| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
   |
Posted - 2008.03.10 21:18:00 -
[1]
Firstly, let me confirm that FIN is still secured in the financial sense of the word, and no assets have been lost or stolen.
Secondly, there have been no thefts or losses in FIN-U or any capital assets, intermediate products or Isk.
Over the last two months for the first time in their almost 18 month history, dividends for FIN and FIN-U have been late. FIN's dividends were paid out for this month last week, while I have not yet paid out for FIN-U as quite simply the full amount of Isk is not available to do so. I will pay this out as soon as I possibly can, and apologise for the delay. The rest of this post will be dealing with the gist of the medium to long term challenges that both corporations face.
As most people are aware, due to changes that CCP have been making to the industrial side of Eve over the last year, and tweaks in the last few patches in particular, the T2 market is currently in a free fall. I am going to try not to address the merits of the changes in here but rather the consequences.
At it's peak FIN and FIN-U represented over 400 Billion Isk in public investment in Eve spread literally thousands of investors. FIN was and always has been a pure T2 production corporation while FIN-U was involved in many spheres, from T2 production to invention and loans.
As invention profit dropped over time and my personal time to micromanage became limited, I shifted initially a large chunk, and then all of the Isk invested into FIN-U into buying up what were at the time very profitable BPOs for bargain prices (as examples many were bought on 4-5 month ROIs). With the knowledge available at the time I still feel this was a prudent move, and would have paid off well had CCP not implemented some of their most recent changes.
Over my time in Eve I built up a significant personal asset base of approximately 600 Billion Isk which I have thus far used to try help FIN and FIN-U ride what I hoped would be a short term downturn before CCP realized that their changes would destroy all high end goals within the industrial side of the game. At the time I even managed to speak to Oveur on IRC where he assured me that CCP would monitor the situation and make changes to correct it if things got "out of control".
That said, they appear (in my humble opinion), for the time being at least, to be out of control and the time has come to make a decision on the futures of both FIN and FIN-U. For the record I have not made a single personal Isk from either corporation and have in fact put a huge amount of my personal assets into both of them, not to mention time.
I am working on a proposal at the moment as to the future direction and possible solutions for both corporations but I will not post that here until I have received counsel from various trusted friends ingame, or given the investors who have put their trust in me an opportunity to suggest solutions, changes and/or resolutions.
I would ask that posts give constructive criticism and solutions to the current situation. If anyone feels the need to flame me, feel free to open a new thread and do it there. I would like to keep this as coherent as possible as a serious discussion rather than a CAOD clone forum.
In closing I would like to in particular thank Treelox and Sara Dawn for their help with both corporations over the last year, where they have picked up most of the slack left by the reduction in my personal time due to other higher priority commitments.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Khatred
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 21:32:00 -
[2]
That means you gonna sell me some prints? \o/
|
Ambo
2nd Outcasters
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 21:38:00 -
[3]
I'm not really sure what you are asking. It sounds like you're wanting advice on somewhere else to make similar money with minimal time commitment from yourself now that the T2 gold rush has come to an end.
For 400 billion, I have absolutley no idea. I've never even smelt that much money... Maybe it's time to shut up shop? Or at least downsize and do somthing different?
I don't really know what to suggest cos I'm not entirely sure what you're asking and the detail of your situation.
(Oh, for the record, I'm not an investor and have never been in production, either T1 or T2 so feel free to ignore me  )
--------------------------------------
Trader? Investor? Just want to track your finances? Check out EMMA |
Arritha
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 21:53:00 -
[4]
I am a small investor in FIN (250mil worth). FIN has been very good to me over the past year and half. But I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. So let me bullet point my key questions:
1) Are you proposing a liquidation?
2) If so, what ballpark estimate do you have for payout? 75%? 100% 150%?
I think I can safely say for all the long term investors that we will support whatever decision you ultimately make and appreciate asking us for input.
Arritha
|
Atherin Gaius
Caldari
Domini Umbrus
Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 22:00:00 -
[5]
I'm an investor and not having been involved in the day to day operations i find it hard to give you good suggestions based on what is happening in the corp.
I would be more interested to see what ideas you had and then discuss them. Maybe instead of doing it here,if you don't want everyone commenting, you could set up a mailing list that we could discuss them in?
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 22:04:00 -
[6]
Can I have your stuff?
In all seriousness I may be able/willing to buy up some of your T2 BPO's if that is something you are looking into.
Otherwise it's hard to tell what you're looking for, discussion/answer wise. So I'll just assume you want to sell a lot of T2 BPO's to me
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 22:33:00 -
[7]
I'm sorry if I did not make it clear in my post. Essentially both corps have a rather large amount of T2 BPOs as their income producing base. That income is decreasing and with that decrease in income, the value of the asset base (for now at least).
Taking that situations into account, I am opening the floor up to suggestions as to how to proceed under various situations. I am honestly not sure exactly what the BPO values of each corp would be but my rough guess would be 75% for FIN and maybe 80% for FIN-U. They both still make fairly decent money, but not enough to cover the given minimums of 4% and 7% respectively for FIN and FIN-U.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Ghost Emperor
Amarr
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 22:59:00 -
[8]
First off, thanks for the hard work, inspiration and thought that have gone into FIN/FIN-U to date, FIN has been very good to EMFI over time and has paid out a huge amounts of isk.
However, it is getting more difficult to run T2 corps 4 sure.
We're Not sure what to suggest atm, as large investors in both of your corps it would be good to see a plan for survival/merger, but if it is proving to much like work then we are open to other ideas...
All the best from EMFI
P.S. I also have people interested in T2 BPOs ;)
EvE Galactic Stock Exchange and Real-time Eve Stock Exchange EMFI blog at: http://emfi.blogspot.com/ |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:24:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Eefrit
They both still make fairly decent money, but not enough to cover the given minimums of 4% and 7% respectively for FIN and FIN-U.
Ouch...
How is that possible?
Did you buy that many T2 BPO's before the massive price crash 9-12 months ago? Lately the price of T2 BPO's has kinda leveled off it seems to me... how are you valuing things?
I would think that any T2 BPO you are producing from should be earning at least 4-5% per month from that production or it isn't worth your time/effort. I personally have 5 diff T2 BPO's and all of them earn well over 7%/month... and they are not even remotely rare BPO's or highly sought after ones. They are just basic, generic BPOs. Is it just because you had very popular BPO's that now are nearly worthless because of increased invention and increased T2 component prices? Or is it just regular old BPO's that you bought prior to the crash and thus are now worth 1/2 to 1/10th what they once were?
It just seems like 4% is a terribly low number and should easily be able to be made.
On a totally different topic, have you heard from Ionia lately? You two seemed to know each other quite well as Ionia often spoke on your behalf and even conducted auctions on your behalf, so do you know anything that we all should know?
|
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:30:00 -
[10]
Eefrit, mate you probably realised by now but i've got a lot of love for you because of what you have done with the "FIN" brand.
I've had your bonds through my fingers a few times, have made quite a profit by now and still have my orignial stake, something that introduced me to the eve stocks and bonds market and gave it major *trust* imo.
I've some ideas of what i'd prefer to see happen with FIN and FIN-U but before I go into them, a question for you if you don't mind?
Do you find running/managing and keeping FIN/FIN-U going and profitable fun still? Is it what you hoped it would be?
I cannot really give my opinion on anything without knowing the answer to those.
[/url]
Proud member of the Caldari Death Squad
|
Haka Aragon
Caldari
F.M.J. operations
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:38:00 -
[11]
I currently own 5000 shares with you and I agree that whatever you decide to do with the corporations in the end is your decision.
I have no problems in trusting you with my money again in the future should you start another venture.
_
|
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 00:43:00 -
[12]
I am an extremely small time investor. (I won't bother to say how many shares I own)
If the payments are coming late, why not adjust the period and percentage of return? Given the recent turn of the market, I think many people would be understanding in your choice to change those things. You seem to have a very solid background in the eve markets, so my suggestion may or may not be viable.
I will ask the same questions as the other posters here and ask if it's still fun for you.
Also, what about liquidating some assets and funding a different business venture with the released capital? You could keep the two corporations earning, offer some stock buy back, reduce your liabilities, and invest in other avenues of revenues :).
I wish I could offer a more constructive solution that that, but your market sense on what is profitable and what is not seems, as I said, to be quite solid. I've trusted you with my measly investment so far, and you've yet to let me down. Good luck on the final decision!
-Mikron
____________________________________________________________________]
"Did you just smacktalk my grandma?"
|
Feng Schui
Minmatar
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 01:20:00 -
[13]
BPC's.
People will pay some good isk for good, clean BPO copies.
Project:Gank
Pilgrim Guide
|
SencneS
Amarr
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 01:38:00 -
[14]
I don't think I could tell you anything you don't already know. What I can tell you what I would consider if I was in the saturation you're in.
Two corporations are not meeting the minimal requirements you put forth in the prospectus, but can one if the other one wasn't around?
In the real world they call it Synergy, the word investors love to hear, and workers dread. It might be time to merge FIN-U and FIN together in order to meet the needs of one rather then struggling to achieve them both.
If my memory servers me correctly you are unable to create any more FIN shares, so that leaves FIN-U shares. Can FIN-U generate 1/100th of FIN's public shares as additional shares?
Issue a final FIN dividend, announce no more dividends, have a share exchange 100 FIN shares gets you 1 FIN-U share, move all the FIN assets over to FIN-U.
Please note this idea is around zero knowledge of the back end workings of either corporation, I do not know if that is even possible. But it's clear if something doesn't happen to make one of them stronger, they are both heading for the failure bin.
Amarr for Life |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 01:39:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Feng Schui
BPC's.
People will pay some good isk for good, clean BPO copies.
Very good point. A set of well researched BPO copies would fetch a nice price and demand would be quite high. Although I've never had a t2 BPO and have no idea how long copying takes, this would seem like a good way to go for generating revenue on prints that might be sitting idle if there are any at all. My only concern is the time that must be invested just to make the copy instead of the actual product. There will more than likely be a significant profit differential. However, this would be one route to take to keep all assets operating at maximum efficiency.
____________________________________________________________________]
"Did you just smacktalk my grandma?"
|
Margret Putnam
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 01:59:00 -
[16]
If no one is buying the items themselves, who would buy the BPC?
|
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 02:13:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Mikron Alexarr on 11/03/2008 02:13:45
Originally by: Margret Putnam
If no one is buying the items themselves, who would buy the BPC?
Producers that have access to the minerals, but don't have access to the avenues of invention would be interested.
Additionally, this is not just about the volume of materials moving, it's the price of those items. If the cost of production of the copy of the BPO is less than the price of production for inventing the BPC, this copying process could show potential as a source of income. If the cost doesn't work, it would still be a way of keeping the BPO busy even while it's not in production. This is also assuming that the BPOs experience some sort of idle time.
____________________________________________________________________]
"Did you just smacktalk my grandma?"
|
Feng Schui
Minmatar
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 02:40:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Feng Schui on 11/03/2008 02:41:14
Originally by: Margret Putnam
If no one is buying the items themselves, who would buy the BPC?
Its not that people are not buying the items, its the fact that there is so much competition now, that prices are plummeting while the cost to make the items is rising. The potential profit is just not there anymore.
Lets take the hypothetical T2 item:
An inventor will probably have to spend at least 5 million just to make a successful copy, not too mention the negative ME and PE on those copies.
Now, lets also say, that it takes 1 million isk to build the item, and it sells at 1.2 million isk (Invention costs), and 750k isk to build from a BPO.
BPO Profit: 63% Profit, or 450,000 ISK per item.
BPC (Invention) Profit: 0% profit (in fact, they actually end up 3 million isk in the hole... but hey, decryptors and etc.. are free since you get them yourself, right?  )
Ok.. so inventing item A produces 63% profit for a BPO holder, but 0% profit for an inventor, taking into account market costs + chance.
Now, lets take a look at the profit percentages of BPO Copying.
As I said, lets say it costs 5 million ISK to make 1 BPC, 15 runs, for an inventor.
Since copying is relatively cheap if you have the skills + POS, lets say it costs 500k ISK to make a max run copy of a BPO.
You can then sell this BPC for, oh, lets say, 5 million ISK. This is the cost that the inventor would have done, but he would have gotten a negative ME and negative PE bpc.
The inventor's cost of getting the BPC remains the same. His cost of production is lowered, his profits go up.
How about the BPO holder? Remember, he was making 63% profit on manufacturing. With copying, he has made 1000% profit.
Project:Gank
Pilgrim Guide
|
cosmoray
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:19:00 -
[19]
If the market is in really bad shape and you are not able to meet your IPO dividend goals, I would consider at least a partial liquidation.
Sell off the less profitable assets or corporation, and return the excess capital to shareholders via large dividends. Shareholders should be able to make better than 4 or 7% on their money.
This also makes sense if you do not have the time to manage such a large corporation/s.
You want to be left with:
1. A corporation of a size you have the time and are happy working with
2. A NAV that provides a good return to shareholders
|
Khatred
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:48:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Feng Schui
stuff
So much space wasted. Do you even know how t2 bpos work?
|
DarkStar251
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 04:22:00 -
[21]
As a relatively small time FIN investor, I'm pretty much willing to go along with whatever is decided.
I wouldn't ask Eefrit to put more of his time in for no reward, so I'm leaning toward a liquidation myself....
As a complete aside, don't suppose you have info on the whereabouts of Ionia? :P
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 09:44:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Imperius Blackheart
Do you find running/managing and keeping FIN/FIN-U going and profitable fun still? Is it what you hoped it would be?
Hi Imperius, and thanks for always being a positive support behind the scenes over the years.
To answer your question, I would like to keep both running, and quite honestly it would not take a huge change to keep them both viable, as they are missing target by a small margin each. If CCP tweak invention back a little or the irrational selling by inventors reduces, then they will meet target again. I have posted this, as I would rather be honest with people as to the current situation than try fix it or make changes with investors in the dark.
Originally by: Feng Schui
BPC's.
People will pay some good isk for good, clean BPO copies.
We have been doing that on some of the BPOs that we have duplicates of or are selling at below cost. You are correct that it does make Isk, but it is not a real long term solution here for all the BPOs.
Originally by: Shadarle
How is that possible?
Within the context of your post, I respectfully point out that you are comparing current to historical which is not really plausible with corporations that took in most of their investment well over a year ago. I have no intention of discussing historical decisions with hindsight as I still believe with the information available at the time, they were the correct decisions to make.
Originally by: SencneS
Issue a final FIN dividend, announce no more dividends, have a share exchange 100 FIN shares gets you 1 FIN-U share, move all the FIN assets over to FIN-U.
SencneS, I would also like to thank you, like Imperius for your support. There are a few variations along this line that I have been considering, but a direct exchange like that would exacerbate the situation rather than correct it. The general idea of consolidation would be feasible but under FIN and not FIN-U, but to do that there would need to be a vote among current FIN investors to amend the Investors Agreement.
I will go into more details on this option later this week when I present various options after all investors have had a chance to give their input.
Originally by: DarkStar251
As a complete aside, don't suppose you have info on the whereabouts of Ionia? :P
I will repost what I said in another thread regarding this question:
I am not sure what has happened with Ionia as I have not spoken to him on IM (or in fact seen him on any IM) for many months now.
I do know that he was having some personal problems of a medical nature for the last two months that I spoke to him, but more than that I will not say. It is possible that the "hit by a bus" scenario is in place with FRPB, but I can not be sure until I manage to get hold of Ionia.
Whatever has happened, I hope to see Ionia back ingame one day regardless of how FRBP turns out
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
azurisk
Caldari
Next-Gen
Next-Gen Group
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 10:53:00 -
[23]
Well I have been happy all this time while you ran the FIN businesses. I might have some ideas or could be able to help out. If i catch you online i'll open a convo. If i catch you online :)
best regards,
azurisk
|
CmdDesaster
Marquie-X Corp
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 12:41:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Eefrit
I would ask that posts give constructive criticism and solutions to the current situation. If anyone feels the need to flame me, feel free to open a new thread and do it there. I would like to keep this as coherent as possible as a serious discussion rather than a CAOD clone forum.
Sell the least profitable BPOs and invest the money in the most profitable inventions.
If you want to continue this enterprise (I truely hope so):
- no new T2-BPOs, constantly dropping DC/decryptor-costs, perma-boosts by CCP... invention is the future, it's as simple as that.
- you'll have to make this "byebye isk printer"-cut anyway, so why not now?
- there are already decent profits in inventions
As long as you still have fun and they whole enterprise is aligned forward, I see no problem with lower dividends. Until CCP has finished fooling round with the market, I don't even see reason for excuses.
/me throws in a potion of trust
|
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 13:54:00 -
[25]
Thanks for the answer Eefrit, someone already asked what I would like to suggest in effect.
Essentially if you are still enjoying it and want to keep the business going thats awesome, and i'm really happy to hear it.
Would it be viable/benifical to consolidate the funds, in effect do away with FIN and FIN-U and make "FIN-NEW", the bonds could be traded in for the new bonds, and would hopefully allow a re-issue of some new bonds to the market.
Perhaps managing one fund with more flexability might be easier, allow you more time to ensure that targets are met and a mid point between the funds return might be able to be found.
These days i'm a lot richer than I was when I originally brought into FIN and FIN-U and would buy into a new bond, I assume this would be the same for many people allowing more liquidity to get the ball rolling again.
I'll probably be corrected if this is wrong, but I think that FIN is the longest running bond offering now by far which has already returned way above the original 100% and that has built up a lot of goodwill towards you and EFS for such a move IMO.
Of course if logisitically this causes more headaches than it solves then it might be time to redefine the bonds to a different time scale for payouts and or slightly lower returns.
[/url]
Proud member of the Caldari Death Squad
|
cosmoray
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 16:53:00 -
[26]
Have to be careful not to hang on to long for the sake of it.
Better to take some money out, and make a better return on a smaller set of assets. Release some equity back to the shareholders.
|
DarkStar251
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 17:01:00 -
[27]
How about a removal of the 4% and 7% minimums, meaning each stock pays out what it makes, with an optional buyback by eefrit at say, 75% of issue price for those that want out?
75% should mean eefrit is not losing money on it, as he can liquidise assets and get that back.
|
gnomer
Moons of Pluto
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 17:20:00 -
[28]
Originally by: DarkStar251
How about a removal of the 4% and 7% minimums, meaning each stock pays out what it makes, with an optional buyback by eefrit at say, 75% of issue price for those that want out?
75% should mean eefrit is not losing money on it, as he can liquidise assets and get that back.
If assets aren't making money sell them.
Don't set a buyback at 75%. If you do that you wipe 25% of the share value.
Just sell assets and do an extraordinary dividend.
Sorry to be brutal if the returns are no longer there, return the money to the shareholders.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 18:05:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Shadarle
How is that possible?
Within the context of your post, I respectfully point out that you are comparing current to historical which is not really plausible with corporations that took in most of their investment well over a year ago. I have no intention of discussing historical decisions with hindsight as I still believe with the information available at the time, they were the correct decisions to make.
Respectfully, I did ask if the reason for low profit was due to buying the BPO's before the big price drops. It sounds like the answer to that was Yes.
If this is the case then it sounds like the problem is that you never revalued anything as prices dropped. In theory you should have been counting the reduced prices of the BPO's as losses each month, so as to still correctly value everything. Basically the NAV should have been dropping as BPO value dropped. If not it would lead to a situation where the profit for each BPO was extremely tiny based on valuation but normal based on real value.
I know you don't want to cause shareholders to lose money on their investment, but it sounds like your BPO's aren't worth what they were... so they already have really... you just havn't accounted for it from what it sounds like.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is what I'm getting from what you've posted.
Unless you're saying that if you sold every BPO and all materials you'd be able to reimburse all of the money to all investors. If not then it's time to revalue everything, inform investors of the loss, then decide on a path forward. You could forgo divs till the value is made up, just work from that lower value, cut divs a bit and work the value up slower, etc.
|
Emmeleth
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 18:38:00 -
[30]
Well for my 2 cents Feng Schui got me interested in Fin and Fin-U and i have a few billion invested and have been very happy and i trust your buisiness ventures, no flamers please but maybe if you take Fin-U down a percentage point on return to 6% maybe you will meet that goal with a promise to raise it when and if CCP makes changes,just a thought!
|
CrazyCoolie
Lucky Hydra Corp
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 19:09:00 -
[31]
Eefrit, as a bond holder of fin-u, i think you should do whatever you think is best.
|
Ginea Moya
Caldari
O.P.T
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 19:18:00 -
[32]
I'm an investor, but so tiny an investor that I don't think I should say much of anything, other than this:
I bought into FIN due to a friend's advice, with faith in his judgement rather than mine. I know nothing about finance and least of all finance in EVE.
I have, however, grown to trust FIN and FIN-U and your management of both. Hell, I didn't even need to get advice or a second opinion, when FIN-U opened, in order to decide to invest in it.
I have as much faith in your pulling us, the investors, through this new situation as I did in your being able to do so then.
If by some miracle, I were to think of something, I'll post it here, but for the moment, whatever you decide will be alright by me.
|
Unfamed II
FinFleet
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 19:29:00 -
[33]
Part of me was sort of expecting something like this much sooner than this, after all, FIN took a major hit when CCP decided about invention. At first, FIN was paying _more_ than just the guaranteed 4% dividends and nearly instantly after invention started rolling at full speed, dropped to the guaranteed level. Must have been hard on you personally, as well as it was to FIN.
So far you've done superb job from investor point of view, and I trust you to make the right choice (if theres some to be made) for both investors and FIN itself.
It's been nice enjoying eve when dividends pay for gtc's.
Originally by: Sandslinger of CA
So this wasn't a straightoff logoffski from our point of view, rather a tactical manoeuvre
|
Zoe Midoru
Phoenix Aeronautics
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 19:44:00 -
[34]
Shadarle is, as usual, making a lot of sense.
That said, I think the biggest problem here is that due to invention, FIN and FIN-U can no longer maintain their stated business goals and objectives on behalf of their shareholders. It's important, I think, to admit that up front and restructure as soon as possible as cleanly as possible. You already know that you can't 'keep your promises' to your investors, so you need to look at your assets, decide what you can do with those assets to maximize profits (and continue doing what you want in game). There will probably be losses to your investors along the way; I don't think your job is to prevent this, but rather to minimize it. It's not your fault that invention was released, and not your fault that your investors didn't divest of your shares despite knowing themselves that invention was likely to gut-punch their investments.
The question now is what can you do to maxmize the situation going forward.
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 20:01:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Shadarle
In theory you should have been counting the reduced prices of the BPO's as losses each month, so as to still correctly value everything. Basically the NAV should have been dropping as BPO value dropped.
Shadarle, you are missing historical posts made by myself months ago. I reported that NAV had dropped and as such dropped the dividends to a minimum so that the excess could be reinvested to bring the NAV up.
Also the original offering stated as a risk that the BPO values could drop by more than the margin of 20% given in which case the security would be below total. You will find that both corporations have been run to the letter of the original agreements, and as such everything has been done exactly as it should have.
/Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 20:06:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Zoe Midoru
I don't think your job is to prevent this, but rather to minimize it. It's not your fault that invention was released, and not your fault that your investors didn't divest of your shares despite knowing themselves that invention was likely to gut-punch their investments.
The question now is what can you do to maxmize the situation going forward.
Very succinctly put Zoe.
That is exactly what this post was all about really, as that is the decision going forward. The big question is whether it would be more beneficial to investors to pack up and take the hit now, or implement some sort of restructure plan that may be better in the long run. As I have said, I have a few ideas, but I wanted to get some input from investors before any formal options were presented - they all deserve that at lease.
/Eefrit
|
Sarah MinTai
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 21:39:00 -
[37]
I have a question, how much of the monthly profit do u reinvest? every company can only survive if it invests some money for future plans.
so here my suggestion: reduce the divident for a few month, maybe to zero, and invest the money u get in whatever is worth it, eg. covetor bpos for invention or profitable t2 bpos. also sell unprofitable bpos and invest the money in better ones. so u can reorganize your buisness and investors will be happy in a few months when they get again the 4% and 7% minimum divident.
|
Taloic
Caldari
Black Watch Regiment
New Eden Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 22:59:00 -
[38]
Well this explains what I originally thought was a bug that hit me during the monthly payout when I sent you that eve-mail.
Eefrit You have always been honest and upfront about every decision you have made.
Im with you to the end man im pretty sure like all others ive already covered the original investment from your monthly payouts. 1000 shares here.
Drop the payouts down to minimums; if needed drop Fin-U below the 7% to 4% for awhile if the fund needs a boost to survive and cope with the market changes.
If you are still enjoying doing what you are doing you have my support.
If it has become a albatross around your neck you have my support to liquidate the assets and buyout all of the shares also.
Either way were with you...... well this shareholder is anyway.
|
Elias Riikonen
|
Posted - 2008.03.12 00:01:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Elias Riikonen on 12/03/2008 00:05:33
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Zoe Midoru
I don't think your job is to prevent this, but rather to minimize it. It's not your fault that invention was released, and not your fault that your investors didn't divest of your shares despite knowing themselves that invention was likely to gut-punch their investments.
The question now is what can you do to maxmize the situation going forward.
Very succinctly put Zoe.
That is exactly what this post was all about really, as that is the decision going forward.
So it was foolish of me to believe that FIN actually was a fully secured investment, when I bought 1b of shares from a shareholder about a week ago?
Originally by: Eefrit
Firstly, let me confirm that FIN is still secured in the financial sense of the word
What were you talking about when you said this as the first thing in this thread?
|
DarkStar251
|
Posted - 2008.03.12 01:37:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
So it was foolish of me to believe that FIN actually was a fully secured investment, when I bought 1b of shares from a shareholder about a week ago?
Originally by: Eefrit
Firstly, let me confirm that FIN is still secured in the financial sense of the word
What were you talking about when you said this as the first thing in this thread?
FIN is secured against Eefrit being a Scammer.
As all the T2 BPOs are locked down and others have joint access, Eefrit cannot steal them.
However, there is no way to secure against price crashes in the T2 BPO market.
|
Block Ukx
KDM Corp
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2008.03.12 01:47:00 -
[41]
Aren't FIN and FIN-U both bonds?
If that's the case, then NAV is irrelevant.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Elias Riikonen
|
Posted - 2008.03.12 01:48:00 -
[42]
Originally by: DarkStar251
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
So it was foolish of me to believe that FIN actually was a fully secured investment, when I bought 1b of shares from a shareholder about a week ago?
Originally by: Eefrit
Firstly, let me confirm that FIN is still secured in the financial sense of the word
What were you talking about when you said this as the first thing in this thread?
FIN is secured against Eefrit being a Scammer.
As all the T2 BPOs are locked down and others have joint access, Eefrit cannot steal them.
However, there is no way to secure against price crashes in the T2 BPO market.
I don't think you're talking about the financial sense of "secured". For example, a "secured loan" is defined as "A type of bond that is secured by the issuer's pledge of a specific asset, which is a form of collateral on the loan." (Linkage)
Earlier, FIN was secured in exactly this sense. Collateral covering the investments was set aside. I was under the impression that FIN was still secured in this sense, and it does indeed seem that Eefrit himself also has been saying so, even when starting this thread.
|
Elias Riikonen
|
Posted - 2008.03.12 01:59:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Aren't FIN and FIN-U both bonds?
If that's the case, then NAV is irrelevant.
Good point. Even if it turned out that these bonds weren't secured in the financial sense of the word, despite Eefrit's assurances, that wouldn't relieve him of the responsibility to pay back the bonds.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 04:17:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Aren't FIN and FIN-U both bonds?
If that's the case, then NAV is irrelevant.
I did not realize these are bonds. But if they are indeed bonds then he is rather screwed... as he would not be allowed to lower payments and would have to find some way to continue to pay them as is. Unless of course he has been treating them as stocks the whole time... in which case they really are stocks and not bonds. The fact that he has been paying out variable interest in the past, or at least had to drop the interest on some of them, would seem to imply they are bonds in name only.
Originally by: Eefrit
Shadarle, you are missing historical posts made by myself months ago.
Yes, I must have. Even though I read this forum multiple times each and every day and have made multiple posts nearly every day. Perhaps the reason I missed your posts is because of how infrequently they have been made. I believe I may have seen two posts in the last 9 months from you about FIN/FIN-U. I don't recall either being substantial posts, perhaps one was a full post recap, the other was quite short if I recall. I don't think you should be lecturing me on my lack of effort put forth to keeping up to date with FIN/FIN-U, instead I would put forth the notion that it is you that did not keep investors very well informed as to what was going on. Perhaps you will explain this under the easy "it is a bond and I don't have to tell anyone anything" answer that Ionia seems fond of. But that is quite a cop out.
Speaking of which, you ignored my question about Ionia. Care to tell us if you have any info about Ionia?
Finally, you seem to want solutions on how to move forward. I've given you such a suggestion, you don't seem too interested in it. Yet it doesn't seem anyone else has really put forward any workable solutions either... so what is your plan?
|
Katashi Ishizuka
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 04:35:00 -
[45]
In a previous investor email you were offering limited share buybacks at or close to the original share purchase, iirc.
Is this program still ongoing?
|
Erfnam
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 05:35:00 -
[46]
Dividends from both corps have been paying out nicely for a very long time. If you'd slip the payout by a small margin, then you could issue a vote requesting a 1-2 month lowered payout rate while inventors become a little more sane with their pricing.
--
Return of the Erf
|
Treelox
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 05:41:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Eefrit
Shadarle, you are missing historical posts made by myself months ago.
Yes, I must have. Even though I read this forum multiple times each and every day and have made multiple posts nearly every day. Perhaps the reason I missed your posts is because of how infrequently they have been made. I believe I may have seen two posts in the last 9 months from you about FIN/FIN-U. I don't recall either being substantial posts, perhaps one was a full post recap, the other was quite short if I recall. I don't think you should be lecturing me on my lack of effort put forth to keeping up to date with FIN/FIN-U, instead I would put forth the notion that it is you that did not keep investors very well informed as to what was going on. Perhaps you will explain this under the easy "it is a bond and I don't have to tell anyone anything" answer that Ionia seems fond of. But that is quite a cop out.
Hmm ok, read multiple times a day.....
Originally by: Shadarle
Speaking of which, you ignored my question about Ionia. Care to tell us if you have any info about Ionia?
ohh sweat irony.....
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: DarkStar251
As a complete aside, don't suppose you have info on the whereabouts of Ionia? :P
I will repost what I said in another thread regarding this question:
I am not sure what has happened with Ionia as I have not spoken to him on IM (or in fact seen him on any IM) for many months now.
I do know that he was having some personal problems of a medical nature for the last two months that I spoke to him, but more than that I will not say. It is possible that the "hit by a bus" scenario is in place with FRPB, but I can not be sure until I manage to get hold of Ionia.
Whatever has happened, I hope to see Ionia back ingame one day regardless of how FRBP turns out
Apparently Shadarle, you need to work on those reading skills some more....
--
|
Ray McCormack
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 10:33:00 -
[48]
All you morons posting about security and guaranteed bond payments need to understand a few things. If the ISK is not available to pay the minimum returns how can you reasonably expect those payments to be maintained? The solution is to find a happy medium between the bond operator and the bond holders. You cannot logically insist he pay the minimum return regardless of what CCP has done. What you're proposing simply means the corporation should declare bankruptcy and liquidate, and if you cannot see the evils in that then you have no place claiming guaranteed returns should be met.
|
Elias Riikonen
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 20:43:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Elias Riikonen on 13/03/2008 20:45:19
Originally by: Ray McCormack
All you morons posting about security and guaranteed bond payments need to understand a few things. If the ISK is not available to pay the minimum returns how can you reasonably expect those payments to be maintained?
In the message starting this thread, Eefrit claimed to have built up a personal asset base of 600b, and I got the impression that he hasn't burnt that away yet.
He also said "FIN is still secured in the financial sense of the word", which also means that the ISK is available. (Though it might be that that statement was not truthful.)
Originally by: Ray McCormack
The solution is to find a happy medium between the bond operator and the bond holders. You cannot logically insist he pay the minimum return regardless of what CCP has done. What you're proposing simply means the corporation should declare bankruptcy and liquidate, and if you cannot see the evils in that then you have no place claiming guaranteed returns should be met.
What are the evils in that? When a person finances a business with a bond, it is the business operator who bears the risks of the business being successful, not the bond holders (who just bear the risk of the business operator being unable to pay).
I just bought my share of the bond a bit over a week ago, and have never received any dividends from this business, but somehow you think it's fair that I should bear the costs of the business failing, instead of the person who decided to finance the business with a bond?
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 21:31:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
Edited by: Elias Riikonen on 13/03/2008 20:45:19
Originally by: Ray McCormack
All you morons posting about security and guaranteed bond payments need to understand a few things. If the ISK is not available to pay the minimum returns how can you reasonably expect those payments to be maintained?
In the message starting this thread, Eefrit claimed to have built up a personal asset base of 600b, and I got the impression that he hasn't burnt that away yet.
He also said "FIN is still secured in the financial sense of the word", which also means that the ISK is available. (Though it might be that that statement was not truthful.)
Originally by: Ray McCormack
The solution is to find a happy medium between the bond operator and the bond holders. You cannot logically insist he pay the minimum return regardless of what CCP has done. What you're proposing simply means the corporation should declare bankruptcy and liquidate, and if you cannot see the evils in that then you have no place claiming guaranteed returns should be met.
What are the evils in that? When a person finances a business with a bond, it is the business operator who bears the risks of the business being successful, not the bond holders (who just bear the risk of the business operator being unable to pay).
I just bought my share of the bond a bit over a week ago, and have never received any dividends from this business, but somehow you think it's fair that I should bear the costs of the business failing, instead of the person who decided to finance the business with a bond?
This is very true.
If this is indeed supposed to be a bond then the shareholders should have zero concerns unless it turns scam. Now, do I know if this is indeed a bond and not truly a stock being called a bond? No. Perhaps this has been run more as a regular IPO than as a bond... in which case it's a bit murky. But if Eefrit is determined to call it a bond then he really has two choices, pay the divs as promised or liquidate, unless of course he set a specific end date in which case he must pay divs till that point.
Of course, this is a game, and I'm sure no one will hold him to that. People will mostly all say "you've done an amazing job so far and I trust you to do whatever you want". So honestly Eefrit can prob do whatever he wants because most investors are spineless and are too afraid of upsetting the person they invested in.
As to this:
Quote:
Apparently Shadarle, you need to work on those reading skills some more....
I think almost any regular here would agree, I post here and read these forums WAY too much.
But feel free to go after me now that I've pointed out the obvious about a ipo/bond you have a personal interest/stake in. Generally people like that I'm tenacious in going after everyone... until of course everyone includes them or people they are very close to.
This could have been handled much better, but that's in the past, now the only thing left is to handle it correctly as it goes forward. I have yet to see many suggestions posted... I've only seen that mine doesn't seem too likely to be accepted.
|
Treelox
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 21:41:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Shadarle
As to this:
Originally by: Treelox
Apparently Shadarle, you need to work on those reading skills some more....
I think almost any regular here would agree, I post here and read these forums WAY too much.
But feel free to go after me now that I've pointed out the obvious about a ipo/bond you have a personal interest/stake in. Generally people like that I'm tenacious in going after everyone... until of course everyone includes them or people they are very close to.
This could have been handled much better, but that's in the past, now the only thing left is to handle it correctly as it goes forward. I have yet to see many suggestions posted... I've only seen that mine doesn't seem too likely to be accepted.
Honestly I have no real "stake" in the matter one way or the other, I am indifferent to any option that Eefrit and the bond holders choose. The main reason for my indifference is that I fail to see a solution that will keep everyone happy.
I just could not pass up the chance to point out a fault in the normal elitist prik persona that you normally portray. If you notice the "going after you" was not directed at all towards any of your actual ideas based upon the OP's query of his investor base, since I believe that those ideas that you did put forth have merit.
--
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Sophie Daigneau
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 21:50:00 -
[52]
My personal recommendation is to stick it out. Its a rough time right now in the T2 market. I just checked this morning and Dysprosium was selling for 70k/unit, which works out nearly 5b/month from a single moon. When you have so much profits essentially locked up in one place it puts downward pressure on margins all along the rest of the T2 manufacturing process.
Sooner or later, and hopefully sooner, CCP will be forced to face the fact that we've maxed out on Promethium/Dysprosium production in the universe and do something to relieve that pressure. When that happens I believe you'll see a more even distribution of margins across the entire T2 manufacturing chain than you see now.
|
Vuxacha
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 05:16:00 -
[53]
I was one of those who bought into FIN after a recomendation by Dark Shikari all those years ago.
I don't think investors are cowards for leaving Eefrit alone. He has paid for so long that he has simply built up a lot of support for himself. Unfortunately for me, I used my FIN shares as collateral with someone who went AWOL (I went AWOL first though) so I'm barely an investor anymore.
Still, I've always been grateful to FIN.
IIRC, ISS also had a lot of trust. Course I bought ISS CA only months before IAC or whoever took it off em so I wasn't too fond, but others certainly were.
|
FastLearner
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 07:43:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Block Ukx
Aren't FIN and FIN-U both bonds?
If that's the case, then NAV is irrelevant.
I did not realize these are bonds. But if they are indeed bonds then he is rather screwed... as he would not be allowed to lower payments and would have to find some way to continue to pay them as is.
Here's a quote from the sales thread (linked in Eefrit's sig):
"There will be a limited re-release to the public of the only fully secured, guaranteed return investment in the history of Eve - Zero risk of scamming or diminishing returns!
The numbers of bonds available will change over time, but I will try keep the numbers up to date in my daily bumps."
They're called bonds and have "zero risk of diminishing returns". Think that's about as clear as you can get.
|
Lenore Amarral
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 13:03:00 -
[55]
In my understanding CCP has chosen to focus changes in the area of T2 BPOs, and production from them, to remove the advantage it was creating for farmers (conducting isk sales for real currency outside of game). Although there may be other, and arguably more effective, means to rid the universe of these parasites I support their decisions to that end. I am a small investor also and, although I appreciate the dividends I have received as an investor who bought in early on, I have not been appreciative of the growth and expansionist behaviour of FIN and FIN U. As a staunch supporter of a free market I maintain the markets must remain free for the true benefit to exist. As such I am not in support of endeavours that remove value from the market in terms of ownership opportunities for everyone, should they reach the asset level, being eliminated by way of investment groups like FIN and FIN U who always seems to force up the prices and compete against players whose assets are not as deep. As a player, I own a few T2 BPOs but have lost out on acquisitions that were truly important to me but could not match what entities like FIN, FIN U and others have been able and willing to pay.
I would gladly forfeit all of my invested ISK for the opportunity to see more BPOs taken out of the hands of entities who have massive holdings of these items. I firmly believe the game is not served by them being monopolized by either farmers or investment groups.
From a strictly business perspective, if the profit is not meeting targets then the assets should be sold. (I will hope and pray that the assets do not merely shift into the hands of other hoarders). As for the investors and their investments: who wouldn't love to have 400 billion ISK as capitol to start up or grow a business in game. I am astounded at the shift in power afforded FIN and FIN U and can only imagine how many other entities exist on or above that level. Greed is a sickness. Insatiable appetites are evil. When enough is never enough and growth for the sake of growth takes the highest priority everything suffers. I support the changes that undermine the ridiculous profits and consolidation of wealth afforded by T2 BPO monopolies.
Bottom line. As an investor I would like to see the entities valued accurately and the majority of the assets sold with a few retained that meet or exceed targets while being manageable and fun for the principles. The subsequent investment value and returns adjusted to maintain the highest integrity in dealing with the investors.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.
Regards,
Lenore
|
Florio
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 15:45:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Florio on 14/03/2008 15:45:42
I would be disappointed with a ~75% return on FIN wind-up, but would be content with an ~88% return (ie. forgo 3 months' worth of divi).
If you chose to restructure, I would probably hold.
Good luck Eefrit.
|
Lenore Amarral
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 16:28:00 -
[57]
In my understanding CCP has chosen to focus changes in the area of T2 BPOs, and production from them, to remove the advantage it was creating for farmers (conducting isk sales for real currency outside of game). Although there may be other, and arguably more effective, means to rid the universe of these parasites I support their decisions to that end. I am a small investor also and, although I appreciate the dividends I have received as an investor who bought in early on, I have not been appreciative of the growth and expansionist behaviour of FIN and FIN U. As a staunch supporter of a free market I maintain the markets must remain free for the true benefit to exist. As such I am not in support of endeavours that remove value from the market in terms of ownership opportunities for everyone, should they reach the asset level, being eliminated by way of investment groups like FIN and FIN U who always seems to force up the prices and compete against players whose assets are not as deep. As a player, I own a few T2 BPOs but have lost out on acquisitions that were truly important to me but could not match what entities like FIN, FIN U and others have been able and willing to pay.
I would gladly forfeit all of my invested ISK for the opportunity to see more BPOs taken out of the hands of entities who have massive holdings of these items. I firmly believe the game is not served by them being monopolized by either farmers or investment groups.
From a strictly business perspective, if the profit is not meeting targets then the assets should be sold. (I will hope and pray that the assets do not merely shift into the hands of other hoarders). As for the investors and their investments: who wouldn't love to have 400 billion ISK as capitol to start up or grow a business in game. I am astounded at the shift in power afforded FIN and FIN U and can only imagine how many other entities exist on or above that level. Greed is a sickness. Insatiable appetites are evil. When enough is never enough and growth for the sake of growth takes the highest priority everything suffers. I support the changes that undermine the ridiculous profits and consolidation of wealth afforded by T2 BPO monopolies.
Bottom line. As an investor I would like to see the entities valued accurately and the majority of the assets sold with a few retained that meet or exceed targets while being manageable and fun for the principles. The subsequent investment value and returns adjusted to maintain the highest integrity in dealing with the investors.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion.
Regards,
Lenore
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 17:41:00 -
[58]
Originally by: FastLearner
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Block Ukx
Aren't FIN and FIN-U both bonds?
If that's the case, then NAV is irrelevant.
I did not realize these are bonds. But if they are indeed bonds then he is rather screwed... as he would not be allowed to lower payments and would have to find some way to continue to pay them as is.
Here's a quote from the sales thread (linked in Eefrit's sig):
"There will be a limited re-release to the public of the only fully secured, guaranteed return investment in the history of Eve - Zero risk of scamming or diminishing returns!
The numbers of bonds available will change over time, but I will try keep the numbers up to date in my daily bumps."
They're called bonds and have "zero risk of diminishing returns". Think that's about as clear as you can get.
Thanks for doing the research, I've been kinda slammed lately with several things.
Well... I guess that leaves an issue for Eefrit then. He either has to stick by his plan or not. Obviously it seems paying out the current levels isn't viable... so the only course of action is to liquidate.
That is of course not true. We all know no one here is going to hold his feet to the fire to follow through on his own promise of "zero risk of diminishing returns". It seems that should have been rewritten "zero risk, unless the market changes, of diminishing returns". Otherwise known as "there is indeed a risk of diminishing returns". Not sure that would have sounded so good when trying to initially sell the shares though.
Anyhow, I can't wait to see this play out identically to ISSO. Which means, all of these long time investors will come here saying how they don't care what was promised to them, they don't care if things aren't profitable anymore, they want to leave their money in Eefrit no matter what he does because they trust him.
It's amazing how loyal people become when you hold their money. No wonder political candidates ask for donations, however small. As soon as you've donated even a dollar to the cause you have a personal stake and become attached to that person, not wanting to believe you could have made a mistake you forgive any transgression, broken promise, etc. In this sense, the EVE IPO market is quite realistic and compares very closely to politics in real life. Amazing how such similarities form... someone should do a comparative research paper for their doctoral thesis.
|
D'Tann
Phoenix Industries
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 00:44:00 -
[59]
Quote:
Well... I guess that leaves an issue for Eefrit then. He either has to stick by his plan or not. Obviously it seems paying out the current levels isn't viable... so the only course of action is to liquidate.
That is of course not true. We all know no one here is going to hold his feet to the fire to follow through on his own promise of "zero risk of diminishing returns". It seems that should have been rewritten "zero risk, unless the market changes, of diminishing returns". Otherwise known as "there is indeed a risk of diminishing returns". Not sure that would have sounded so good when trying to initially sell the shares though.
Why NOT hold his feet to the fire...the initial offering was made using that term. You don't change the rules mid-game...if they need to be changed put it to a vote but offer a way out. But IMO the goal of FIN/FIN-U is the security and stability of the bond and this type of public disclosure has done nothing but devalue the bonds.
I personanlly hold 8-10b worth of both FIN and FIN-U. At the current buy-back policy it is virtually impossible to get the 95% buy-back for that amount of isk in any reasonable time period. I feel that both FIN and FIN-U need to liquidate to bring assests back in line with the shareholder agreements and/or initiat a buyback that will allow the large investors a way out as well.
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 00:52:00 -
[60]
Originally by: D'Tann
Why NOT hold his feet to the fire...
It's just the way things will go. A very small minority of people posting here will try to hold his feet to the fire, the rest will be more than willing to let him do whatever he wishes.
You don't have to like it, but I've been around here long enough to know how it goes. ISSO is a great example of this happening, but there are other less widely known examples as well.
I really don't plan to be as vocal on this as I was with ISSO... I had been an investor there and I had been lied to and it ****ed me off. I have no financial interests whatsoever with FIN/FIN-U. I am merely posting as someone who consistently promotes what is best for the player run business side of EVE. Whenever CEO's do things against the financial interests of investors that hurts all IPO's as it discourages people from getting involved again in the future.
Nothing here has been done all that bad so far... I disagree with how the T2 BPO's have been valued... but otherwise so far he has payed all divs, which is all he really had to do. The only question is how things go in the future. I just hope it doesn't go off the tracks in the future.
|
Trotski II
Rasta Tropical Club
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 01:09:00 -
[61]
I have around 3 billion invested in FIN and for me when i invested secured meant the lock on the BPOs and when lock was done in each state to raise capital there where more value locked then you where collecting from investors. There was always a safety net of around 20% if i remember correctly whenever you sold more shares/bonds.
You paid month after month and now that things are not so bright people look at your fat personal wallet and want you to liquidate all and add the rest to refund in 100%.
Now let¦s imagine that for some reason tech2 BPO from one day to another lost all their value. Would they want you to sell your house to buy GTC???
If you are still interested in keeping producing just keep ALL the BPOs and produce what is worth at any given time and pay what you can. No idea if you take a salary, administrative fee,etc, but if you do reduce it too. Pay what you can.
If you are tired of producing sell them all and reinburse what is possible threw dividends.
With FIN-U just scam them all 
|
Nummb
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 01:25:00 -
[62]
Interesting idea's being brought forth, good for the community to talk about and get a sense of how things are going. To the people who whine about Eefrit having ammassed 400 billion worth of assets, do you realize how unique this is? The sheer logistics of managing all these different BPO's, materials, reactions, POS's, build times, shipping, sell orders, etc...would have driven more people out of the game than it would have brought in.
I am not saying we should all bow to the ground and kiss Eefrit's arse, I am just saying that the whiners should be careful of what they ask for. If you are going to lose isk in this deal, what difference does it make whether its money lost now or money lost in a month through a liquidation process? In the true sense of the game, you lost your money the instant you sent it to Eefrit. He just has been kind enough to slowly give some of it back to you over the last year in the form of dividends.
Originally by: Ambrose Bierce
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum (I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.)
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 01:30:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Nummb
what difference does it make whether its money lost now or money lost in a month through a liquidation process?
People like to account for their money and know what they have in what investments. If one of their investments has lost value they should know this so they can account for it and so other people can know what they should value it at if they wish to buy it/use it as collateral/etc.
|
Dal Thrax
Multiverse Corporation
Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 02:01:00 -
[64]
Well here are my suggestions:
1) Restate NAV to current estimate print value. Base payout on current NAV.
2) Look at the underperforming BPO's is there anything that's such a clear invention target that its value is unlikely to come back? Is it possible that a group would see a strategic advantage in paying a premium for a BPO to have an assured source of these items. Sell these BPOs (by public sale please).
3) Diversify your holdings. I'm afraid managing such large sums your options to efficiently realize value are somewhat limited. You will be looking at some kind of BPO or production based income source.
4) Cut payout if needed.
5) Breath. You're in an environment where CCP could delete all of your assets tomorrow. The investors knew this going in.
Dal
Originally by: HEXXX
In all seriousness; I think I made a miscalculation originally. . . We either need to fix this or fix our advertising.
|
Elias Riikonen
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 02:47:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Nummb
I am not saying we should all bow to the ground and kiss Eefrit's arse, I am just saying that the whiners should be careful of what they ask for. If you are going to lose isk in this deal, what difference does it make whether its money lost now or money lost in a month through a liquidation process?
For investors to lose money in this (unless they agree to it), both of the following have to happen:
1) Eefrit not respecting the commitments he has signed on to, i.e. turning into a scammer. (Since he has the funds to pay back the bonds.)
2) Eefrit's starting statement in this thread "FIN is still secured in the financial sense of the word" turning out to be false, since if it is true, there exists sufficient collateral which Eefrit would be unable to scam even if he wanted to.
Originally by: Nummb
In the true sense of the game, you lost your money the instant you sent it to Eefrit. He just has been kind enough to slowly give some of it back to you over the last year in the form of dividends.
No, I've never received a single ISK from Eefrit, since I bought my shares later than when dividends were last paid out.
(Had I been there earlier to profit from FIN, I probably would agree to take some of the financial hit, even though I wouldn't need to according to the bond contract.)
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 16:09:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
Originally by: Nummb
I am not saying we should all bow to the ground and kiss Eefrit's arse, I am just saying that the whiners should be careful of what they ask for. If you are going to lose isk in this deal, what difference does it make whether its money lost now or money lost in a month through a liquidation process?
For investors to lose money in this (unless they agree to it), both of the following have to happen:
1) Eefrit not respecting the commitments he has signed on to, i.e. turning into a scammer. (Since he has the funds to pay back the bonds.)
2) Eefrit's starting statement in this thread "FIN is still secured in the financial sense of the word" turning out to be false, since if it is true, there exists sufficient collateral which Eefrit would be unable to scam even if he wanted to.
Originally by: Nummb
In the true sense of the game, you lost your money the instant you sent it to Eefrit. He just has been kind enough to slowly give some of it back to you over the last year in the form of dividends.
No, I've never received a single ISK from Eefrit, since I bought my shares later than when dividends were last paid out.
(Had I been there earlier to profit from FIN, I probably would agree to take some of the financial hit, even though I wouldn't need to according to the bond contract.)
I agree with this. As far as I'm aware there's never been any maintained schedule of which secured assets belong to FIN and which are Eefrit's personal property - which is entirely fine as this is a bond. But, as it's a bond, no mechanism exists for reducing the agreed payout to investors. Eefrit's options are reduced to 3:
1. Keep paying out as promised,
2. Liquidate and refund all investments at full value,
3. Scam.
Arguably some compromise between 1 and 2 could be implemented - where some portion of investment is refunded leaving remaining assets able to support the promised payments on the residual. But any change in the terms of the bond should either be supported by 100% of investors OR accompanied by the option of a 100% refund available to those who decline the proposed new offer.
The advantage running a bond gives is that you have no obligation to produce financial reports or reveal details of assets held. In return for that you have no means of passing on any losses to investors. This HAS to be the case - as with no open accounting of assets/profits there is no way for those looking to invest or purchase bonds on the secondary market to value them. If bonds could devalue at will then you could end up in a situation where someone buys bonds in accordance with their declared value - then the next day the bond issuer halves their value claiming losses which were never publically disclosed.
The idea proposed by some that people shouldn't be held to their word or to guarantees is rubbish. A guarantee only has actual value when things go wrong. If guarantees can be waived when things go awry then they have absolutely no meaning or value.
|
Taloic
Black Watch Regiment
New Eden Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 20:15:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Taloic on 15/03/2008 20:17:00
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
2) Eefrit's starting statement in this thread "FIN is still secured in the financial sense of the word" turning out to be false, since if it is true, there exists sufficient collateral which Eefrit would be unable to scam even if he wanted to.
______________________________________________________
While Fin may be secured Fin-U is not and every investor like myself who invested into this fund has known this from the beginning.
If the profits are not there Fin-U cannot continue to pay the minimum 7% and expect to survive.
If that means scaleing back to 3-4% and wait for the market to stabilize so be it.
If it is Liquadated at current prices full value cannot be payed out to each investor for their shares.
You would be looking at getting back about 70-80% of your initial investment rough estimate.
Which to be quite honest is still good considering Fin-U has almost payed itself off by gaining the initial invesment ammout through the past years payments for most of the investors.
You would still be turning a major profit at 70-80% buyout so I fail to see any issues this has been an investment not a get rich quick program.
While this is not completely aimed at the above individual who I quoted it stands to bear against some of the replies I have read.
Eefrit has no control of the market or the changes that CCP has implimented.
If the market stabilizes great the Funds can continue to mature.
If it dosent calling Eefrit a scammer or Fin/Fin-U scams is well out of line.
He has done and excellent job so far and if he wishes to continue im sure he will continue to do an excellent job.
But blameing him for market changes he had no control of is absurd look to CCP if you wish to file a complaint.
|
Peeveepee
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 20:39:00 -
[68]
I was under the assumption that FIN-U has a guarantee minimum until JUN, hence I paid well over 30% premium over the face value of each bond I owned.
So, my question is: WHERE IS MY MONEY?
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 20:42:00 -
[69]
Originally by: FastLearner
As far as I'm aware there's never been any maintained schedule of which secured assets belong to FIN and which are Eefrit's personal property
In the interests of saving reading time let me suggest you think before posting. FIN's assets are LOCKED DOWN by the trustees in a corp they control 100% of. This has always been the case and I believe it is quite clear in the business plan that this would be the case.
Now, would you mind explaining how that is not keeping the assets separate?
Secondly, the "zero risk of diminishing returns" is explained in the business plan where assumptions are given. Given those assumptions the statement holds true and is in the context of the plan as a whole.
Finally, FIN *is* still secured in the financial sense of the word. It was secured against assets, and those exact assets are still held and therefore still secure it. The same way that a mortgage is secured against a physical property. The mortgage is still a secured investment for the lending institution regardless of whether or not the value of the property falls.
Let me make something else clear here. I am interested in feedback from investors. If you are not an investor then I honestly don't care what your opinion is because I don't in the least care about making you happy. I have always done my best to do what is best for the over 1,000 investors, and will continue to do that.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
cosmoray
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 20:56:00 -
[70]
I am only going to talk about FIN-U.
As far as I understand it, FIN-U is a bond and has a policy in place for the running of the bond.
Quotes from the FIN-U bonds sales.
Interest will be paid out based on the actual returns achieved. This is expected to be 6-8% once the business gets going. FIN-U will give a guaranteed minimum return of 7.0% until the end of July 2008.
FIN-U will offer a conditional buyback policy if after July 2008 the returns drop to below 6.0%. The conditions are as follows:
i) If the interest falls below 6% after July 2008, a thread with buyback reservations will be opened within a week from the end of the month that the interest droped to below 6%.
ii) That thread will be open for buyback reservations for a period of 2 weeks after which no more reservations will be accepted.
iii) FIN-U will buy back bonds at 95% (950,000 Isk) each at a rate of no more than 5% of the total investment per month until all bonds reserved for buyback are bought back.
Doesn't really matter what the opinion is about the bonds. Erifit has GUARANTEED a 7% per month payment on the bonds until July 2008, at that point you can sell the bonds back to Erifit at 95%.
As far as I see it, Erifit has a duty to keep paying out on FIN-U bonds, and then has to offer buyback.
Discussion about FIN is a different matter, but his hands are tied for FIN-U!!
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 21:14:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Eefrit
Let me make something else clear here. I am interested in feedback from investors. If you are not an investor then I honestly don't care what your opinion is because I don't in the least care about making you happy. I have always done my best to do what is best for the over 1,000 investors, and will continue to do that.
Ok, I would like you to tell me how many shares are required for you to care. If I buy a single Fin-U share does that make me an investor? If not I need to know what threshold is required.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 00:06:00 -
[72]
Edited by: FastLearner on 16/03/2008 00:08:10
There's a useful hint as to the purpose of this forum - it's labelled "market discussions". If you (the op) don't want general discussion then I suggest you make an in-game mailing list and conduct your business there. That way you'll avoid the public discussing things.
On the issue of segregation of assets, is it your contention that all "secured" assets belong to FIN/FIN-U? My recollection is that you'd previously claimed to have used privately-owned assets as part of the scurity: if I'm wrong on that then fair enough.
How do you expect discussion of how FIn should proceed when you fail to list what assets FIN owns? We (the public who, assuming you didn't accidentally post to a public forum, would like to discuss the topic) have no idea what BPOs you actually own. We also don't know whether you bought the BPOs before CCP's announcement of invention or after it - something which is pretty key in assessing whether you just guessed wrong or were totally incompetent. Luckily the public (and your shareholders) can rest safe in the knowledge that you're a man of your word and won't try to weasel your way out of obligations by redefining what "guaranteed" and "zero risk" mean.
"I can guarantee I didn't have sexual relations with that woman and there's zero risk of me committing infidelity" - attributed to president Bill "Eefrit" Clinton.
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 00:24:00 -
[73]
Originally by: FastLearner
How do you expect discussion of how FIn should proceed when you fail to list what assets FIN owns? We (the public who, assuming you didn't accidentally post to a public forum, would like to discuss the topic) have no idea what BPOs you actually own. We also don't know whether you bought the BPOs before CCP's announcement of invention or after it - something which is pretty key in assessing whether you just guessed wrong or were totally incompetent.
This has been something that has been bugging me as well.
This whole point of this post seemed to be a question on how to move forward... but really no one can give a full answer on that without knowing where things are now. Without knowing all the assets it's a bit tough to know if it's worth sticking it out or if it's time to cut the losses.
At the very least it seems it would be useful to know approximate prices payed for each bpo and what the bpo is worth today, it's monthly profit, if the component price is increasing or decreasing on the market, and any other useful information. The specific names could potentially be left off if you are that worried about it... though it really would help to be fully open about things if you want the best advice.
It would also be nice to know what percent of the total NAV is made up of T2 BPO's, Components, Minerals, POS's & labs/factories, POS fuel, etc. Further, the % of the total investment that the NAV represents. I'm guessing NAV is not 100% of invested ISK due to loss of T2 BPO value.
Without information like this how can anyone give you any true suggestions other than broad statements?
|
Kazzac Elentria
Sanctuary
Aegis Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 00:33:00 -
[74]
Don't feel to bad about this... you are not the only one suffering the effects of the changes. Many of us are feeling the hit and having to restructure our business dealings with the changes in the last year, and honestly I felt that to have held out as long as you have despite the changes is a amazing feat showcasing your dedication to the project.
My suggestion would be to analyze all assets. Pick a break point for performance, liquidate everything underneath it and downsize/restructure everything above it.
At this point the sheer size is the problem.. first thing is first.. trim the fat and determine what meat is still worth eating. |
Kasia Pelarar
Eve Share and Market Authority
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 01:05:00 -
[75]
Okay, just as a favour to everyone who cannot find them, I am linking the original launch threads for the FIN and FIN-U bond threads;
Eve Financial Services (FIN) + EveSearch link
Eve Financial Services Unlimited (FIN-U) + EveSearch link
As I read them, they are guaranteed return bonds, meaning the only course of action is to liquidate if the rate of return is to change below the "absolute minimum" 4% (FIN) and "guaranteed minimum" 7% (FIN-U) - FIN should return the full 10,000 ISK per share/bond, FIN-U possibly. If anything other than this is being considered, I feel an option for anyone who wants to sell back shares/bonds at the original price (FIN) or best NAV per share/bond (FIN-U) must be made.
Personally, I would like them to continue as is  , but think the best thing would be for them to be wound up and if Eefrit feels like it after all the hassle, launch a new one - maybe even using EBank's new proposed system/exchange I am sure that a large number of investors would be willing to swap old for new so that a complete liquidation of assets is not necessary.
Eve Share & Market Reporting
Eve Share & Market Analysis
sig required |
Florio
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 12:03:00 -
[76]
As an investor I am content that Eefrit has used an eve-o board for this discussion, as I am interested to note other investors' comments. It is also interesting to note non-investor comments but I would not expect Eefrit to feel obliged to answer any of their questions (certainly not about BPOs owned etc).
As far as I am concerned, Eefrit had made it very clear what the risks of FIN were before I invested. There is nothing about this decrease in NAV that surprises me or was unknown to me.
It would be very sad to lose my income, as it has supported my PvP fun to date and I have no time to carebear as an alternative, but the astonishing return I have received (in RL terms) has been worthwhile.
Flo'
|
Rix Machur
Trader's Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 15:44:00 -
[77]
I think there needs to be some "out" for current investors. To me, the sensible thing seems to be to change the business plans and possibly consolidate the two into one. However, as someone with vested interest in both, I don't think it appropriate to force this on all investors. Both plans call for a 95% buyback (9,500 and 9,500,000) and this should be available as a minimum level. Of course, I'd like to see 100% buyback but the plans do not require this.
FIN-U did "guarantee" the minimum payout until the middle of this year so strictly by the plan, Eefrit doesn't have a choice but to continue paying. Speaking for myself, I'd be prepared to forgo this if I got all my isk back (with the option of investing it in some sort of FIN-2 instead). BUT I can't see this would be a bad sign for the market IMHO if someone who is considered as reliable and trustworthy as Eefrit fails to meet the obligations set down in the original bond.
I do think we should at least get some sort of statement of assets or NAV or somesuch so that we can see if FIN and FIN-U have sufficient assets to support the full value of investment (and perhaps even the dividends that were committed too). Provided that they do, the available options are a bit more straightforward.
The original plans didn't really contain a strategy for a patch totally FUBARing your plans, so any change must be done reasonably within the constraints of what was written down.
Rix.
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 16:27:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Rix Machur
The original plans didn't really contain a strategy for a patch totally FUBARing your plans, so any change must be done reasonably within the constraints of what was written down.
Lets be clear here. For an entire year now we have known T2 BPO prices were dropping and would continue to drop. The real question is when the BPO's were gotten, if it was before or after we knew things would be bad.
I have owned some T2 BPO's for almost an entire year now and their value is still almost the same now or is actually a bit more. These were semi-decent BPO's at the time, they are still semi-decent. They were picked specifically. I would hope anyone else picking BPO's at the time would have the same concerns about lost value. Obviously there was no way to know for sure what BPO's would drop, but you could take some pretty educated guesses.
Acting as though this all came totally out of the blue and no one had any clue T2 prices would get crushed is simply not accurate. Most of us knew for a long time prior to invention that prices wouldn't hold, even if it was just from the added T2 BPO lottery that was started.
People who invested should have known it was risky... but at the same time there was a guarantee in place, by eefrit, who most people would consider extremely trustworthy. That guarantee probably is the reason most people invested, it seems to be the case from what people posting here are saying.
|
Dal Thrax
Multiverse Corporation
Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 04:19:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Peeveepee
I was under the assumption that FIN-U has a guarantee minimum until JUN, hence I paid well over 30% premium over the face value of each bond I owned.
So, my question is: WHERE IS MY MONEY?
The same place the money I invested in Countrywide stock is I think.
Dal
Originally by: HEXXX
In all seriousness; I think I made a miscalculation originally. . . We either need to fix this or fix our advertising.
|
cosmoray
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 19:55:00 -
[80]
Just realised that FIN-U hadn't paid the bond interest this month.
Is the bond in default?
Is the discussion a way of avoiding the "minimum 7% gauranteed payment until July 08"?
And before you ask, I have some FIN-U bonds (with two of my other ALTS).
|
Hexxx
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 20:14:00 -
[81]
I helped FIN launch originally by assisting with the IPO documentation and giving advice.
I kick myself for not pressuring him to launch this as a share IPO and or a fixed rate Bond.
Variable rate Bonds are dangerous for IPO managers and investors. My only excuse was that I just didn't know any better at the time. 
Director | www.eve-bank.net
|
Margret Putnam
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 14:26:00 -
[82]
I am a typical stockholder.
I don't care what you do, as long as you continue to make me money.
Go forth and make me rich, ok?
|
4rc4ng3L
Soldiers of the Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 14:53:00 -
[83]
I have a large sum of isk invested in Eefrit. So far he has always been on the ball and i have never doubted him.
In the end however, for me, this is an investment. I generally dont worry to much about what you are doing or plan on doing, once i dont stand to lose anything financially.
I trust you'll make the right judgement.
------------------------------------------
- To Jumanji, or not to Jumanji...... - |
Fikia
Guiding Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 16:14:00 -
[84]
Eefrit, do what ya want.. If I dun like your next post about what you're gonna do, I'll let you know for sure.
Regards,
Fikia
|
Toastysoul
Firebird Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:40:00 -
[85]
Eefrit,
I handed my isk over to you in the hopes that you'd do a better job making isk with it than I did. So far, that holds true. I believe you should do what you think best for all involved, as your judgment has successfully led us this far. In the end, if I lose my investment, I'm not really worse off than when I donated my isk to you in the first place, am I? I've taken a few hits before, and I won't grab a torch and pitchfork against you simply because CCP changed the rules of the game. Although as a player, I think it was time for a change. Invention was necessary moving forward in the game. As an investor, if you can somehow take advantage of the competitive forces that are giving you grief, then perhaps you can make Fin-U successful once again. Either way, thanks for putting so much work into this, and good luck.
|
cosmoray
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 00:58:00 -
[86]
I really struggle to understand the attitude of investors.
After they have handed over their cash, they don't seem to care whats happens to it.
Its your money, you earnt it.
I am not saying that Erifit is doing anything wrong with this discussion but it is this attitude thats lets IPO managers get away with running poor business's when they should be wound up and the money returned to shareholders.
The fact is that FIN-U is a bond that has a GAURANTEED payout until July 08, now its not being paid no one cares.
If you don't care what happens to your investments, you only motivate scammers and poor managers to keep your money!!
|
Katashi Ishizuka
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 01:36:00 -
[87]
Originally by: cosmoray
I really struggle to understand the attitude of investors.
After they have handed over their cash, they don't seem to care whats happens to it.
Its your money, you earnt it.
I am not saying that Erifit is doing anything wrong with this discussion but it is this attitude thats lets IPO managers get away with running poor business's when they should be wound up and the money returned to shareholders.
The fact is that FIN-U is a bond that has a GAURANTEED payout until July 08, now its not being paid no one cares.
If you don't care what happens to your investments, you only motivate scammers and poor managers to keep your money!!
I care, which is why I bumped the late payout thread earlier. I'm still wondering where my dividends went, since I was promised 7% until July, and invested on that assumption. If those can't be paid FIN-U should be wound up and investor monies returned.
|
4rc4ng3L
Soldiers of the Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 12:11:00 -
[88]
Originally by: cosmoray
I really struggle to understand the attitude of investors.
After they have handed over their cash, they don't seem to care whats happens to it.
Its your money, you earnt it.
I am not saying that Erifit is doing anything wrong with this discussion but it is this attitude thats lets IPO managers get away with running poor business's when they should be wound up and the money returned to shareholders.
The fact is that FIN-U is a bond that has a GAURANTEED payout until July 08, now its not being paid no one cares.
If you don't care what happens to your investments, you only motivate scammers and poor managers to keep your money!!
I'm having a layed back attitude toward it because i still believe he is doing all he can to sort the situation.
If however he starts slacking u can be assured the attitude of investors here will change rapidly.
------------------------------------------
- To Jumanji, or not to Jumanji...... - |
Imperius Blackheart
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 13:29:00 -
[89]
Originally by: cosmoray
I really struggle to understand the attitude of investors.
After they have handed over their cash, they don't seem to care whats happens to it.
Its your money, you earnt it.
I am not saying that Erifit is doing anything wrong with this discussion but it is this attitude thats lets IPO managers get away with running poor business's when they should be wound up and the money returned to shareholders.
The fact is that FIN-U is a bond that has a GAURANTEED payout until July 08, now its not being paid no one cares.
If you don't care what happens to your investments, you only motivate scammers and poor managers to keep your money!!
I've been a bond holder in both FIN and FIN-U for quite a while now, its made me literally billions in profit, especially when some tinfoil hatters went nuts on the forum and I picked up a ton of bonds for next to nothing and sold them on.
I believe I have had back my inital investment in both bonds by now, I'm well in the black, as will most bondholders be.
Eefrit has no control over CCP's actions or decisions, the plan we brought into is no longer as viable as it once was, as such he is having an open discussion with his generally happy customers regarding the situation.
Remember Eve is a game, it has to remain fun for everyone, I would love to see Eefrit continue the FIN products and as such I don't think rushing for my pitchfork and chasing him out of time would be conducive to me making more money, its more likely to make him feel like he can't be bothered.
[/url]
Proud member of the Caldari Death Squad
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 13:47:00 -
[90]
Thank you all investors for your comments on this. As pointed out before I have no interest at all in what non-investors think as I have no responsibility towards them in any way.
I will be opening a new thread with the writeup shortly and will not be responding in this thread anymore.
I will close with an observation:
People who have achieved nothing, nor even tried to achieve anything in this game market wise, but who seem to have an obsession in hearing themselves speak should either actually do something, or realise that all talk and no action is a good way to demonstrate that you truly don't know as much as you like to think you do.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Knarfis
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 18:31:00 -
[91]
Hi there,
Im a small investor in the Fin-U Corp. I dont know much about investing in this game or in general but Im learning. I completely understand where u are coming from with the current T2 production from around the game. But from what i have seen and what i have noticed i have only two suggestions for you.
1) Its all about location. One of the biggest *****es in the game right now is where a vast majority of items are being sold. So i would suggest diversifying your selling locations. Find areas of the universe where turmoil is happening and move your gear to those either those low sec areas near the 00 lands or the closes high sec area to those area in interest.
2) Save up your capital that you have now and wait for the rumored T3 gear. When it does come out buy the gear that will make the most money the fastest and the corp of FIN-U will be right back where it was before hand.
Are these a good idea??? I truely have no idea but thought i would throw them out there.
Knarfis
|
Kazzac Elentria
Sanctuary
Aegis Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 19:58:00 -
[92]
Made my vote across all alts.. after some consideration and how it was presented ended up changing my mind from my initial position.
I do know this.. whatever does end up happening I have faith and confidence that you'll handle it the very best anyone has prolly ever seen or will likely ever see for quite some time.
I tell everyone, if you want to look at how to run an public company in eve.. FIN is (or was.. we'll see) the gold standard IMHO. |
Raskor
Crossflow Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 20:25:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Imperius Blackheart
I believe I have had back my inital investment in both bonds by now, I'm well in the black, as will most bondholders be.
This may be true of the original investors. I purchased FIN-U in early January and had to pay a premium above IPO price to get them (about 3 months interest). I still would need one more interest payment just to recover the premium.
I paid a premium given Eefrit's standing in the game and his guarantee of 7% through July. That and I have been an investor in FIN since the September re-release.
I certainly have a bad taste in my mouth with all this talk of liquidating and making only a partial payback, especially when he has the means to make us all whole.
And then we have:
Originally by: Eefrit
For the record I have not made a single personal Isk from either corporation
This is actually a bad thing. IRL, the best companies to invest in are ones where management has a significant ownership stake. If they company does well, they get rich in the process.
|
cosmoray
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 22:36:00 -
[94]
I agree why would you run a huge IPO if it wasn't to your benefit?
Then I say props on amassing a 600B personal fortune.
Don't worry I am sure that Erefit will soon enrich himself from FIN/FIN-U with his truncated payback plans.
It was all in the small print you see. Just none of us had a lawyer handy!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |