| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
   |
Posted - 2008.07.18 03:40:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Ray McCormack
Are you calling me a rosy fart?
Your welcome
|
MaVla
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 10:08:00 -
[32]
Edited by: MaVla on 18/07/2008 10:08:53
As a shareholder I would like to see it closed, it has gone on long enough without the required support it needs and with all due respect Torn the lottery is your baby and always will be.
There will always be a RL reason thats going to get in the way, you know it and so do all your shareholders. Anyone thinking things will change is kidding themselves. Offer a reasonable buy back and I'm sure the majority of your investors will be biting your arm off to take it.
MaVla
|
Jaeger Orlofsson
VentureCorp
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 11:41:00 -
[33]
I have to say the extortionate 10% tax/fee is apallingly high considering the reason for the buyback offer and recent performance.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 12:32:00 -
[34]
Having implemented the Treasury Shares procedure I feel it my responsibility to answer for it.
It is not a buyback or shut-down mechanism. It is intended to assist with the liquidation of a shareholder's investment should the bank be in a relatively liquid position, and force the bank into a liquid position should it not be performing up to standard.
There are a variety of other reasons for Treasury Stock.
It is also not a perpetual offer and may be rescinded with notice.
The reason the 10% reduction is in place is to avoid the somewhat nasty potential situation for the BMBE to overspend on shares due to an unrecoverable default or third-party shares loosing value (as FIN and FIN-U were at the time of introduction). It is most certainly not in place to extort shareholders out of their ISK.
|
Jaeger Orlofsson
VentureCorp
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 14:10:00 -
[35]
Ray, sorry but could you explain it further, I'm afraid I dont understand the Treasury Share information on the wikipedia page or how it applies to this situation - can you break it down into tl;dr format? If for example I went for the buyback does that mean I can have the 10% later? If not who does that go to?
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 15:04:00 -
[36]
The 10% goes back into the BMBE and increases NAV for the remaining shareholders. Should all shares be bought back this way then the BMBE will be left with no shareholders and a NAV of 10% of current NAV.
But as stated this offer is not a buyback or shut-down mechanism. And the 10% reduction is to avoid anyone cashing out before an unrecoverable default or fall in NAV leaving the remaining shareholders with an even bigger loss.
For those of you unsure as to the probability of closure, let me settle your uncertainty. The BMBE will not shut down, it will continue to run under TornSoul and in the future perhaps a variety of other individuals, it's just the degree of success that may vary.
|
Ricdics
Corporate Placement Holding
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 15:09:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
The BMBE will not shut down, it will continue to run under TornSoul and in the future perhaps a variety of other individuals, it's just the degree of success that may vary.
Ugh, that's terrible news. TS may be good with the lottery but his historical performance with BMBE, as well as the delegate chosen to run it in the first post are a clear sign of where BMBE is heading. People selling BMBE shares at 50% of cost, no communication, crap dividends etc.
Not sure why a vote wasn't initiated when you left Ray offering shareholders the option to close shop and get their isk back rather than forcing them back into this situation they were all stuck in just over a year ago. |
Mr Horizontal
Gallente
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 15:17:00 -
[38]
Put simply Treasury Stock in EVE would be shares that have been bought back and sitting in BMBE's wallet, effectively unissued shares.
I'm at work so not in game and don't have reference to BMBE's IPO documentation either, so am doing this from memory. Say BMBE issued 2000 shares at 50m each to create a marcap of 100b. This is by all intents and purposes now a debt to BMBE. It then leverages 80% of this ISK, thus creating a nice income stream. The remaining 20% is it's liquid reserves.
Now things are good, and that 85% leveraged capital is producing enough revenue to pay the debt via dividends to shareholders. This is what you experienced when BMBE was in full flight under Ray's helmsmanship.
The treasury stock system was then introduced, because in light of the secondary market and stiff competition from competitors, BMBE could potentially have a tough time earning money from loans, and was looking at its risk exposure in light of the changing landscape and this mechanism is as a result a safety net.
What it does is when BMBE has 100b, and say BMBE is earning 12.5b income and suddenly 30% of it's leveraged loan falls off it's books, because a debtor pays it all back and moves away, then suddenly, BMBE's income drops proportially as well.
As such, in order to remain healthy, BMBE can choose to buy back its shares at 90% NAV, which devalues the whole corporation, but at the same time, readjusts the percentages back into normal operating positions.
tl;dr, Treasury Shares allow BMBE to shrink itself proportionally to any event threatening liquidity that has happened so it can ensure operation in its comfort zones, and be able to react rather than sitting on a pile of unleveraged (and not-earning) ISK, with a huge price tag on it.
Director | www.eve-bank.net |
Mehixa
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 15:19:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Having implemented the Treasury Shares procedure I feel it my responsibility to answer for it.
It is not a buyback or shut-down mechanism. It is intended to assist with the liquidation of a shareholder's investment should the bank be in a relatively liquid position, and force the bank into a liquid position should it not be performing up to standard.
There are a variety of other reasons for Treasury Stock.
It is also not a perpetual offer and may be rescinded with notice.
The reason the 10% reduction is in place is to avoid the somewhat nasty potential situation for the BMBE to overspend on shares due to an unrecoverable default or third-party shares loosing value (as FIN and FIN-U were at the time of introduction). It is most certainly not in place to extort shareholders out of their ISK.
Ray,
I'm not sure how this forces BMBE into a liquid position since, by it's definintion, BMBE is expending cash in order to reaquire stock (now termed treasurey stock, as it moves to being owned by the entity whom issued it). Further complicating this is that if BMBE puts itself in an illiquid position, it handicaps it's own ability to provide loans; the primary method by which it generates revenue.
Now, I could see how this would prompt BMBE to attempt to liquidate it's non-cash assets (and perhaps that's what you mean here), but if the majority of these assets are shares in other IPO's, BMBE will need to "quickly" find a price to which a buyer will agree. If it does liquidate these non-cash assets, it further places emphasis and reliance on loans as the primary source of revenue. If loans dry up or demand isn't there...it presents a risk for future revenue and weakens BMBE's position relative to it's competition.
To investors in BMBE, I believe (Ray is free to correct me, I might have this wrong) that by offering a 90% buy-back, BMBE is trying to hedge the risk of cutting too deep into their liquidity. It's more of a sa***uard or risk mitigator. Obviously it was designed to be a disincentive and perhaps it's safer that way for the good of BMBE.
Ok, here comes the part where I throw in my two-cents.
I think BMBE should probably liquidate. Let me explain. I don't think that Torn Soul has the time to continually manage BMBE, and finding another manager like Ray to take over the reigns would be extremely challenging. In terms of the BIG portfolio of brands, I would ask TS to consider the value of continuely running BMBE and the risk to the BIG brand itself if BMBE continues to limp along with anemic returns or (worse) is percieved to have collapsed.
It may make sense in the grand scheme of things to consolidate the BIG portfolio by closing the BMBE venture.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 16:09:00 -
[40]
All valid points really, but I can assure you now you're just ****ing in the wind by asking for a shut-down. May god grant you the wisdom to accept what you cannot change.
Mehixa, you answered your own question be referencing third-party shares owned by the BMBE. You're just off the mark when it comes to the timespan concerning these matters. It's not a race, the BMBE is in it for the long run, and will probably only close when CCP shuts TQ down.
Ric, I honestly contemplated a vote. But it's not my decision to make, nor, according to the IPO documentation, is it the shareholder's. And while I could argue the above points for the introduction of the Treasury Shares, there is one single overwhelming reason for them. I considered it a parting gift to shareholders and a swift kick up the proverbial for TS, warning him he can't just sit back idly on a pile of ISK anymore.
|
Mr Horizontal
Gallente
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.18 18:12:00 -
[41]
My opinion is structurally BMBE is 100% fine, but it requires a helm.
I did sell out the minute Ray announced he was stepping down, but I'd really, really like BMBE to be on it's feet again. With FIN and Ionia gone, there are just too few 'blue chip' stocks left.
Director | www.eve-bank.net |
killerco
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 07:24:00 -
[42]
Originally by: TornSoul
RL has been hitting me over the head in all kinds of annoying ways for the past month+.
Thanks for this update TornSoul gl with your RL
|
herot
Fortunis - Redux
|
Posted - 2008.07.22 22:45:00 -
[43]
Originally by: shambley
P.S. Nice to see ya Herot, Long time since we were corpies in fortunis what is it 3-4 years now 
Hi, Sham!
Yes, time flies doesn't it? It doesn't really feel that long ago, but when I look at my employment history I have to conlude that your right.
Anyways, thanks alot for helping to set things in motion again for BMBE. 
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |