without even having made a penny of profit before anyone realized it was really a scam as a way to get 200+ billion as a 20 month long loan they wouldn't have to pay back at the end.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Yes, I had expectations that an entire alliance would be able to make more profits than a single person could make. Those are shockingly high expectations

---

Quote:

---

It is not expecting much to actually get honest information out of them.

---

Quote:

---

They have proven that they do not deserve any such reputation. They are earning themselves a reputation of a corp that cannot pay out very well and who has no clue how to communicate with their shareholders.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

So you say ISSO is a scam, a fraud, because they pay not more than the minimum? Do you try to make you look silly, or do you try to play the market? Clearly something is behind your determination.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

I never said that it is a good performance for a Alliance and it is reasonable to wounder why they do not payout more. I am sure you figured out the reason already.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

If they would lose reputation, you would see their stock value decrease, because all stockholder would try to sell out. As far as I see this is not the case, the stock value increased latly and is overall quite stable.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

At least I do not see Roemy (btw. nice to see Binford still around! greets @tim) ranting here how she got fooled and I doubt see or any other stockholder was fooled.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

If someone try to pull a fraud here I would bet on you - well fraud is such a ugly name - perhabs its more somekind of poker. Or did the ISS Navy shoot you? No, you prolly dont left the station nor the empire - so you really just try to pull a manipulation.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I do not say they are a scam. I say that they could be and no one would be the wiser for 20 months if they didn't make a penny.

---

Originally by: Stins

---

We launched our buyback order or RESX this month. So far, 413 shares have been sold back to ISSO. However, after the announcement of the buy back order, a lot of people got more confident with ISSO and we sold 771 shares, for a total value of 7,71Bn to the public.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I honestly want to know that reason.

---

Originally by: Stins

---

The main cause for this is our team simply had less time to spend on eve.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I indeed have never been to 0.0 space and I barely leave the station in empire.

---

Quote:

---

But I do not believe for a second 0.0 is bad for business and I'm sure no one else here does either.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Edited by: Oron on 13/10/2007 19:24:53

You just keep iterating your loosy arguments, do you?

Quote:

---

But I do not believe for a second 0.0 is bad for business and I'm sure no one else here does either.

---

Nosec is no bad business, but its a more risky business than your little market games in Yulai. Heck! Just TO BE THERE is more risk than you ever afforded yet!

Netherless, as far as I know they stated that the profit of the ISSO share is not effected by no-sec operations of the Alliance. This suggests that they make this 5% in empire business, but thats a wild guess, cause I have no insigths in theire business. It just sounds reasonable.

In addition it is unlikly that the "entry alliance" work for this 5%, as you claim. More likly there are only a very limited number of guys are in charge to earn the 5% intrest, while the others try to secure the nosec assests and reastablish the nosec infrastructur. So prolly very few ppl have access to the money to trade with it. Internal Security alone suggest that, especily after ISS got infiltrated once long ago.

If those guys currently can't spend alot of time in eve, I can definatly imagin that they are short of man power.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Hello Shadarle,

Originally by: Shadarle

---

How can you possibly tell me that ISSO is not losing my trust? You can only say you still trust them 100%, you cannot make claims on others trust.

---

You did not talked about your trust, but sayed: "ISSO is losing all trust that some of us have in them.". So its you who make claims on others trust, not me.

Its not a trust question anyway. They promised 5% they pay 5%.Period. ISSO are not some unknowns, and Stins is not a scammer. Your conotationes are hair-raising, and show a decent attempt to damage the image of ISSO.

I can understand that you are a outraged, about ISSO not performing as well as you thought - but this seems to be more your over expectations than ISSOs under performance, cause they perform as they promised and pay 5% interest.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

Robacz completely nailed it.

I'm not sure people really grasp the consequence of game mechanics here. There are no regulatory or enforcement agencies. All these play-IPOs with their little reports amount to little more than role-playing. The bottom-line is that trust is the only basis on which IPOs in Eve can function.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

The apparatus of business, these reports and whatnot, are roleplay gee-gaws. Who can actually confirm that what is in these reports is true, or that all significant information has been included? Didn't EIB have a pretty significant business-ish facade? Eefrit (who does not report) has come the closest to building an institutional mechanism of trust, which 1. has the lowest return of anything around and 2. still relies on the the trustworthiness of the directors he selected. He had a problem with one director, who wasn't even dishonest, and it impacted his business.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

Therefore, hounding Stins and ISSO the way some people do, is hypocritical (since there are plenty of IPOs that share nothing whatsoever -- and calling them "bonds" is just an empty dodge), and overlooks not just the single most important factor, but the ONLY important factor. ISSO has established trust in the market, because not only did they in effect build the market, but they have paid into it for 2 years.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

ProtonPower's reports were complete crap. But he is likely an honest person behind the cartoon, so if he had an IPO, I'd be tempted to invest. Ricdic strikes me as an honest person. Possibly there are a few others. That is the ONLY basis on which an investment in an Eve IPO makes sense.

---

Originally by: Thaere

---

If we can keep this up the top for another 3 weeks stins wont need to make a new thread yay!

---

Originally by: Thaere

---

If we can keep this up the top for another 3 weeks stins wont need to make a new thread yay!

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

So you claim that the difficulties in 0.0 are a reason that they wouldn't make such easy profits as I do in empire. Then you admit that they stated those difficulties wouldn't be a factor in ISSO's performance. Stop contradicting yourself.

---

Quote:

---

And they specifically said we were investing in an entire alliance. Their goal was to make shareholders money.

---

Quote:

---

And I think it's funny that you are now resorting to insulting me, trying to put me down as a "Yulai" trader. And then saying 0.0 is more risk than I've ever afforded.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

out of 200b+, they've simply "lost" about 40-50b of it.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

So you claim that the difficulties in 0.0 are a reason that they wouldn't make such easy profits as I do in empire. Then you admit that they stated those difficulties wouldn't be a factor in ISSO's performance. Stop contradicting yourself.

---

You try very hard to missunderstand me, do you? :) I just tryed to put your claim "they are in nosec business they need to make more money than I" into relation. No-sec do not equal instant profit, thats gankers propaganda to lure carebears into their gate camp.

In fact if things go wrong (and you get your ass kicked like ISS) you can lose billions during the 6 o'clock tea - in less than an hour, without warning and without any wrong decision.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

And they specifically said we were investing in an entire alliance. Their goal was to make shareholders money.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

If I recall right one of the major investments rules are: Do not invest in business you do not understand. You'll be disappointed. I guess your broke that rule. ;)

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

out of 200b+, they've simply "lost" about 40-50b of it.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

So you claim that the difficulties in 0.0 are a reason that they wouldn't make such easy profits as I do in empire. Then you admit that they stated those difficulties wouldn't be a factor in ISSO's performance. Stop contradicting yourself.

---

You try very hard to missunderstand me, do you? :) I just tryed to put your claim "they are in nosec business they need to make more money than I" into relation. No-sec do not equal instant profit, thats gankers propaganda to lure carebears into their gate camp.

In fact if things go wrong (and you get your ass kicked like ISS) you can lose billions during the 6 o'clock tea - in less than an hour, without warning and without any wrong decision.

---

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

you should not believe anything you read in caod. 99,99% of it is a twisted thruth and/or propaganda

---

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

so you're lacking functioning braincells too, i taugt so a long time ago. You should realy read the ipo again, then see how much isk they made and then see how its divided when its between 5 and 10%
I already answered the question about where the isk for the replacement mothership came from, not gonna answer it again.

---

Originally by: snerdly

---

Edited by: snerdly on 14/10/2007 18:30:03
I've said it before and I'll say it again, ISS is the f*cking sh*ttiest alliance in the game. They can't do anything right, honestly.

So, basically, my point is this is not really news.

---

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

and everytime you explained where it went you mzde me believe that you didn't understood that ipo paragrpah for what it realy stood: any isk between 5-10% we do with as we please, thats what that paragraph realy means, if you read anything else in it. Well in that case i hate to be you when it sinks in.

Ans speculating wheer it went doesn't even matter, you would never had seen it anyway. all you can do is hope that isso makes one month more then 10% profit and you get that extra part in you're wallet.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

i read that iss lost a mom in caod and the next month there was that mysterious 25 billion devaluation of isso bpos.

---

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

so sew me for english being my 4the language.

So you decided to get out, a dessicion i would have taken a while ago if i was so unhappy about my investment. Making the same mistake as stins did with the t2 bpo's???(lucky for you there's a buyback option isn't it)

And if stins had been smarter about it he had just payed out the 5% without posting, a high chance nobody would have complained. In future, before you invest, read the small print instead of complainig about it afterwards.

---

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

i never said you sold back to isso, you're lucky the buy back option exists so you can sell them at 10 mil isk, if it didn't exists the value of you're shares would be a lot lower.

and complainig about spelling mistakes and bad english, you don't know me in real life and you can consider you'reself lucky that its understandable. So i understand, speak and write 4 languages, unfortunatly not all as wel as my native tongue.

---

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

i've got 5% for 4 month out of it so i would have sold my shares for 8 mil if i could. I'm not sure on the value of the nav before the buy back option was in places but share where being traded between 8-9 mil a month before.

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

them. Now my ISSO shares I only paid about 7.2mil

---

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

them. Now my ISSO shares I only paid about 7.2mil

---

so now who isn't reading threads.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaiddso where did that 15b loss come from and what t2 bpos were further FURTHER devaluated by 25b, on something, that according the the ipo - "we're not investing heavily in t2 bpos", then a bit later "we're cautiously (read - valuing very low) investing in invention this month, and within two months we'll have lots of profit"; followed by "we did pretty good with invention this month and will do stellar next month" followed by "um, we misplaced like 10-15% of our funds, nothing to see here".

hmm?[/quote

---

those answers need to come from stins, i only had the answer where the replacement mothership came from. the only connection i have to isso is having shares in it. Being part of iss does give me sometimes the opertunity to have information others don't(in this case the replacement mothership)

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaiddso where did that 15b loss come from and what t2 bpos were further FURTHER devaluated by 25b, on something, that according the the ipo - "we're not investing heavily in t2 bpos", then a bit later "we're cautiously (read - valuing very low) investing in invention this month, and within two months we'll have lots of profit"; followed by "we did pretty good with invention this month and will do stellar next month" followed by "um, we misplaced like 10-15% of our funds, nothing to see here".

hmm?[/quote

---

those answers need to come from stins, i only had the answer where the replacement mothership came from. the only connection i have to isso is having shares in it. Being part of iss does give me sometimes the opertunity to have information others don't(in this case the replacement mothership)

---

and there we have it.

we'll have a monthly report in a couple of weeks and 5% profits and nothing more, nothing less.

good on all you guys who've invested in THIS venture and shall stick it out, as opposed to other ventures. you've certainly made wise choices.

Originally by: Senator Martin'Lefouret

---

i never said you sold back to isso, you're lucky the buy back option exists so you can sell them at 10 mil isk, if it didn't exists the value of you're shares would be a lot lower.

---

Originally by: Robacz

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

i read that iss lost a mom in caod and the next month there was that mysterious 25 billion devaluation of isso bpos.

---

I thought everyone heard about invention and its effect on T2 BPO values by now.

---

Quote:

---

n : a fraudulent business scheme [syn: cozenage]
v : deprive of by deceit; "He swindled me out of my inheritance"; "She defrauded the customers who trusted her"; "the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change"

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

You do realize that ISSO wasn't supposed to be in the T2 market at all, right?

---

Quote:

---

Everyone remotely intelligent T2 owner in EVE knew the prices were going to drop... and definitely everyone saw the prices dropping. But instead of selling off their bad T2 investment while they could they held onto them... watching their investment wither away.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Again you shown that you have no clue what ISS was about.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Which just shows how pathetic ISSO is doing. Their share value actually dropped.

... ISSO is not stealing all our money, they are simply giving us too little change by cooking the books or by ineptitude... I don't know which.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Robacz

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

i read that iss lost a mom in caod and the next month there was that mysterious 25 billion devaluation of isso bpos.

---

I thought everyone heard about invention and its effect on T2 BPO values by now.

---

You do realize that ISSO wasn't supposed to be in the T2 market at all, right?

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

Edited by: Johnny ReeRee on 15/10/2007 12:11:10
And now Taikun chimes it! Shardarle, Taikun and Ezoran -- it's like a ReeRee Brigade homecoming! Who needs corp chat when we're all right here!

Ph34r the ReeRees!

Hey Taikun -- get any ships blown up by ISS again lately? lawlz!

---

Originally by: Robacz

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Robacz

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

i read that iss lost a mom in caod and the next month there was that mysterious 25 billion devaluation of isso bpos.

---

I thought everyone heard about invention and its effect on T2 BPO values by now.

---

You do realize that ISSO wasn't supposed to be in the T2 market at all, right?

---

I realize that a lot of things changed after they got attacked and lost all their outposts. It did not affect ISSO directly, but it did affect their plans.

Anyway, they obviously had some T2 BPOs, therefore Invention caused some losses to them - that was my point. No mysterious motherships.

I guess you guys won't stop your anti-ISSO campaign anytime soon, but I have one question - when they launched their IPO, they asked for 500 Billion. This IPO said, that they will pay over 5% if they make 10%+ profits. Did you really believe that it is possible to make stable 10%+ profit from 500 Billion??

I did not, I expected to get 5% and I get it every month + I can sell my shares anytime.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Edited by: Oron on 15/10/2007 03:37:17

Originally by: Shadarle

---

You do realize that ISSO wasn't supposed to be in the T2 market at all, right?

---

This one really made me chuckle!

The single purpose of ISS was to create a T2 market in no-sec.

This was the primary reason to create that Alliance. This was the primary reason to build the outposts as central market places. This was the primary reason to create ISS Logistic to supply the outposts. This was the primary reason to create ISS Navy to secure the supply and the visitors of the outposts.

Why do you think the ppl visited the outposts? Right! Because they had T2 items! Ship + Tank + Guns + Tackle Gear + ECM for fair prices 20, insteed of 60+ jumps away, even without the need to cross the very dangerous borderline between low- and no-sec, even with a good chance not getting camped and insta popped after you undock. This is the reason they earned docking fees.

Each outpost had a multi-billion isk (as far as I know 50bil per outpost was planned) basket of mainly T2 products. Be glad they seemed to managed to recover the lose of their stock after they lost the outposts, otherwise it could be that your shares would'nt be worth the bits your loosy arguments are saved in. (and no forum posts ar'nt saved in the RAMSAN - so the value would be beneath notice)

Sadly in last consequence this open market concept was also the reason because ISS could'nt be neutral anymore, and that they finaly got their outposts raided. A neutral armed force in the region is a always a risk factor (not to talk about the accidents that are naturly conected with a bunch of trigger happy PvP'ler ;) - and most Alliances do not like nor can tolerate large markets on stations where they do not control the docking rights - for obvious reason.

I don't like to sound clever-clever but ISS had no reasonable chance to succeed with their original plan for long - not after they start to be succesfull. Because of this I rejected a board chair of ISS Logistic and did not got associated with ISS at all (and I was about to make a eve break at that time anyway, AND Stins was by far the better one for this job cause large numbers make me cracy while he somehow manage to stay quite cool :)

Why they had no chance? Because nosec is'nt about open anything - nosec is about control. Controlling ressources, controlling travel, controlling supply. Nosec was (and still is!) for to long time self sufficent to be ready for an open market. Perhabs this will change over time, but sadly ISS was to early with this plan.

Everyone who invested into this and thought they'll earn in longterm more than the granded 5% - so hard it may sound - just did'nt have a clue about nosec.

Theire new outfit do fit nosec far better: If you want a place in the pack you must bite like a wolf and don't cry "Neutrality! Neutrality!" every time you get body checked. Respect is not a matter of a brave charta but of gunpower and trickiness.

Quote:

---

Everyone remotely intelligent T2 owner in EVE knew the prices were going to drop... and definitely everyone saw the prices dropping. But instead of selling off their bad T2 investment while they could they held onto them... watching their investment wither away.

---

As Yulai Trader you should know what happens with the T2 modul market if you drop moduls worth multi-billion isk on it. How does it comes that a pointy smuggler like me need to teach a tyccon like you the most basic market rules?

Again you shown that you have no clue what ISS was about.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

you DO realize that according to the ipo, that iss was never intended to do the actual t2 production, correct?

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Edited by: Oron on 15/10/2007 16:21:42

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

you DO realize that according to the ipo, that iss was never intended to do the actual t2 production, correct?

---

I can imagin that investments into T2 BPOs could be made according to the ISS Venture Programm. So yes, investing into T2 BPOs is clearly within the scope of ISS.

In addition ISSO is somehow the descendant of the station specific IPOs, like ISS Borealis. It is quite possible that some BPOs in the posession of this station specific IPOs found their way into the ISSO assest.

In general it is a good thing for a nosec alliance to be able to replace lost items at building cost. So a small to medium scale investment into T2 BPOs is the natural choice for ANY of them. It would be ridiculous that a nosec alliance is not into ship/modul production, cause the most basic rule in nosec operations is to be self-sufficient. In the special case of ISS it is even more ridiculous to claim that a alliance planed to do T2 Modul business should not posess T2 BPOs.

In addition that info pages you like to link are clearly outdated. This pages even talk about Outposts! So your arguments are not only loosy but also based on outdated information - which would make you a prime market discussion troll. Please start thinking before posting or you'll slowly lose all reputation you may still have in this forum section.

I am slowly becoming bored on chewing the sames arguments over and over again, don't you have something with more substance?

Have a nice day,
Oron

---

Originally by: Robacz

---

I guess you guys won't stop your anti-ISSO campaign anytime soon, but I have one question - when they launched their IPO, they asked for 500 Billion. This IPO said, that they will pay over 5% if they make 10%+ profits. Did you really believe that it is possible to make stable 10%+ profit from 500 Billion??

I did not, I expected to get 5% and I get it every month + I can sell my shares anytime.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

how exactly is it that you completely MISSED the first sentence on that page? is it because you were too busy being self-righteously incorrect?

---

Quote:

---

I mean, all this *stuff* (read: ****) you're saying about a 0.0 alliance and t2 building goes DIRECTLY against what is stated plainly in the document of which you quoted page 10.

---

Quote:

---

the funny part about what i (and you) were quoting from, is that those quotes AREN'T outdated because isso folks refuse to ever talk about anything.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Argguing that info pages that talk about now raided outposts is not outdated, is just plain silly.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Edited by: Oron on 15/10/2007 20:29:56

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

how exactly is it that you completely MISSED the first sentence on that page? is it because you were too busy being self-righteously incorrect?

---

I did not missed it. It was a trap, to make you look silly. :) So your critic point is that they perhaps started the Venture Programm before they hit the 10% profit mark, using their "internal budget"? Well this is'nt exacly a "critic" you know.

Anyway. The single point I tryed to explain you is just that there are no investments that are out of scope "by charta".

They always planned to make broad investments, and now after they lost their old core business its just reasonable they look for new business. If they would'nt do that they would'nt earn a penny cause their original plan - creating a public t2 market in nosec - is just plain dead.

By requiring ISS to stick to their outdated original planes, you basicly require the disband of the alliance. I do'nt think your request would win a shakeholders vote if they had any voting stocks at all (but they do'nt).

---

Originally by: Mark Weston

---

Where did this weird idea come from that all the members of the ISS alliance were employees of the shareholders?

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I'm curious. Are you truly happy with 5% profits?

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Do you ever expect them to go above 5%?

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

You realize that nearly every IPO currently on the market earns above 5%, correct?

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I'd love an answer to each of these... so I can see just how staunch a defender of ISSO you are.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Argguing that info pages that talk about now raided outposts is not outdated, is just plain silly.

---

My brain now hurts.




But I'm so glad they are investing more into capital production... seeing as how that is definitely a winner for the future! Just as Lavista how awesome the capital market is going, he is trying to sell out because of the horrid profits. This spells good news for ISSO investors for the future, eh?

I'm curious. Are you truly happy with 5% profits? Do you ever expect them to go above 5%? You realize that nearly every IPO currently on the market earns above 5%, correct? I'd love an answer to each of these... so I can see just how staunch a defender of ISSO you are.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

You and Ezoran have shown more than once that you do not understand the natur of nosec business, therefor I tryed to help you and the readers to gain a better understanding.

In contradiction, Stins honesty is out of question and my trust in his person without limit. I know that he is expirienced in nosec business, cause he was director of my former Corporation, and I flew with him for many hours AND he is totaly hooked by the nosec.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

NONE OF THEM

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

lots of the typica non-factual trolling

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

NONE OF THEM

---

Oh really? It seems you cant trust anybody anymore. I just say I belive him (and I really did) and now its wrong? :(

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

what's funny, is i'm quoting stins and sometimes serenity and things they've posted. you're just making up stuff as you go along.

---

Quote:

---

but it's nice to see that you've decided to reveal your (now obvious) bias and possibly why you're basing everything on your opinion and not facts that have occurred in the past.

---

Quote:

---

he was, in his own trollesque way, supporting your side oron.

---

Originally by: Ezoran DuBlaidd

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

lots of the typica non-factual trolling

---

'nuff said.

but for the hell of stupidity -- if i said i could do 15% per week, but a guaranteed minimum of 1% per week and all i ever did was 1%; then, by your *standards*, i'd be damned good. as long as no one else was doing 15% a week. right?

don't answer it, it'll just be typical "give me attention" ****.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

You and Ezoran have shown more than once that you do not understand the natur of nosec business, therefor I tryed to help you and the readers to gain a better understanding.

In contradiction, Stins honesty is out of question and my trust in his person without limit. I know that he is expirienced in nosec business, cause he was director of my former Corporation, and I flew with him for many hours AND he is totaly hooked by the nosec.

---

Originally by: Mark Weston

---

Where did this weird idea come from that all the members of the ISS alliance were employees of the shareholders?

This was never remotely true, or intended to be true.

ISS is a small 0.0 alliance doing all the things alliances who are heavily involved in the Great War do. Individual pilots in ISS are going to be worrying about reinforcement timers on the F4R POSs, not maximising shareholder return.

ISSO is a business run by Stins and, presumably, a handful of assistants.

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

1. Pay more than 10% -- which is the threshold you need to see additional return

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

2. File regular reports here on the forum

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

3. Manage hundreds of billions in assets

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

4. Have faithfully paid out to shareholders for years

---

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee

---

5. Have received anything approximating the same level of criticism

---

Originally by: FastLearner

---

Sorry, but I DO run my business in no-sec.

---

Originally by: FastLearner

---

And we both made profits way better than ISSO's. If you can't make a good profit buyng in high-sec and selling in 0,.0 then you're doing somethign seriously wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Just don't come out with this "0.0 is harder than Empire" rubbish. I live, fight and trade in 0.0.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

I am not very well informed about your business, but as far as I know your shopping basket is ~20bil isk in minerals and ships/moduls? I am sure you know, everyone can pick up a cheap MAR 2 in empire and sell it in nosec for XXX% profit, and many ppl can do this at a transporter or even a freighter scale and still yield X%, like you do. Doing the same with 200bil is again a "little bit" different, is'nt? That you would prolly need more than the 2 market places you seems to use, and this is more than just one or two freighter runs per week sneaked in at off times. Would you agree?

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

Originally by: Ricdic

---

Originally by: Fury Banker

---

Ricidc made a similar error. If the minerals to build a ship are worth 18.5 but you buy them on contract for 17 million then you DON'Y make 1.5 million more profit building that ship than someone who bought the minerals for 18.5 million (assuming you both sell it for the same price). You made exactly the same profit on the ship - but you also made 1.5 million profit on the minerals.

---

Kinda silly argument though. Either way you made a profit. If you want to attribute that profit to your secondary tier (manufacturing after purchasing) then it still relates to a higher profit margin regardless

I won't release business plans that say I made a 3% profit margin on minerals purchased along with a 2% profit margin on ships produced. Whilst one could argue that this was the case it really is irrelevant in the big picture as the profit margin stays the same in both instances.

Are we all really this bored arguing such trivial points?

---

It really is not a trivial point. If you do not account for the difference then you are potentially producing items for a loss of profit.

You have to know where your profits are coming from. Buying minerals cheaper does not mean you make a larger profit producing items, it means you make more profit overall. The difference is huge. You can't let yourself believe production is profitable just because you bought the components cheaply. You always have to remember the opportunity cost. You have to know that you could sell those minerals. You then must make more producing then you could selling the minerals. If you don't split out your profit centers then you won't know if you're maximizing your profits.

And Slurm, we are NOT talking ROI. We do not care about ROI. You're right in a math sense that he is making his returns on 7 mil, no one will argue the strict definition of ROI in that case. We are saying ROI is a poor way to look at it in this case. So you can repeat 100 times the definition of ROI, we aren't arguing with you on that point.


And now that two people have shown they make the same or more money than ISSO with far less capital I think it really demands a response from Stins.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I personally can earn between 7-8% with unlimited amounts of ISK. Probably closer to 10%, but I'm being conservative.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I invested in ISSO to help the 0.0 community and I was sure the profits would be better than 5% in no short order.

---

Originally by: FastLearner

---

If you (or anyone else) seriously believes that making <10% permonth takes effort then you honestly don't have a clue. ISK really DOES grow on trees - you just need a few hours per day to pluck some.

---

Originally by: Shadarle

---

I personally can earn between 7-8% with unlimited amounts of ISK. Probably closer to 10%, but I'm being conservative.

---

Originally by: Oron

---

So if you had 200bil isk you would still only make 8% profit out of it? Well if ISS is total crap, you are only 3% better then total crap - and still 192% worser than my examplary noob in a Merlin trading a single MAR2 . I think you just lost this thread :)

---

Originally by: Oron

---

Seems even ubar isk cows like you make bad investment decisions, and investing in the original plan of ISSO was a terrible decision, because in my opinion their original "open market in nosec" plan was doomed to fail. Out of curiosity - how much profit did you expected?

---

Originally by: Oron

---

p.s. could someone pls point me to the current report of this furry investment? All I find in Eve-Search are reports from jule...

---