| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
   |
Posted - 2008.02.11 04:15:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Hexxx
Last item and then I'll end this paticular post. FastLearner; you've suggested many times now that EBANK's investors are entitled to certain levels of disclosure. I agree with the principle, but I must clarify this paticular point.
EBANK has customers and clients, it's investors relate strictly to it's Bond offering which by it's very nature is not beholden to any reporting. Further, EBANK is not required to any reporting as a private entity. That said, EBANK provides reporting and disclosure as a courtesy to our customers, clients, and investors. It is a courtesy that I intend to extend when possible but please understand that sometimes we do need to take care of our own business internally.
My issue here (and elsewhere) isn't about a responsibility on reporting results etc. It's about the fundamental issue of defining to petential and existing customers WHO Ebank is - and WHO has responsibility for making up any defaults.
Let me give a simple example:
At some stage in the future EBank has various tellers/holders of ISK. One of them scams/dies/vanishes/whatever for 50 billion worth of assets. Who is responsible for replacing that 50 billion (or at least that part of 50 billion not covered by profits)? Do you not believe that customers should KNOW who the buck stops with - and who will make good any loss of their capital caused by whatever reason (scamming by an EBank staff member is only one way in which a heavy loss could be sustained - there are others, such as accepting collateral which devalues heavily and then being defaulted on). That's why knowledge of ownership is important - as without acknowledged owners there are no formal obligations.
The issue of whether a leaving director should forfeit all right to accrued profits IS an internal one: but if that's the case then it logically follows that quitting as a director removes all obligations as well as all benefits - and hence in the event of a heavy loss all directors have to do is quit and the entire burden of the loss is logically transferred to those who remain.
I 100% agree EBank has no obligation to disclose quantity/size of loans, profits etc. That you do so is admirable - but it would be far preferable if you actually disclosed ownership/liability which investors should be entitled to.
Imagine if a Bond was launched saying "This is being run by Fred, Bill, John and Joe. We haven't decided which of us own how much of it - and if we take a loss with your capital (we've put in no capital backing the Bond) then maybe one/some/all of us will be liable for it or maybe some of us will leave and no longer be liable. Bill has private assets equal to about 7% of the Bond's value and he'll cover that much if it goes wrong. Profits will be split somehow at some point in the future possibly - but only to those still left in charge. Each of us will hold some amount of the capital - with anyone else's assets we manage being held in an undisclosed fashion which we assure you is secure."
Would YOU say that was a really sound way to detail risk to Investors? Would you feel comfortable giving them your ISK - assuming you knew a couple of them and they were of good character but had no idea about the others?
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 04:24:00 -
[62]
My previous post may seem a bit harsh - but as EBank has grown the issue of liability has been brushed under the carpet. When EBank started, Ricdic backed depositors ISK with his own wallet: which was sufficient to cover all potential losses (other than him scamming - but that's something investors have to judge the same as for any other IPO). With subsequent expansions, and the delegation of funds/assets to other people, EBank has reached the stage where there are many times Ricdic's personal wealth of ISK outside his control. Additionally with the increase of scale the risk of other forms of loss is of much larger amounts as well. In that situation just saying "well we won't say who owns how much of EBank - or who is liable for what quantity/percentage of losses" isn't really acceptable.
In RL business terms, EBank started out with Ricdic as a sole trader. It's now some sort of Private Company - but it's not even clear whether it's a partnership (where all partners are jointly/severally liable for debts) or a limited company (where liability is limited to invested capital - i.e. no liability at all in EBank's case).
How you share profits is your business. How you share liability is most definitely every customer's business. And usually there's a direct correlation between the two.
|
Asteroid Bandit
NOPHEX PRISIM
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 04:27:00 -
[63]
I like vetting the occasional statement.
Originally by: Hexxx
Let me address the ownership question. The idea of Directors having Shares was something done in the beginning that really doesn't make a lot of sense; we've never used them. For anything. In terms of ownership of EBANK, it is owned by the Board. If someone is on the Board, they have ownership. Ownership of EBANK means responsibility for protecting it, growing it, and sustaining it.
This seems to me not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Without a public disclosure of you asset handling procedures it is difficult to claim equal membership between directors. Within a single corporation there must be a CEO and with out the use of shares to distribute power equally, power is based on word alone. I think that this is what FastLearner is speaking to.
How can a client know that a director wont walk out with a chunk of EBANKs funds. How can a director stop a teller from engaging in risky or "illegal" actions. Power is an ever present question within EvE and from a cursory reading of your site and statements I can not draw a hierarchy that meets the policies espoused. I would ask of you the same I ask of any investment I comment in; Spell it out so a 13 year old can understand it. If I cant diagram it I cant trust it. (But thats just me, and I would still use EBANK)
Quote:
EBANK has customers and clients, it's investors relate strictly to it's Bond offering which by it's very nature is not beholden to any reporting. Further, EBANK is not required to any reporting as a private entity. That said, EBANK provides reporting and disclosure as a courtesy to our customers, clients, and investors. It is a courtesy that I intend to extend when possible but please understand that sometimes we do need to take care of our own business internally.
I find this to be a short sighted and hypocritical statement. EBANK is not a licensed banking institution. It is a ducktape and hope organization that through the sheer will and determination of its members has crafted a fairly robust institution out of the limited resources EvE provides.
However it is still an investment like any other that come through these forums. Though through the directorate's elevated status, so far as trust is concerned, has eliminated the use of shares for its "customers" I find it only fair that it still be beholden to the same standards it demands of the investments its members vet. You can not ask that new comers go through a process of disclosure while maintaining the right to operate as a black box entity. It strips you of the ethical high ground that EBANK relies so heavily upon.
Internal business is one thing, but as soon as something enters the forums it becomes public and you will have to answer to it in some capacity. A bell can not be un-rung.
A final note. I cant help but find that many of the "problems," or perhaps better said drama, surrounding EBANK comes from your own lack of adequate PR controls. Statements issued on behalf of EBANK are made by the same characters that also casually post and screen IPOs. EBANK directors don't speak with one voice. While vigorous debate and argument is healthy for any organization lack of a unified message leave room for doubt and speculation. I would urge all EBANK directors to keep separate characters for use as official EBANK representatives and other characters for individual opinion and use on the public forums. A third separate character (a Voice of EBANK) would also be a beneficial tool for resolute proclamations.
EBANK like all developed institutions in EvE rely on trust. Trust that can only be hurt by uncertainty and confusion. The responsibility for maintaining this trust, as you said Hexxx, lies with the directors and how you choose to represent your selves on the open forum. It's a tight rope to walk.
|
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 04:41:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Iminyour Markets
Edited by: Iminyour Markets on 11/02/2008 03:49:05
Yes, I do see the mention of two loans in default in your January report. But the critical things I'm not seeing are names of the defaulters. Was Kyrial a special case that you decided on an ad hoc basis to out, or is this a new direction in ebank's disclosure policy? It seems strange that a loan in default (or close) for 1 isk gets mentioned while other loans for 100 million times that amount is only glazed over.
That's the thing. There isn't currently a disclosure policy that properly documents how we should handle these sorts of situations. Now common sense would dictate I not say anything in the first place. Regarding CC'ing with evemails I honestly never knew that was possible but was advised of it yesterday so it will become a constant thing.
Also, we have posts up on our internal forums discussing redoing our processes around loans, disclosure and the likes. As a result of this there will be changes made to our processes to ensure this doesn't happen again (lack of communication, and privacy policies determining when and where/if disclosure is possible.
|
Iminyour Markets
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 04:51:00 -
[65]
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
That's the thing. There isn't currently a disclosure policy that properly documents how we should handle these sorts of situations. Now common sense would dictate I not say anything in the first place. Regarding CC'ing with evemails I honestly never knew that was possible but was advised of it yesterday so it will become a constant thing.
Also, we have posts up on our internal forums discussing redoing our processes around loans, disclosure and the likes. As a result of this there will be changes made to our processes to ensure this doesn't happen again (lack of communication, and privacy policies determining when and where/if disclosure is possible.
This situation seems like it is forcing ebank to make a step in the right direction. But, this does nothing to remedy the situation that has surrounded Kyrial's ipo. You could argue that it wouldn't have been successful in the first place, but it wasn't given a chance to hash itself out on its own merit before this whole drama-bomb was introduced.
It also brings one to wonder why the principle name (whether you like it or not your name is associated with ebank) would act in such an irrational and brash manner when it comes to the dealings of the bank. It's not the sort of trust that one would like to instill in potential and current customers. |
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 04:57:00 -
[66]
Originally by: FastLearner
When EBank started, Ricdic backed depositors ISK with his own wallet: which was sufficient to cover all potential losses (other than him scamming - but that's something investors have to judge the same as for any other IPO).
This is still the case. It is highly unlikely that a loan default/devaluation could break the bank. Plus all EBANK profits are reinvested meaning we have a good 10b of excess capital in use. As we grow this capital increases and will continue to do so. In the event of a default breaking the bank I would work my ass off to make sure no-one went out of pocket. Making money is easy, my personal assets are low only because I devote all my time to making the corporations I run money.
As an example, I have changed things up a bit (when I sold a batch of my shares), with a new personal idea that would make me a small fortune. Anyway working this new project (about 40 mins a day) nets me approximately 200-300m per day. I have started doing this as my personal capital was dwindling quite a bit. I generally get into that state of mind once a year or so where i spend a couple of months building capital that lasts me another year. Simply put, my personal wealth is low because I choose to have it that way. At 200m per day, I can afford to repay interest on pretty much the whole 160b or so outstanding in EBANK. Now that would assume everyone defaulted on their loans, someone made off with 30b cash on hand, and all collateral was devalued to zero.
So people investing in EBANK have my guarantee that I won't let their money disapear. Now the board aren't big fans on me speaking like this as they all feel the same way about EBANK, in that it's everyone's responsibility not just mine. I do agree, but I founded EBANK with specific documentation (as shown by yourself) stating people wouldn't lose money. In the event of a default, EBANK will soak up the loss with earnt capital. In the event of a major default, EBANK will still soak it up, or I will move my money making schemes internally to make sure we can get our capital back where we want it.
Having said that, we have about a 10b buffer right now with this increasing all the time. Next year it might be 100b which is a nice level of security against defaults and the likes. Until then we are quite strict on how our loans work, and our level of exposure against defaults/scams etc.
Quote:
In that situation just saying "well we won't say who owns how much of EBank - or who is liable for what quantity/percentage of losses" isn't really acceptable.
Consider it as me stating now that until the day EBANK closes or I get removed from my CEO position (not entirely unlikely if I keep making mistakes  ) I will be personally responsible for any losses on client funds. Having said that, I am fairly sure a good portion of the board would state the same thing (collectively ofc)
Hope this helps FL
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Alternative Methods Research Group
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 05:08:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Iminyour Markets
This situation seems like it is forcing ebank to make a step in the right direction. But, this does nothing to remedy the situation that has surrounded Kyrial's ipo. You could argue that it wouldn't have been successful in the first place, but it wasn't given a chance to hash itself out on its own merit before this whole drama-bomb was introduced.
Everyon really needs to get past this whole idea of kyrial's name being smeared or his chances of getting investors being changed by these recent events. Fact, he has made several poor attempts to gain isk using poorly formed posts where no security will be provided and no details will be given. He refuses to use any of the options available to help investors verify his ability to repay isk loaned. For the most part, all his posts seem like jokes and if you did a small amount of research on his former threads you would see this.
So please, can we drop the issue of Kyrial's great reputation taking a hit?
----------------------------------------------
Why do it the hard way when you can do it the AMARR way. |
Kyrial Tidolfas
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 05:19:00 -
[68]
mah reputation is taking a hit.
they (ricdic and friends) came from BEHIND!!!!!
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Alternative Methods Research Group
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 05:25:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Kyrial Tidolfas
mah reputation is taking a hit.
they (ricdic and friends) came from BEHIND!!!!!
Please go away.
----------------------------------------------
Why do it the hard way when you can do it the AMARR way. |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 05:43:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Originally by: Iminyour Markets
This situation seems like it is forcing ebank to make a step in the right direction. But, this does nothing to remedy the situation that has surrounded Kyrial's ipo. You could argue that it wouldn't have been successful in the first place, but it wasn't given a chance to hash itself out on its own merit before this whole drama-bomb was introduced.
Everyon really needs to get past this whole idea of kyrial's name being smeared or his chances of getting investors being changed by these recent events. Fact, he has made several poor attempts to gain isk using poorly formed posts where no security will be provided and no details will be given. He refuses to use any of the options available to help investors verify his ability to repay isk loaned. For the most part, all his posts seem like jokes and if you did a small amount of research on his former threads you would see this.
So please, can we drop the issue of Kyrial's great reputation taking a hit?
This I 100% agree with. The 1 ISK thing has done him no damage - maybe even some good (until he continued posting). His posts in this thread, the other one and previous ones are what has done him the damage.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 06:12:00 -
[71]
Originally by: FastLearner
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Everyon really needs to get past this whole idea of kyrial's name being smeared or his chances of getting investors being changed by these recent events. Fact, he has made several poor attempts to gain isk using poorly formed posts where no security will be provided and no details will be given. He refuses to use any of the options available to help investors verify his ability to repay isk loaned. For the most part, all his posts seem like jokes and if you did a small amount of research on his former threads you would see this.
So please, can we drop the issue of Kyrial's great reputation taking a hit?
This I 100% agree with. The 1 ISK thing has done him no damage - maybe even some good (until he continued posting). His posts in this thread, the other one and previous ones are what has done him the damage.
Agree with both of these posts.
This has nothing to do with Kyrial, his name was mud before the 1 isk thing started and was actually helped by the 1 isk thing. People felt sorry for him. But he didn't even know how to play the pity card and now he's lost even that.
What really is absurd is that people are taking any of this so seriously. If this had actually caused problems in a 50-100 billion isk IPO and seriously hurt the reputation of a respected member of the community beyond repair then I could understand it. But this was a stupid thing for Ricdic to do that will actually end up causing more good than bad for E-Bank as they will now have a formal policy in place for how to handle such things (or at least they had better after this). The people over-dramatizing this need to get over themselves and stop watching reality TV shows and soap operas so much.
If the two people mentioned have actually quit e-bank over this then they have to get off their high horse, this is a not such a big deal at all. If you think this is really bad then you have lived a very sheltered life.
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
McRuder
Gallente
This Space 4 Rent
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 13:58:00 -
[72]
I really do not owe anyone anything, least of all explanations or my reasons - therefore I did not give any in my OP. However, Shadarle, as usual your overinflated ego causes you to make a bunch of hot-air assumptions about me. Please refrain from concocting such ridiculous statements about my upbringing, the events that lead to my resignation, or the manner in which I conduct myself or my in-game business. If I wanted you to know anything about me I would have told you.
@ Mods: Please lock this thread. This thread was a public statement not a discussion of my sheltered life.
|
|
CCP Navigator
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 14:49:00 -
[73]
Thread locked.
Navigator, Community Representative
EVE Online, CCP Games
Email/Netfang |
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |