| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
   |
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:23:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Matalino
Edited by: Matalino on 24/10/2007 15:01:56
Originally by: Kitex
But I do find myself hoping that other IPO managers aren't paying attention, as you may actually be setting dangerous precedents.
I hope that the only precedent that I am setting is that IPO managers will communicate with the community and follow the desires of their investors. I will not even consider making any changes that are not fully supported by investors. I will also do my very best to provide an exit option for investors who do not agree with those changes.
The precedent you're setting is that your initial format was an unsecured loan of 25 billion at a rate of 4% per fortnight dressed up so the inattentive thought it was an IPO. And a lot of people didn't even notice it, due to taking at face value statements like "giving all profits to share-holders" when in fact the bulk of profits went to you so you could pay off the loan/purchase the share-holders' equity.
The danger isn't what YOU did - your proposal DID detail the financial model but just carefully avoided describing it as what it was (an unsecured loan - with no real ownership in the company and no profit-sharing). The disturbing element, to me, is that a lot of the initial discussion focussed on how good the plan to make profti for yourself was rather than looking at what the "share-holders'" got out of it - with some people conufsing the two through their own inability to understand that what they were actually being offered. The amusing thing about it is that there's actually serious debate over whether a 25 billion unsecured loan is enough for someone with no track record and no disclosed substantial assets - and whether, instead a 50 billion unsecured loan is more appropriate. In fairness, there is also discussion of a change of the model to at least make a nod in the general direction of it actually being an IPO.
You played it well. Selling Ricdic the first batch of shares was actually a master-stroke. It got the forum discussion onto how people could get shares - and away from looking at closely at what share-holders actually stood to gain. It also locked Ricdic in - no way he could then point out it was just an unsecured loan (if he'd even noticed that was the structure) as he'd risk losing his own investment if he did that. Seperating the disucssion of expansion/profit-sharing was also a smart move - as was then apparently saying that if the expansion isn't approved the profit-sharing won't change (i.e. linking them back togetehr after apparently saying they were two different issues). I suspect most forum readers haven't figured out yet the significance of that.
Well done all round basically - you've managed to keep discussion largely away from the trickier elements of the plan (those dealing with shareholder risk/return) and on the easy bits (how the plan makes you a load of cash if it goes well). Shockingly, noone at all has even noticed (or at least commented on) what's probably the biggest risk to the initial plan (and it's not scamming OR data-core prices). I'll stay out of further discussion of the plan - and it's not impossible that I may invest (depending on what changes happen to the pay-out model).
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:04:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Ricdic
hehe well it's always possible that this was his master plan. Who knows. But I don't think anyone would be able to pull off such a stunt. Plus he didn't offer me anything, I read the plan, discussed some changes, and then a few days later advised I wanted the first batch 
If we don our tin foil hats we may be onto something 
I never suggested he offered you anything (beyond the first batch of shares when you asked for them). I don't for a moment believe that he bribed you or similar - if that's how you read my remarks.
But it IS a fact that:
a) The initial plan is structured so that it behaves exactly like an unsecured loan rather than like an IPO.
b) That you either never noticed or never commented on that fact.
c) That when I pointed that out in an earlier thread, neither you or he disputed it - despite it being VERY easy to demonstrate as being wrong if it was an incorrect statement by me.
Do you disagree with either of those 3 assertions? Or would you rather just make more comments about tin-foil hats etc?
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 17:41:00 -
[3]
You may wish to update the link in your post - it currently points to the Sales forum, not to your actual thread. correct url is:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=630738
|
| |
|