| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
   |
Posted - 2008.03.19 14:59:00 -
[1]
After a lot of feedback from investors and private counsel, these represent what I feel are the best options going forward. The options for both FIN and FIN-U will require a vote, which I will keep open for 10 days.
I will vote the way I see fit with the FIN bonds that I personally own (about 2% of the total), but will not vote with any of the FIN-U bonds that I control as I never personally bought any of them.
FIN
There are essentially two option open here. One which does not need a vote, which I could implement at will. However I am convinced that the second option is the better long term option here, and so will give investors an opportunity to vote for the alternative if they also feel that way. So the two options are:
1) Instruct the trustees to liquidate the assets however they see fit.
This will definately cause a loss to investors but they will get back a portion of their invested Isk at the end of the disposal. I am not sure how much this would be, as I have not been watching the T2 BPO market actively for a while, but my best guess right now is that it would below half based on what I have seen in the last week.
The extra security that I personally added to FIN would be forfeit (about 30-40% of NAV at the time it was put in).
2) Reduce the minimum dividend to 2.5% and use any extra Isk above that to re-invest into FIN.
While many of the BPOs that FIN holds are not massively profitable now, that may change if T3 requires T2 BPCs, which CCP have hinted at, or if CCP tweak invention back a notch or two.
I personally will be voting for option 2, but I urge all investors to decide which option they would be happiest with and vote for that.
FIN-U
Here also there are really two options available, with the case once again being that one option does not require a vote to move ahead but the other does.
1a) Keep payments at 7% until the end of July 2008 by cannibalising assets.
b) After this point drop dividends to zero and re-invest the money into FIN-U until it has reached a point where paying out dividends again does not jeopardise the long term viability of the investment.
c) A list will be opened for bond buy backs which will give any investor 2 weeks to list the bonds that they wish to sell at 95% of IPO value.
d) Those will then be bought back at a rate of no more than 5% of total investment per month until they are all bought back. This will more realistically be just above 0% and may take years to complete.
2a) Drop dividends to actual profits (closer to 3-4% at present)
b) I will use my personal income to try buy back bonds at IPO price as fast as is possible rather than use it to try and bring the dividends up to 7%. I expect that this would be complete in less than a year, at which point all investors would have their full investment paid back.
c) I realise some people paid a premium buying from third parties, but that is a risk they took. Everything has always been structured around IPO prices which included any buyback option in the initial investors agreement.
I would recommend a vote for option 2, but any investor should only vote as they see fit.
If there are any questions from investors I will try and answer them as best I can. I have a list of every single person I ever sold any bonds to and will work predominantly off that, with the odd exception where appropriate.
I sincerely wish CCP had not destroyed so much of the market the way they have, and that these sorts of measures were not necessary. I will continue to do my best to rectify the situation with the limited means at my disposal.
I will allow some time for discussion before the actual votes are created.
Also I will be paying the FIN-U dividends today at the agreed upon 7% for the month of February.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:07:00 -
[2]
Why doesn't FIN-U have a close shop option?
Seems to be either:
* Forfeiture of a few months dividends or
* Reduction in interest rate
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:17:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
Why doesn't FIN-U have a close shop option?
Essentially option 2 is a close shop option for FIN-U, but it is one where I will personally take the hit, and investors will get out with the full IPO value of their bonds.
Doing a straight liquidation would mean a significantly higher loss for investors and hence I made a decision not to.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:27:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Eefrit
1) Instruct the trustees to liquidate the assets however they see fit.
This will definately cause a loss to investors but they will get back a portion of their invested Isk at the end of the disposal. I am not sure how much this would be, as I have not been watching the T2 BPO market actively for a while, but my best guess right now is that it would below half based on what I have seen in the last week.
Ok, getting over the amazingly overvalued state FIN was selling for compared to it's true NAV...
How is any investor able to make a true decision if they don't have concrete numbers? Without knowing just how much the BPO's owned are worth there is no way to make an informed decision if it's worth liquidating or not.
As you said, you don't know what is going on with the T2 BPO market. From what I've seen some T2 BPO's are selling at higher prices today than 6 months ago, some at 200-400% of yearly profit. So it makes me wonder if you are accurate at all in your predictions. Shouldn't someone with some better knowledge of the situation price out all the assets quickly (shouldn't take more than an hour or two to price out a bunch of T2 BPO's) and then report back?
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 16:35:00 -
[5]
Eefrit, the minimum value of the BPOs may well exceed even your high-end estimations of their value. The market has taken an up-turn recently and some are selling for close to four years' profit.
Regarding trustees liquidating the assets. Personally I no longer have any faith in them, if security has indeed dropped by 50% they should have made an announcement or ordered it shored up at least 6 months ago. Nothing his suddenly happened within that time-frame that could account for such a loss.
Would you entertain the idea of a third party liquidating the assets?
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:07:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Eefrit on 19/03/2008 17:10:24
Edit: random grammar and wording
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Eefrit, the minimum value of the BPOs may well exceed even your high-end estimations of their value. The market has taken an up-turn recently and some are selling for close to four years' profit.
Regarding trustees liquidating the assets. Personally I no longer have any faith in them, if security has indeed dropped by 50% they should have made an announcement or ordered it shored up at least 6 months ago. Nothing his suddenly happened within that time-frame that could account for such a loss.
Would you entertain the idea of a third party liquidating the assets?
Ray, I could very well be incorrect on the value of the BPOs, but I do not think it will be possible to value them accurately in an unstable market. That is part of the problem in that it could be the low point in the market right now, which would make selling now a poor choice if it turns out to be (of course I can't show this to definately be the case).
I have no problem with a third party liquidating assets if it is agreed to by a shareholder vote. I would however only propose that vote if I thought the third party trustworthy in the first place. There are quite a few people that fit that bill that shareholders could choose between if option 1 passes.
Regarding the trustees, I think you being unfair on them. Their mandate was to make sure that there was enough security before any expansion took place and to prevent me from having access to the BPOs. That they definately did do, to a greater extent than their mandate at time (which annoyed the heck out of me) - the last time there was an expansion, to be safe they had me have the security at 140% rather than the required 120%. They also had no mandate to ask for assets to be shored up at all and could only lock me out and liquidate the assets if they believed that was the best course of action. I do not believe at any point in time that was a good option for the investors and hence can't point to any poor decisions that the trustees made given the information available at the time.
Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, and there are many things I would have done differently having seen the future path available at that point. I will not however second guess decisions made in the past based on the best available information at the time (I'm not implying you are saying I should Ray).
Regards,
Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:13:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Eefrit on 19/03/2008 17:14:56
Edit: added comment on market prices
Originally by: Shadarle
Shouldn't someone with some better knowledge of the situation price out all the assets quickly (shouldn't take more than an hour or two to price out a bunch of T2 BPO's) and then report back?
I am more than happy to have Ray do this if he would like. It should be made clear though that nobody can be sure what selling such a large amount of T2 BPOs in a relatively short period of time would do to the market prices for them.
/Eefrit
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:25:00 -
[8]
Should Option 1 for FIN pass I would recommend an immediate stop to dividends, but for BPOs to be maintained in production while they are liquidated over a period of time, the profit from which to be used to shore up any difference between bond value and liquidation value.
Regarding the possibility of a third party liquidating the assets, I would like to put myself forward. I have a vested interest in ensuring the maximum liquidation value is achieved, and my knowledge of the Tech II market from valuing collateral for the BMBE stands me in good stead for this. With regards to trust, I don't see that being an issue. While I may pass the grade to handle such assets, it is still not necessary. All I would be is a third-party in organising contracts to be set by you or the trustees to the highest bidder, pending production cycles.
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:27:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Regarding the possibility of a third party liquidating the assets, I would like to put myself forward.
Should option 1 pass for FIN, I would be more than happy with you handling the liquidation, pending shareholders agreeing to the same.
/Eefrit
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:28:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Shadarle
Shouldn't someone with some better knowledge of the situation price out all the assets quickly (shouldn't take more than an hour or two to price out a bunch of T2 BPO's) and then report back?
I am more than happy to have Ray do this if he would like. It should be made clear though that nobody can be sure what selling such a large amount of T2 BPOs in a relatively short period of time would do to the market prices for them.
That's a pointless exercise in my opinion. I could give you a low estimate based on a year's production profit, but I assume you are already working with those figures.
With regards to the time-frame for selling off the BPOs, I suggest 6 months to avoid doing exactly what you say. Some investors may have to wait for their capital to be returned, but it's a fair price to pay to avoid the loss.
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:30:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Shadarle on 19/03/2008 17:30:30
a
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Shadarle
Shouldn't someone with some better knowledge of the situation price out all the assets quickly (shouldn't take more than an hour or two to price out a bunch of T2 BPO's) and then report back?
I am more than happy to have Ray do this if he would like. It should be made clear though that nobody can be sure what selling such a large amount of T2 BPOs in a relatively short period of time would do to the market prices for them.
That's a pointless exercise in my opinion. I could give you a low estimate based on a year's production profit, but I assume you are already working with those figures.
With regards to the time-frame for selling off the BPOs, I suggest 6 months to avoid doing exactly what you say. Some investors may have to wait for their capital to be returned, but it's a fair price to pay to avoid the loss.
I agree fully with that, as the only real way to value them is to sell them. Selling over 6 months would imho be the most logical option as well, but according to the agreement that is up to the trustees to decide.
/Eefrit
|
Kane Portnoy
Dragon Clan
Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 17:50:00 -
[13]
Hi, I am owning just a little amount of FIN-shares (5k shares) at my alt-corp.
so my question is, how long, do u think, does it take to push back FIN dividends from 2.5% to 4%?
Because if this 2.5% will stay for a longer period of time, it would make more sense to me, to get my money to ebank, where i get about 3% with all-time availability.
But if it is possible for you to say something about that time, hanging around with at least 2.5%, it would help me to calculate and maybe invest into more shares.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:01:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kane Portnoy
so my question is, how long, do u think, does it take to push back FIN dividends from 2.5% to 4%?
At Eefrit's estimated evaluation of a 50% liquidation you could assume 50/1.5, 33 months.
But that simple sum is flawed in so many ways. The extra ISK would need to be re-invested in the very assets that have caused the problem. And there is no telling what CCP could do in the future. The problem could be even further aggravated, which is more likely than CCP reverting back to the perceived ISK printing conditions of yesteryear.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:07:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Shadarle
Come on. I would think nearly anyone could value the BPO's at 1 year, then do a quick search of past BPO sales on the forums to see if they have gone for more or if similar items have gone for more than 1 years value. If so, you could make a proper valuation that will be fairly accurate.
Lets assume we have a correct yearly profit figure of 250b on the BPOs (2.5% dividends). Lets assume they are all decent BPOs, nothing trivial. Perhaps 1.5 years would then be a better estimate, closer to recent sales. This brings the figure to 375b, 25b short of capital invested.
Originally by: Shadarle
And remember, if it takes 6 months to sell the BPO's off then you're tying up all that money for 6 months. Valuing at 4% that is ~25%. So by holding the BPO's for longer you have to at least make ~25% more or it wasn't worth the time waited.
Of course that would need to be evaluated, but you'd never be able to tell for sure. 25% may well be possible, though, but it's something that would need to be measured as the liquidation is in process.
|
Dal Thrax
Multiverse Corporation
Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:15:00 -
[16]
I think FIN investors need a list of assets. If FIN is to be a going concern the investors will need to know how much of the asset value represents capital goods and how much represents "good will" of a going concern.
Dal
Originally by: HEXXX
In all seriousness; I think I made a miscalculation originally. . . We either need to fix this or fix our advertising.
|
4rc4ng3L
Soldiers of the Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 18:17:00 -
[17]
I am relieved to see a step toward a solution.
As a FIN-U share holder i would lean more toward option 2. I am glad that u are not doing a straight liquidation as i would rather not take that large loss. I'm curious as to what the other investors have to say however.
------------------------------------------
- To Jumanji, or not to Jumanji...... - |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:21:00 -
[18]
Ray, the FIN invested amount is 250 Bill Isk. FIN-U has about 130 Bill Isk invested in it at the moment.
Originally by: Dal Thrax
I think FIN investors need a list of assets. If FIN is to be a going concern the investors will need to know how much of the asset value represents capital goods and how much represents "good will" of a going concern.
You are free to wish that, however the investors agreement clearly stated this would not be the case. It was clearly put that if you do not trust the trustees to make those decisions for you then you should not invest.
I do not believe there is such a thing as goodwill value in Eve, as there is no legal framework to back it up with. Hence I only use capital value here.
/Eefrit
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:25:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Eefrit
Ray, the FIN invested amount is 250 Bill Isk. FIN-U has about 130 Bill Isk invested in it at the moment.
Why do FIN dividends add up to 4% of 400b?
This makes things a little simpler though.
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:30:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Kane Portnoy
Hi, I am owning just a little amount of FIN-shares (5k shares) at my alt-corp.
so my question is, how long, do u think, does it take to push back FIN dividends from 2.5% to 4%?
Because if this 2.5% will stay for a longer period of time, it would make more sense to me, to get my money to ebank, where i get about 3% with all-time availability.
But if it is possible for you to say something about that time, hanging around with at least 2.5%, it would help me to calculate and maybe invest into more shares.
Kane, I honest can't tell you as it depends largely on how soon the market corrects, both in terms of CCP changing various things as well as in people that are selling below cost currently exiting the market. Also if T3 is implemented within the next year the way CCP have hinted it will, that would also change things significantly.
Assuming nothing changes at all and the market stays the way it is now, I would give it something like 18-24 months to recover to full value.
Regards,
Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:32:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Eefrit
Ray, the FIN invested amount is 250 Bill Isk. FIN-U has about 130 Bill Isk invested in it at the moment.
Why do FIN dividends add up to 4% of 400b?
They shouldn't add up to that. They have always been based on 250 Billion, so I normally pay out 10 Billion Isk = 4% of 250 Billion.
/Eefrit
|
cosmoray
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:36:00 -
[22]
Erefit, how can you claim investor statements and protocol when you ignore your own gaurantees.
FIN-U is a bond that you GUARANTEED. As I see it if you want to quote investor statements, IPO set ups, prior agreements you therefore are responsible for paying FIN-U dividends until July then offering buyback at 95%.
I don't see how you have any other options, as that was your 'word'.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:44:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Eefrit
They shouldn't add up to that. They have always been based on 250 Billion, so I normally pay out 10 Billion Isk = 4% of 250 Billion.
I think the last time I checked I must've added up overlapping emails then. But you're right.
Originally by: cosmoray
I don't see how you have any other options, as that was your 'word'.
Yes he does, a bond holder vote. Which, oh wait, is what he's done. And given the option of keeping his word. Stop looking for more than is there, your drama bombs are unwelcome.
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 19:46:00 -
[24]
Originally by: cosmoray
rabble rabble rabble
Seeing as you are non-shareholder alt, I am not responsible to answer anything at all from you.
If your main is a shareholder, at least have the guts to post with him/her.
/Eefrit
|
cosmoray
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:14:00 -
[25]
My drama bonds aside, I have some question for the MD forum.
IMO both votes don't look particularly favourable.
Option 1, keeps paying dividends until July then a progressive buyout that return investors money by May 2010 (max 5% per month).
Option 2, no dividends but payback in around a year.
Q: If you launch a bond, what is the definition?
As I understand it, it is a guarantee to make a fixed payemnt schedule, and then repurchase the bond at full price on a fixed date.
Q: What is definition of an IPO
Investment in a company/corp that assumes a level of risk. May enjoy higher dividends than expected or lower, but that is the implied risk.
I don't understand that if you launch a bond, how you can change the payment rules set up?
You stated you have a personal fortune of 600B, why don't you buy out the bond? hardly a major hit to your capital.
How does this effect bond launches in future?
What would be reaction if Ebank wanted to renegotiate terms of their bonds (BTW, I don't believe they would, just an example)?
How can I/we invest in a bond in the future?
Is there now no such thing as a fixed bond in Eve, if someone with a good reputation wants to change rules ona FIXED bond?
|
D'Tann
Phoenix Industries
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:42:00 -
[26]
I am going to reread the shareholder agreements later but, I could have sworn that both FIN and FIN-U had scheduled buybacks for bond maturity?!
|
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:49:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Eefrit
You are free to wish that, however the investors agreement clearly stated this would not be the case. It was clearly put that if you do not trust the trustees to make those decisions for you then you should not invest.
While I hate to agree with them, it also clearly states in the FIN investors agreement;
"1.7 As a disinvestment option, we will set a buy order with the EGSE for 1 Bill Isk, or 5% of the invested capital (whichever is the greater) each month.
1.8 The buy order will be for 95% of the initial value of the shares (i.e. 9,500 Isk)." and;
"4.1. A change to the interest rate is only allowed subject to an offer to buy back all bonds from any investors that choose to cash in their bonds rather than accept the change."
Personally, I would like to see FIN and FIN-U continue.
As to which option to choose in a FIN vote; I would like a statement from the "trustees" of FIN as to the current value of the security held, and who it actually belongs too in order to make an informed decision. For example, how can you be offering a 2.5% dividend if in the previous breath you are stating the bonds are worth only half their original value.
Now the FIN-U vote options; Option 1 seems to be what was originally promised with FIN and is now having alternatives proposed. Option 2 seems a bit strange to be saying that it could be paying a reduced dividend that FIN cannot. Of course, there is the original launch thread of FIN-U where there is no mention of the "guaranteed 7%", so I feel that 3-4% is better than nothing until I get the original launch price back 
Decisions, decisions 
I sympathise with the position you are in, appreciate and applaud all that you have accomplished with FIN and FIN-U up to now  Please do not stop now. 
Player Stock Exchanges;
Eve Galactic Stock Exchange (EGSE) & Real-time EVE Stock Exchange (RESX) |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:49:00 -
[28]
Not sure a bout FIN-U, but here's a few things from the FIN launch document:
"After the first 3 months of operations, we will create a thread where investors can post
on a waiting list to have their shares bought out by EFS under the following conditions:
1. A buy order will be placed for a minimum of 1 Bill Isk or 5% of the invested
capital (whichever is the greater) with the EGSE every month pending the other
conditions."
So there should already be a thread for FIN customers to register to sell at 95%. Contrary to what is stated in the OP, the obligation was very clearly to buy back 5% of shares per month (if requested) at 95% of IPO price.
"4.1. A change to the interest rate is only allowed subject to an offer to buy back all bonds
from any investors that choose to cash in their bonds rather than accept the change."
Strangely, this clause appears to have been forgotten in the OP. I'd advise investors to vote in favour of reduced dividends - then request their shares be bought back. I'd assume this would be a "genuine" buy-back, i.e. at 100% of IPO value - as no lowered value is stated in this clause, and clearly it would be ridiculous for that offer to mean any arbitrary value could be chosen.
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 20:56:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar
...how can you be offering a 2.5% dividend if in the previous breath you are stating the bonds are worth only half their original value.
Marcus, there is a difference between what a BPO can return per month and what it would sell for. I BPO that makes say 500 Mill Isk a month may only sell for 7 Billion Isk (which would then be its value).
/Eefrit
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 21:05:00 -
[30]
Originally by: D'Tann
I am going to reread the shareholder agreements later but, I could have sworn that both FIN and FIN-U had scheduled buybacks for bond maturity?!
Neither of them ever had scheduled buybacks. They are what perpetual bonds, which do not have to have a maturity date. There are a few examples like this in the real world but they are the exception to the rule, which explains why most people assumed they had a maturity date without checking on it.
/Eefrit
|
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 21:06:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Marcus Baltar
...how can you be offering a 2.5% dividend if in the previous breath you are stating the bonds are worth only half their original value.
Marcus, there is a difference between what a BPO can return per month and what it would sell for. I BPO that makes say 500 Mill Isk a month may only sell for 7 Billion Isk (which would then be its value).
/Eefrit
Thanks
I think I worded it wrong. I meant how can you say 2.5% if you previously say the principal is only worth half of its original value. 2.5% of 10,000 is 250, but 2.5% of 5000 is 125.
I now realise you were probably thinking of the launch price in this example.
Think I will get some sleep
Player Stock Exchanges;
Eve Galactic Stock Exchange (EGSE) & Real-time EVE Stock Exchange (RESX) |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 21:07:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Eefrit on 19/03/2008 21:10:20
Edit: added link
Originally by: cosmoray
Q: If you launch a bond, what is the definition?
As I understand it, it is a guarantee to make a fixed payemnt schedule, and then repurchase the bond at full price on a fixed date.
You understand it incorrectly. A bond is usually a fixed maturity investment but may be perpetual, which was always the case with both FIN and FIN-U.
Perpetual Bond
/Eefrit
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 21:37:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Shadarle on 19/03/2008 21:37:30
Originally by: Eefrit
Edited by: Eefrit on 19/03/2008 21:10:20
Edit: added link
Originally by: cosmoray
Q: If you launch a bond, what is the definition?
As I understand it, it is a guarantee to make a fixed payemnt schedule, and then repurchase the bond at full price on a fixed date.
You understand it incorrectly. A bond is usually a fixed maturity investment but may be perpetual, which was always the case with both FIN and FIN-U.
Perpetual Bond
/Eefrit
Bonds are generally, especially here in EVE, based on fixed returns.
But more importantly, bonds are supposed to be limited risk investments where as stocks are high risk. In theory, a bond pays out less but it pays out consistent amounts with little to no risk to investors whereas a stock pays out a percentage of the profit, which could be huge in some cases, but passes on all the risk to offset the potential profit advantage.
This is, at least, how we here in EVE tend to refer to the two.
Of course after this I don't think bonds will be nearly as popular... seeing as how the fixed rates only appear to be fixed under optimal conditions and as soon as things go bad they vanish. Kind of removes the purpose of a fixed rate...
I see quite a bit of turmoil in the IPO/Bond market here due to these two FIN/FIN-U threads... as if someone that was supposed to be a very respected trusted member of the community is able to twist around the rules then new members of the community are going to have a hell of a time convincing people to trust them.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 21:51:00 -
[34]
Edited by: FastLearner on 19/03/2008 21:52:23
Originally by: Eefrit
FastLearner, I suggest you read the risks section of the document as well. Value has indeed fallen to an extent that the buffer can't cover it. In fact this was made clear about a year ago in an announcement to investors.
The risks section of any business plan is an "if.... then" setup. Assumptions are made and then how things will operate if those assumptions hold true is stated, as well as what the recourse would be if the did not hold true. The current situation being that they did not hold true.
/Eefrit
I have read the Risk section. It basically says that if BPO prices fall then investors may lose out if an Exit Strategy happens. Nowhere does it say "if things go wrong then I can keep the scheme running but no longer have to honour my obligations". The document is fairly clear: the options available now are either:
1. Use the defined Exit strategy - i.e. trustees liquidate collateral and refund investors. Obviously if not enough ISK is raised then investors bear the loss - that's pretty explicit in the document.
2. Change the interest rate - at which stage you have to, by your own rules, offer a buy-back to anyone who wants it.
Your should really get someone like Ray to do a proper valuation on the BPOs. Recently a lot of T2 BPOs have been trading for 3-4 years profits. If FIN is making 2-3% profit on IPO value then it's pretty likely that the BPOs would actually sell for sufficient to cover a full refund to investors. The problem I'm seeing with T2 BPOs isn't so much that their sale value has dropped as that the profit they generate has fallen hugely. It's pretty much unknown for a BPO put up for open auction to sell for less than about 18 months profit.
The danger for investors with option 2, but no independent valuation of assets, comes IF the value of the BPOs is actually at or near to their original investment. In that circumstance redirecting profits towards NAV serves only to reduce YOUR exposure - without giving them any extra ISK at all, even in the long term. But, as I already pointed out, by your own rules any reduction in dividends needs not just shareholder approal, but also for you to offer a buy-back to anyone who wants it. Unless you can point me to anything in the document which explicitly (or even implicitly) allows clause 4.1 to be ignored. When, other than in failure, would the interest rate be lowered?
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 21:55:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Shadarle
Bonds are generally, especially here in EVE, based on fixed returns.
Originally by: Shadarle
This is, at least, how we here in EVE tend to refer to the two.
Shadarle, it would really save us all some time if you got educated before speaking.
Here is some homework just for you:
Go look up which corp issued the first public bonds in Eve. Then go look up who the first 3 corps were. Then you can come back and take your foot out of your mouth.
/Eefrit
|
Eefrit
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 22:07:00 -
[36]
Originally by: FastLearner
The document is fairly clear: the options available now are either:
1. Use the defined Exit strategy - i.e. trustees liquidate collateral and refund investors. Obviously if not enough ISK is raised then investors bear the loss - that's pretty explicit in the document.
2. Change the interest rate - at which stage you have to, by your own rules, offer a buy-back to anyone who wants it.
Your should really get someone like Ray to do a proper valuation on the BPOs.
Fastlearner, I rechecked the document and it would appear that you are correct here. Although that was not the intention when it was written, the wording is clear that your interpretation is correct. The only issue I see is that there is an unintentional loophole in that a time frame for buying back the bonds at IPO was never given - which it probably should have been. I will take the matter under advisement and get back to you and everyone else on it before any vote is put into place.
I would ask that any shareholders that have a problem with a vote changing the interest let me know via evemail along with how many bonds they hold.
Regarding Ray valuing the BPOs, both him and myself have already discussed that in the earlier parts of this thread. Essentially the market history gives something to work with when selling similar BPOs to what have recently sold. A large amount of the BPOs in question have no recent comparison to make, and hence the only reasonably accurate way of doing it would be to sell them.
I am more than happy to hand everything over to either the trustees or someone like Ray (if the shareholders agree) to take over or liquidate going forward, but making that decision right now would be premature.
/Eefrit
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=399241 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.[/url]
|
FastLearner
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 22:12:00 -
[37]
The FIN-U position is somewhat trickier. The commitment to 8% until July is cast in stone, but the buyback situation was written in a fairly ambiguous way:
"e) 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."
The key is how ii) is interpreted. It can be read two ways:
a) That the buy-back commitment is to buy back whatever bonds have been listed for buy-back up to maximum of 5% of investment per month,
b) That there's not actually a commitment to buy back anything at all (other than, maybe, a nominal 1 share per month).
It would appear that Eefrit is now claiming that when he wrote that he intended it to mean that he didn't have any meaningful obligation to buy-back at all - which doesn't seem a very above-board approach to me. Writing a buy-back clause which people will read, in good faith, as an offer to buyback 5% of investment per month - when, by use of weaselly wording, you're intending not offer a buy-back at all is getting pretty close to being dishonest. If the intent was for no commitment to buyback to be made then that should have been explicit - e.g. "A buy-back thread will be opened and I may, if I feel like it, buy back some bonds (but no more than 5% per month) or then again I may not bother buying any back at all." But that might have negatively affected sales - a bit like clarifying that "zero risk" actually meant "a significant risk" would have done for FIN.
|
Taloic
Black Watch Regiment
New Eden Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 22:47:00 -
[38]
Eefrit if option 2 is what you believe is the better choice im placeing my vote there also.
I have 1 bil invested with you and its been a good investment.
You have not lead us wrong and have done an excellent job man.
Let the armchair lawyers do their thing just dont place to much into their words.
**************************
2a) Drop dividends to actual profits (closer to 3-4% at present)
b) I will use my personal income to try buy back bonds at IPO price as fast as is possible rather than use it to try and bring the dividends up to 7%. I expect that this would be complete in less than a year, at which point all investors would have their full investment paid back.
c) I realise some people paid a premium buying from third parties, but that is a risk they took. Everything has always been structured around IPO prices which included any buyback option in the initial investors agreement.
|
cosmoray
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 23:40:00 -
[39]
The buy back clause in this instance is a very clever way of keeping capital.
If FIN-U/FIN offer to buy back 5% of the bonds each month over 20 months whilst paying no dividend, Erefit only needs to make 5% profit to not pay back any capital.
I will say that again. If Erifit make 5% profit on 400B (or whatever valuation) each month, he uses this interest to buy back 5% of the shares. After 20 months 400B richer.
Welcome to the trillionaire club.
It is interesting that Erifit is using semantics and smallprint to change the rules because we mortals don't understand his slippery document.
Anyone want to buy a photocopier?
|
Segge Bolled
Dirty Sexy Pilots
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 06:44:00 -
[40]
Oh.
I've been reading this since it went up and I've only just realized I actually own (a mere) 1,500 shares (FIN). 
After some thought, Option 2 please.
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 07:15:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Shadarle
Bonds are generally, especially here in EVE, based on fixed returns.
Originally by: Shadarle
This is, at least, how we here in EVE tend to refer to the two.
Shadarle, it would really save us all some time if you got educated before speaking.
Here is some homework just for you:
Go look up which corp issued the first public bonds in Eve. Then go look up who the first 3 corps were. Then you can come back and take your foot out of your mouth.
/Eefrit
So the first person to do something sets all the rules for the rest of time, no evolution at all? Good to know.
We've had a lot of discussions here about the differences in bonds and shares, you'd know that if you ever posted here anymore. The majority of people who discussed the topic settled on those generalities about bonds/shares. There are of course always some businesses which don't fit perfectly into either camp, but those are the general rule around here when naming something. Perhaps way back when things were different... but for as long as I've posted here bonds and shares have been quite different beasts.
And I am now a shareholder, just FYI. Apparently someone here wanted you to have to listen to me, because I received some shares for free recently. I am not sure who this individual was, they did not inform me of the transfer... I just noticed I received divs from you which meant I had some shares. But clearly as much as you'd like to ignore me, at least one of your investors doesn't want you to.
|
SonOfAGhost
Minmatar Munitions and Tactical Assets Repository
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 11:35:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Shadarle
And remember, if it takes 6 months to sell the BPO's off then you're tying up all that money for 6 months. Valuing at 4% that is ~25%. So by holding the BPO's for longer you have to at least make ~25% more or it wasn't worth the time waited.
Of course that would need to be evaluated, but you'd never be able to tell for sure. 25% may well be possible, though, but it's something that would need to be measured as the liquidation is in process.
This assumes no cash is paid out until all sales are complete. The opportunity cost would be much reduced if payouts were done via dividends as sales were made rather than a share buy-back at the end.
Originally by: CCP Explorer
This is intended, to not clutter the overview with information that new players don't need in their first few hours.
(on stargates not being on overview) |
SencneS
Rebellion Against big Irreversible Dinks
The Cyrene Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 17:11:00 -
[43]
I'd welcome a slow buy back of Stocks.
For FIN it's 9,500 per.
cosmoray has a pretty decent idea. Halt dividends, still run what you can and whatever profit is made for the month buy back back that amount of stocks.
I think what gets on most peoples goats is not the fact it not pushing out Dividends at the same rate, it's the fact the "bond" doesn't have the same value.
Speaking for myself I've taken all the dividends you have given me, but I still consider the share of a value that I paid for it. You're saying the NAV is not there anymore, but offering 2.5% dividend. I'd rather take comfort in knowing it's still worth what I paid for it and sell them off slowly over time at that value.
In the end you did everything you could but CCP just wreaked the T2 market too much to recover. You're not the first and will probably not be the last IPO to fall victim to CCP.
If people get 10,000 per share in a buy back they can't have an issue, they got their original purchase price but all the dividends you gave. In all honesty they have nothing to complain about.
Amarr for Life |
Zorrill
Great Gig in the Sky
|
Posted - 2008.03.20 19:54:00 -
[44]
I am a FIN shareholder to the tune of some 700 odd M isk. I will be voting for option 2 when the opportunity arises, as I am happy for you to continue to manage my investment. Whatever decisions you may have made regarding purchase of T2 BPOs, you clearly want your investors to get as much as they can, whilst keeping the hit you yourself take to a minimum. I would like the trustees to do a valuation of the BPOs held however in the interest of fuller disclosure, this would not affect my vote but I feel that it is information that is reasonable to ask for. Or perhaps Ray could do it if he's willing? I would also like to know what the feasibility of implementing your limited buyback scheme is in conjunction with the reduced dividend? My understanding of the scheme was that you would buy back 5% (5 billion ish) per month at 95% value. Would it be possible to manage this using sales of the lower return/actual value BPOs? This could speed your return to better profitability whilst removing your disaffected investors if I am thinking it through correctly, but you would need a more accurate projection of NAV to consider it. Just my two penn'orth
|
Elias Riikonen
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 07:18:00 -
[45]
Originally by: FastLearner
Not sure a bout FIN-U, but here's a few things from the FIN launch document:
"After the first 3 months of operations, we will create a thread where investors can post
on a waiting list to have their shares bought out by EFS under the following conditions:
1. A buy order will be placed for a minimum of 1 Bill Isk or 5% of the invested
capital (whichever is the greater) with the EGSE every month pending the other
conditions."
So there should already be a thread for FIN customers to register to sell at 95%. Contrary to what is stated in the OP, the obligation was very clearly to buy back 5% of shares per month (if requested) at 95% of IPO price.
I for one wish to hereby request that my 1b of shares be bought back at 95% IPO value. Eefrit, if you don't accommodate this request, can you explain your choice to be something else than breach of contract?
|
Eefrit
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 09:27:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
I for one wish to hereby request that my 1b of shares be bought back at 95% IPO value. Eefrit, if you don't accommodate this request, can you explain your choice to be something else than breach of contract?
There is already a waiting list which has been bought up steadily over time and clearly I am not about to comply with your request immediately as you are nowhere near the top of that list. At present something like 60 Billion Isk worth has been bought back under that policy.
/Eefrit
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=399241Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.[/url]
|
Eefrit
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 09:28:00 -
[47]
Thanks for all the sincere feedback so far.
I will be going away for the long weekend and will only be back on Sunday evening or Monday morning, so I will not be able to respond until then.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=399241Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.[/url]
|
Umbriele
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 09:41:00 -
[48]
As a shareholder, is it possible to exchange my shares for assets? i.e. T2 blueprints
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Elias Riikonen
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 09:44:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Eefrit
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
I for one wish to hereby request that my 1b of shares be bought back at 95% IPO value. Eefrit, if you don't accommodate this request, can you explain your choice to be something else than breach of contract?
There is already a waiting list which has been bought up steadily over time and clearly I am not about to comply with your request immediately as you are nowhere near the top of that list. At present something like 60 Billion Isk worth has been bought back under that policy.
Ok, sorry, I got the impression from the previous discussion that that list did not exist.
Is there a link available to the list?
|
Sofitia Mourtos
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 11:51:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Eefrit
Here is some homework just for you:
Go look up which corp issued the first public bonds in Eve. Then go look up who the first 3 corps were.
I am sorry for going completely off-topic here - but where would you actually find this information ? (I am interested from a research point of view).
Did anyone do it before I did ?
----------------------------------------
WTB: Guardian BPO |
HayesDuSid
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 13:06:00 -
[51]
FIN-U investor, going with option 2
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
4rc4ng3L
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 13:51:00 -
[52]
FIN-U investor.... i want to reconfirm my decision for option 2
------------------------------------------
- To Jumanji, or not to Jumanji...... - |
Matti Leesonen
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 15:46:00 -
[53]
Fin-U investor.
I'm going with option 2
--Shiny!-- |
Major Stallion
Dragons Of Redemption
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 16:35:00 -
[54]
am i correct in assuming that option 2 will pay back the full value of the IPO on every share owned...essentially like a full refund of the IPO price? If so, i'd have to vote for option 2..
|
lotrias
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 17:42:00 -
[55]
fin-investor
going for option 2.
|
Helix Fluxx
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 18:01:00 -
[56]
Being as I only purchased my FIN shares recently from another shareholder (I detect a hint of insider information or rat leaving sinking ship), I've not yet recieved what I feel to be an adequate return on my investment. I'm certainly not willing to make a loss on it yet, so option 1 is right out at this time.
I'm going for Option 2, although I'm disappointed to have read in other threads hints to the effect that there were times when FIN was making more money than was expected, so unless my understanding of the distribution is wrong, all of that extra money went to shareholders.
Was nothing set aside in reserve to cater for leaner times?
|
Ginea Moya
O.P.T
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 19:26:00 -
[57]
Fin-U and Fin small time investor.
Option 2 on both.
What we would have if I were all here and not all there. |
Dal Thrax
Multiverse Corporation
Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 19:52:00 -
[58]
I wonder if FIN-U might be better served by option 3. Convert to a stock with target divs of 4% of NAV and reinvest any extra isk into the company (raising NAV, raising returns. . .).
From what I see on this forum many bond holders value an isk source from a going concern.
Dal
Originally by: HEXXX
In all seriousness; I think I made a miscalculation originally. . . We either need to fix this or fix our advertising.
|
CrazyCoolie
Lucky Hydra Corp
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 22:17:00 -
[59]
As an investor in Fin-U i vote for option 2.
Eefrit thx for all your hard work and will invest with you in the future
Coolie
|
Margret Putnam
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 03:37:00 -
[60]
Fin: Option 2
|
Kaitou Shiroi
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 03:51:00 -
[61]
FIN-Option 2
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 09:14:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Florio
and there are rumours of prices increasing shortly
There are also rumors that T2 BPO's are going to be made into long run BPC's. Rumors are meaningless.
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 00:24:00 -
[63]
FIN - OPTION 2
------
People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun. |
Sanguinius Scorpion
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 00:47:00 -
[64]
I guess I will have to choose option 2.
|
Sharp Trader
ARK-CORP
SATRAPY
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 12:24:00 -
[65]
As an investor option 2 is good.
I would prefer an option 3 if possible.
|
rooie gek
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 12:47:00 -
[66]
fin invester going for option 2
|
Extreme
Eye of God
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 13:17:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Extreme on 23/03/2008 13:17:42
I'm a FIN shareholder with 110.000 FIN shares, i voted option 2.
.
.
|
Ghost Emperor
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 19:13:00 -
[68]
EMFI hold many billions (http://emfi.blogspot.com/) in FIN and FIN-U so we are very interested in progress, we would like long-term return on investments in light of there being limited higher interest rate investment opportunities at present. Therefore, we vote with management recommendations, with a review of progress every couple of months. We would have liked an audit to work out FIN and FIN-U NAVs before going to vote, and we are also interested in if the 60bn isks worth of shares you mentioned had been bought back were going to be voted, or not?
We also wish we had been updated about the massive loss of NAV a bit earlier as we would have reduced our buying of stock, and could have reduced EMFI NAV earlier to compensate. But as long-term investors we are also thankful you havenÆt ignored investors, have sought our views and havenÆt vanished/ dumped the project, so we follow your recommendations.
FIN: Option 2: We vote for maximum dividend income:
Supporting comment: Corps that actually pay regular dividends are few and far between so we would like you to continue, if only for rarity value ;)
We are very keen on transparency though and would vote for continued existence on the basis that there should be a full audit and trustee declaration of NAV and BPO valuations (with third party review i.e. Ray McCormack or other).
There is also the issue of potential absent trustees, and you may need to inject some new blood onto the board if any are currently awol.
Suggestion: Unprofitable, or low profit prints could be sold to fund buybacks at the board discretion?
Question: Is/will re-cycled dividend income (from the 60bn of your own bonds held in treasury) be used to raise div level, raise NAV or buybacks?
FIN-U: Option 2: We vote for consistent dividend income at this moment in time, with gradual buy back bonds at close to, or at IPO price.
As investors we are not sure what assets were, or what caused the NAV/profit drop and would also like to know more about the FIN-U situation (if it is different from the FIN one).
Ideally we would like a liquidation vote on FIN-U as well, is its value near 100%? It might be better to liquidate this one along the lines of PSRS rather than a drawn out death?
EvE Galactic Stock Exchange and Real-time Eve Stock Exchange EMFI blog at: http://emfi.blogspot.com/ |
Elias Riikonen
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 13:18:00 -
[69]
About FIN option 2, reducing the minimum dividend to 2.5%. This shouldn't be worded so that we give Eefrit the right to pay out at only 2.5% indefinitely, even if market conditions improve. I propose there should be a vote every two months on whether shareholders agree to a dividend of less than 4%, or if they prefer liquidation.
|
D'Tann
Phoenix Industries
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 17:29:00 -
[70]
Well, after double checking and confirming that there are currently no open votes for either FIN or FIN-U (was a little concerned after seeing all the posts with "votes"). Are any 3rd options being considered for eithe FIN or FIN-U and what if any timetable has been set to hold votes?
|
Worry
Femdom Chihuahua Cult
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 13:12:00 -
[71]
FIN- Option 2 |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 20:19:00 -
[72]
Originally by: D'Tann
Well, after double checking and confirming that there are currently no open votes for either FIN or FIN-U (was a little concerned after seeing all the posts with "votes"). Are any 3rd options being considered for eithe FIN or FIN-U and what if any timetable has been set to hold votes?
Feel free to suggest any third options that you think would be appropriate.
Timetable wise, I am planning for this weekend but it looks like there really may not be a vote option for FIN that does not break the investors agreement. I should have word on that this weekend though.
/Eefrit
|
Ignition SemperFi
|
Posted - 2008.04.05 21:33:00 -
[73]
any update on this for your shareholders of FIN or FIN-U
------
People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun. |
Syndicate Reigns
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 06:12:00 -
[74]
As a long time investor with FIN, I also chose option 2. Take some time and get things rolling again so that we can maintain a 4.0% profit margin. A short term loss to keep things well in the long term is fine by me.
|
Elias Riikonen
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 20:35:00 -
[75]
So what's up? Has anyone seen Eefrit in the last 10 days?
|
Azerath
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.12 19:34:00 -
[76]
I'm getting worried myself, haven't seen him in over two weeks. =\
-------------------------------------------- |
Elias Riikonen
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.04.12 23:23:00 -
[77]
Who holds what collateral exists for FIN?
If it continues that nothing is heard of Eefrit, how long will be waited before liquidation of those assets is started?
|
Alain DeMorgan
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 09:19:00 -
[78]
The FIN dividend appears to be a couple of weeks overdue too ..
|
Were Donkey
|
Posted - 2008.04.15 12:53:00 -
[79]
Done a runner with the cash!
|
Azerath
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 03:17:00 -
[80]
Hmm bad timing on my part, but WTS FIN Shares (I wanna get a paladin) 9k each, plz mail or convo Azerath, 50,000 shares to sell.
-------------------------------------------- |
Helix Fluxx
Caldari
Contempo Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 04:10:00 -
[81]
As a concerned investor I too would like to know exactly what is going on regarding FIN and the shares I hold with regards to that corporation. |
Segge Bolled
Caldari
Dirty Sexy Pilots
New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 09:55:00 -
[82]
I'm wondering if people are being hit by the same bus, and whether investors should be looking in future for a mandatory "funds manager lives behind comprehensive anti-vehicle trenches" clause.  |
Elias Riikonen
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 09:55:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Azerath
Edited by: Azerath on 17/04/2008 04:39:49
Hmm bad timing on my part, but WTS FIN Shares (I wanna get a paladin) 9k each, plz mail or convo Azerath, 50,000 shares to sell.
EDITED: Shares sold at 10k each, thanks for your bids.
I'd also like to hereby offer FIN shares for sale. I have 100,000 in total, 9k each would be sufficient. Evemail/convo me if interested. |
CrazyCoolie
Lucky Hydra Corp
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 09:32:00 -
[84]
If anyone is interested in buying 2k worth of fin-u shares at a drastic discount send me a mail
DEUS VOLT |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:51:00 -
[85]
Ionia disappears then Eefrit disappears... odd since they were always helping each other all the time, bidding on auctions for each other, posting for each other, etc.
Not saying they are the same person, just saying the similarities are a bit interesting to look at.
|
Florio
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 19:08:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Florio on 20/04/2008 19:08:40
Edited by: Florio on 20/04/2008 19:08:21
odd huh?
if you're going to scam, you don't take a whole load of money then pay most of it back before doing a runner. i mean, i must have got back at least 3b - 3.5b of the 4b invested via dividends.
and reputation is more important than isk.
so i find myself worried about eefrit: hope he's okey.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 06:37:00 -
[87]
Eefrit is fine, just busy. I spoke with him briefly at the weekend.
|
Unfamed II
FinFleet
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 23:46:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Florio
Edited by: Florio on 20/04/2008 19:08:40
Edited by: Florio on 20/04/2008 19:08:21
odd huh?
if you're going to scam, you don't take a whole load of money then pay most of it back before doing a runner. i mean, i must have got back at least 3b - 3.5b of the 4b invested via dividends.
and reputation is more important than isk.
so i find myself worried about eefrit: hope he's okey.
My thoughts exactly, that would be the worst scam ever. 
Originally by: Sandslinger of CA
So this wasn't a straightoff logoffski from our point of view, rather a tactical manoeuvre
|
Segge Bolled
Caldari
Dirty Sexy Pilots
New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 01:59:00 -
[89]
It would have a sort of dark comedy to it. Imagine the evil mastermind, standing in his lair, screaming at the top of their lungs to the other half of their split personality complex "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN MOST OF THE MONEY BACK?"
|
D'Tann
Phoenix Industries
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 13:25:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Segge Bolled
It would have a sort of dark comedy to it. Imagine the evil mastermind, standing in his lair, screaming at the top of their lungs to the other half of their split personality complex "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN MOST OF THE MONEY BACK?"
HAHA, yeah that's funny...oh wait, except for the other 400b worth of investment.
Can't even unload the bonds now unless you just want to give away the interest from the missing month, which is about to become 2 months.
|
cosmoray
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 06:41:00 -
[91]
The problem here is that Erefit set out his plan over a month ago.
Where are the updates, the revisions, the reasons for not paying out "gauranteed dividends" on a bond.
All options seem to lead to Erefit keeping a very large chunk of cash.
|
Elias Riikonen
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 20:55:00 -
[92]
Originally by: cosmoray
The problem here is that Erefit set out his plan over a month ago.
Where are the updates, the revisions, the reasons for not paying out "gauranteed dividends" on a bond.
All options seem to lead to Erefit keeping a very large chunk of cash.
It seems to me that Eefrit's motivation to play EVE has diminished, now that his business seems to have taken a significant turn for the worse. Quite understandable, but unfortunate for us shareholders, as is the fact that in his last communication he stated that whatever option he chooses for FIN, it will most likely include breaking the contract he has made with shareholders...
One of these days I'll bother to check who was it that holds the collateral that exists for FIN (diminished in value though it is...), and ask them when they'll start liquedating it if Eefrit continues to take no action. (If you read this, feel free to comment sooner than that.)
|
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 21:37:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
One of these days I'll bother to check who was it that holds the collateral that exists for FIN (diminished in value though it is...), and ask them when they'll start liquedating it if Eefrit continues to take no action. (If you read this, feel free to comment sooner than that.)
I believe that would be Femtaki and Naphtalia, both who I dont think are very active in Eve either these days. It has been so long since I have seen either one, I most likely misspelled both of their names.
--
|
Segge Bolled
Caldari
Dirty Sexy Pilots
New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 06:14:00 -
[94]
Originally by: D'Tann
AHA, yeah that's funny...oh wait, except for the other 400b worth of investment.
Can't even unload the bonds now unless you just want to give away the interest from the missing month, which is about to become 2 months.
I guess all the ISK in EVE can't buy someone a sense of humor, eh?
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2008.04.28 11:20:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: Elias Riikonen
One of these days I'll bother to check who was it that holds the collateral that exists for FIN (diminished in value though it is...), and ask them when they'll start liquedating it if Eefrit continues to take no action. (If you read this, feel free to comment sooner than that.)
I believe that would be Femtaki and Naphtalia, both who I dont think are very active in Eve either these days. It has been so long since I have seen either one, I most likely misspelled both of their names.
I don't believe Eefrit's motivation has changed, just his circumstances and the fact the RL is always > then EVE. I know he is waiting on a response from the Trustees before finalising details on FIN. I'm not sure what is happening with FIN-U or why it hasn't paid out this month.
Either way you can be sure no one has or is planning on running with the collateral for either bond. And despite what may be evident, Eefrit is trying his utmost to do what is best for his bond holders and will do his best to keep to the letter of his agreement.
|
Segge Bolled
Caldari
Dirty Sexy Pilots
New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 01:19:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Eefrit is trying his utmost to do what is best for his bond holders and will do his best to keep to the letter of his agreement.
Is that the same agreement he'll be breaking?
Originally by: Eefrit
Timetable wise, I am planning for this weekend but it looks like there really may not be a vote option for FIN that does not break the investors agreement.
- I'm not trying to be critical of Eefrit (happily supporting option 2 in view of the circumstances), I just wanted to say it before someone came out from beneath their bridge and did it with even less class.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 08:12:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Segge Bolled
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Eefrit is trying his utmost to do what is best for his bond holders and will do his best to keep to the letter of his agreement.
Is that the same agreement he'll be breaking?
Originally by: Eefrit
Timetable wise, I am planning for this weekend but it looks like there really may not be a vote option for FIN that does not break the investors agreement.
- I'm not trying to be critical of Eefrit (happily supporting option 2 in view of the circumstances), I just wanted to say it before someone came out from beneath their bridge and did it with even less class.
I'd prefer not to argue semantics.
|
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 07:55:00 -
[98]
Both bonds were never secured. Only FIN was secured, FINU was entirely unsecured iirc.
|
Segge Bolled
Caldari
Dirty Sexy Pilots
New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 08:04:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
I'd prefer not to argue semantics.
I'm glad. Firstly because I'm not even sure I'd "win" and second, because I'd hope that everyone else felt the same way. Sorry for using your comment as part of my mechanism for trying to express that. 
|
D'Tann
Phoenix Industries
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 22:37:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Segge Bolled
Originally by: D'Tann
AHA, yeah that's funny...oh wait, except for the other 400b worth of investment.
Can't even unload the bonds now unless you just want to give away the interest from the missing month, which is about to become 2 months.
I guess all the ISK in EVE can't buy someone a sense of humor, eh?
No, not when a large chunk of mine appears to be about to disappear.
|
CrazyCoolie
Lucky Hydra Corp
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.06 23:01:00 -
[101]
Any News???????
DEUS VOLT |
Worry
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 01:46:00 -
[102]
So WTF ever happened? We were asked to vote and now?
Jesus- just log in, figure it all out, liquidate the assets and pay out with what is left.
Or log in and laugh at the suckers.
Either way, an answer would be nice. |
Soren
PAK
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 06:33:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Worry
So WTF ever happened? We were asked to vote and now?
Jesus- just log in, figure it all out, liquidate the assets and pay out with what is left.
Or log in and laugh at the suckers.
Either way, an answer would be nice.
Stop.. Worrying?
lol
☠-->-->--
|
Savvy Entrepreneur
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 19:56:00 -
[104]
Aye, there is nothing to be done about it now, as it has already been said above, RL > EVE. There would have been better ways to deal with it, but that is beside the point, what is done has been done. I haven't been playing long, and I tell you I have little experience in the EVE market, MD boards, or with the people involved. However, from what I have found is that Eefrit still seems to be respected and trustworthy, and will continue to own and purchase more stock from him if that day comes, it is just that circumstances have panned out to delay payouts and votes.
Until then, you don't have one of your bond payouts, but its not the end of your portfolio.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 19:59:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Savvy Entrepreneur
complete balls
Looking to offload your stock?
|
clonkrieger
Imperium Forces
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.05.11 00:45:00 -
[106]
Anyone selling shares?
___________________________
Returned after being absent.
Updating... |
Savvy Entrepreneur
|
Posted - 2008.05.11 02:58:00 -
[107]
ATM, no, I will hold onto my 50k, as it is the only possible assets I own, regardless of it being inactive and not making me isk. I am a patient man, I have been waiting for DF since '04, and have yet to waiver, so waiting for Eefrit is nothing difficult. If it never pays out again, so be it, I am still new enough in the game to find other sources of income.
|
Katashi Ishizuka
|
Posted - 2008.05.11 03:10:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Savvy Entrepreneur
complete balls
Looking to offload your stock?
Give me a quote. I have approx 1.5~bil worth of shares that I'd like to liquidate, but I'm not in any huge hurry. Someday Eefrit will get around to honoring his buy-back policy.
|
Sewer Donkey
|
Posted - 2008.05.11 11:04:00 -
[109]
What are you offering for FIN-U shares
|
Were Donkey
|
Posted - 2008.05.11 11:18:00 -
[110]
meant to post with this char, fin-u offers?
|
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2008.05.11 17:59:00 -
[111]
My sincere apologies for the delay in posting here guys. I am creating a new thread with exactly what is happening in the next few minutes, so please look there for information on what is going on with FIN and FIN-U.
Regards,
Eefrit
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |