| Author |
Topic |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting |
Posted - 2010.01.14 04:01:00 - [ 1]
Edited by: Varo Jan on 16/01/2010 18:04:56
Edited by: Varo Jan on 16/01/2010 05:15:56
Edited by: Varo Jan on 16/01/2010 00:24:15
Edited by: Varo Jan on 15/01/2010 19:19:29
Caravanserai Bond Offering
I have an exclusive agreement with LadyOfWrath to purchase One Stop Research, One Stop Research Alliance and One Stop Mining, including all tangible and intangible assets.
The corporations involved have all been audited by Grendell, and the presence of all tangible assets has been verified.
This bond offers you the opportunity to invest in an existing blue chip venture with an excellent track record.
Bonds
Number: 150
Face Value: One billion ISK each (1B).
Interest Rate: 4% monthly.
Period: Open-ended
Repurchase: There may be partial or full repurchase of these bonds. Should that happen, bonds would be repurchased at face value.
Trading: You are free to trade these bonds, but all trades must be done through Grendell. All trades must be confirmed in this thread in order to ensure payment of interest to the right holder of the bonds.
Priority Rights
Existing One Stop investors will have priority in reserving bonds.
Right of Refusal
I will not accept investments from known scammers.
Should an investor provide material support to known scammers, his bond(s) will be repurchased and offered for sale.
Interest Cover
The businesses currently generate profits in excess of ten billion ISK monthly. That provides adequate cover for bond interest payments.
Various expansion plans are being considered which will strengthen the business and provide additional interest cover.
Surplus profits will be left in the business to build up a cash reserve to cover three months interest payments.
Security
Grendell, LadyOfWrath and SetraDark have agreed to be trustees and to hold all shares. Grendell will be CEO of the corporations.
BPOs valued at 125B will be locked down.
Ji Sama is providing collateral in the form of blue chip shares valued at 25B. Those shares will be held by a trusted third party.
In the event that I disappear without warning and there is no communication from me for three months, Grendell will liquidate the corporations and repay investors.
In the event that interest payments are not made in full for three consecutive months, including making up previous shortfalls, Grendell will liquidate the corporations and repay investors.
His liquidation fee will be 5% of the then current NAV. Should he require assistance by other trustees in the liquidation process, they will be suitably compensated.
Business Operations
LoW has agreed to remain on board for a period of 28 days in order to ensure a smooth transition.
The business has one other member of staff who has agreed to stay on.
This is not a time intensive operation, so I do not anticipate any conflicts with my existing activities. Besides, I currently run nine research characters of my own, so I am familiar with the processes involved in this business. However, should any unforeseen conflicts arise, existing activities will be scaled down.
Reporting
As this is a bond, there is no requirement to publish monthly accounts. Nevertheless, in the interests of transparency, full accounts prepared in accordance with accounting standards will be issued by Magnu Stormhawk.
Edited to reflect changes resulting from the discussion phase.
Continued in next post. |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting |
Posted - 2010.01.14 04:01:00 - [ 2]
Edited by: Varo Jan on 16/01/2010 15:47:31
Edited by: Varo Jan on 15/01/2010 19:28:35
Assessment and Mitigation of Risks
Note: Please bear in mind these are my personal risk assessments. Your views may vary.
Theft
Grendell is above suspicion. Risk is minimal.
The bond is fully collateralised by locked down BPOs and collateral provided by Ji Sama.
RL Issues or Burnout
This is not a time-intensive operation, so the risks of burnout are minimal.
The consequences of my disappearance have been covered elsewhere.
Risk assessment minor.
Adverse Business Conditions
This is an existing blue chip operation with an excellent record not an untried startup. It is in a strong position with an excess of solid assets, and is well capable of weathering low cycles. A cash reserve will be built up to cover downturns in profitability.
LadyOfWrath has agreed to a one year non-competition clause.
Risk assessment minor.
What Now?
First, Iīll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Second, I will take reservations in this thread.
Third, when the bond is filled I will ask investors to transfer cash to Grendell. Please DO NOT send cash to Grendell until I post specifically asking for transfers to be effected.
Over to you.
Note: Post amended to reflect current state of play.
Reservations
tehsuxOr - 1B |
LadyOfWrath
Caldari
Ships N Stones
Quantum Forge |
Posted - 2010.01.14 04:06:00 - [ 3]
Posting to confirm I will be remaining in corp for 28 days following the offical sale date, will be transferring all assets to Grendell's control, and will be providing any needed guidance on the IPO operation already in place. My principle role will be a consultant during this time period and to ensure maximum profitability during my tenure. |
Grendell
Technologies Unlimited |
Posted - 2010.01.14 04:06:00 - [ 4]
Edited by: Grendell on 14/01/2010 04:10:14Posting to confirm my role as the 3rd party for: - The transfer of the IPO. - Securing the Bond - Holding all shares and CEO until bond is fully repaid. LadyOfWrath's IPO thread with his announcement can be found here: LinkageEdit: Confirming an audit was performed by me and the NAV value is accurate. * A brief summary of the audit will be posted at a later date. (As soon as I organize all the notes and data so it is visually friendly) |
cosmoray
Perkone |
Posted - 2010.01.14 04:48:00 - [ 5]
You have a done a few things on MD but this is a huge jump to 175B.
Some other questions:
1. If the profits were above 10B ISK per month why wasn't that reflected in LOW reports. In the December report there was profit of 8.2B.
2. Is Grendell locking down 175B worth of BPO's?
3. What does the locked down assets total and what are they?
4. If the full 175B is NOT locked down, why do you deserve a rate of 4%?
5. What is the size of the biggest business you have run and closed down and PAID BACK investors on MD?
6. I thought LOW had sold his block of shares making the company truly public?
7. Do the other shareholders get a say in what is going on?
8. Do current shareholders get to swap their equity for debt?
9. It took weeks/months for BB to raise the cash for Titans4U, what if you fail to raise the money. What happens to the business? Who runs it? What is plan B for LOW if this doesn't work?
Bad Bobby has 5 people locking down his operation and all the people involved in that operation have better reputations than you. Also nearly the full operations assets are in the Titan BPO's which are locked down.
You are going from nothing into the top 3 or 4 top businesses in MD on NAV. |
cosmoray
Perkone |
Posted - 2010.01.14 05:29:00 - [ 6]
After further research I have found no record or Varo Jan ever running a public IPO or bond.
Also looking at the One Stop Mining Shop website specifically the January 1st NAV statement it seems that the BPO's have a value of 127B ISK. These are the only assets that can be truly locked down.
Grendell has access to the BPO's, and you to the rest (You could liquidate the POS, keep the characters, fuel, etc..and no one could stop you)
In summary for this to work we are trusting:
1. Grendell with 127B ISK worth of BPO's
2. Varo Jan with a 48B ISK unsecured loan
This is all to be done at a rate of 4%.
1. You talk about corporate governance, but I would want to see a Board of Directors to lock down those BPO's.
2. How can you justify getting a 48B ISK unsecured loan if you have NEVER run a business here before?
Who gets 4% unsecured the first time?
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting |
Posted - 2010.01.14 05:31:00 - [ 7]
 Originally by: cosmoray
1. If the profits were above 10B ISK per month why wasn't that reflected in LOW reports. In the December report there was profit of 8.2B.
6. I thought LOW had sold his block of shares making the company truly public?
7. Do the other shareholders get a say in what is going on?
8. Do current shareholders get to swap their equity for debt?
Please address those questions to LoW in his thread. This is a new operation. Quote:
2. Is Grendell locking down 175B worth of BPO's?
3. What does the locked down assets total and what are they?
4. If the full 175B is NOT locked down, why do you deserve a rate of 4%?
Grendell will be CEO and he will hold all the shares, as I said in the opening post. So he is effectively locking down the entire business. Quote:
5. What is the size of the biggest business you have run and closed down and PAID BACK investors on MD?
*wry smile* You know the answer to that, cosmo. With respect, it isnīt relevant to a risk assessment of this offering. Quote:
9. It took weeks/months for BB to raise the cash for Titans4U, what if you fail to raise the money. What happens to the business? Who runs it? What is plan B for LOW if this doesn't work?
Titans4U was a new and high risk venture for 4 BPOs which has yet to pay any dividends and is in bad shape because of market conditions. This is an existing business with a successful track record, steady profits, near-constant increases in NAV each month, and operates in far less risky market segments. Quote:
Bad Bobby has 5 people locking down his operation and all the people involved in that operation have better reputations than you. Also nearly the full operations assets are in the Titan BPO's which are locked down.
Are you questioning Grendellīs reputation, because heīs the one you should be comparing to yourself, as one of the 5 trustees in T4U? |
cosmoray
Perkone |
Posted - 2010.01.14 05:36:00 - [ 8]
Grendell is NOT *effectively locking down the entire business*.
He can only lockdown the BPO's, so the rest is all unsecured.
How do you justify the 48B unsecured part?
Please show me how you lockdown 25B ISK in goodwill? |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting |
Posted - 2010.01.14 05:51:00 - [ 9]
Originally by: cosmoray
You could liquidate the POS, keep the characters, fuel, etc..and no one could stop you
Ummm.. Are you seriously saying I could walk off with some 49 labs, control towers, and other in-space assets and nobody would notice? Quote:
In summary for this to work we are trusting... Grendell with 127B ISK worth of BPO's.
You talk about corporate governance, but I would want to see a Board of Directors to lock down those BPO's.
Sorry, the answer to that is no. Grendellīs reputation in-game is impeccable, and, with respect, far exceeds yours. And, to repeat what Iīve said before, Grendell is being trusted with the entire business. |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations. |
Posted - 2010.01.14 05:56:00 - [ 10]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Risk is zero.
That's a load of rubbish, of course there is risk, regardless of Grendell's reputation. |
cosmoray
Perkone |
Posted - 2010.01.14 06:04:00 - [ 11]
Edited by: cosmoray on 14/01/2010 06:07:44 Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: cosmoray
You could liquidate the POS, keep the characters, fuel, etc..and no one could stop you
Ummm.. Are you seriously saying I could walk off with some 49 labs, control towers, and other in-space assets and nobody would notice?
Quote:
In summary for this to work we are trusting... Grendell with 127B ISK worth of BPO's.
You talk about corporate governance, but I would want to see a Board of Directors to lock down those BPO's.
Sorry, the answer to that is no. Grendellīs reputation in-game is impeccable, and, with respect, far exceeds yours. And, to repeat what Iīve said before, Grendell is being trusted with the entire business.
People might notice but what could they do if you are running the IPO in game? Secondly you haven't run an IPO what is to stop you from doing an Atima and walking off, and leaving Grendell to find a buyer or liquidate at a loss. You are paying a premium to asset value so in a sale investors would lose ISK. Your answers so far have been pretty evasive and flippant. You are the one who wants 175B. *edited* I have seen you comment in many bond/IPO threads (including EBANK threads) talking about governance, yet as soon as you run a business you don't really answer questions and talk about trust. |
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal |
Posted - 2010.01.14 06:07:00 - [ 12]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: cosmoray
You could liquidate the POS, keep the characters, fuel, etc..and no one could stop you
Ummm.. Are you seriously saying I could walk off with some 49 labs, control towers, and other in-space assets and nobody would notice?
People would notice, what does it matters? You'd end with a nice profit and no one could stop you. |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting |
Posted - 2010.01.14 06:14:00 - [ 13]
Originally by: cosmoray
Grendell is NOT *effectively locking down the entire business*.
He can only lockdown the BPO's, so the rest is all unsecured.
How do you justify the 48B unsecured part?
Please show me how you lockdown 25B ISK in goodwill?
Could I suggest you wait until Grendell posts his summary audit? You are making assumptions on the numbers at the moment. In the meantime, do you have any questions about the business proper? |
cosmoray
Perkone |
Posted - 2010.01.14 06:22:00 - [ 14]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: cosmoray
Grendell is NOT *effectively locking down the entire business*.
He can only lockdown the BPO's, so the rest is all unsecured.
How do you justify the 48B unsecured part?
Please show me how you lockdown 25B ISK in goodwill?
Could I suggest you wait until Grendell posts his summary audit? You are making assumptions on the numbers at the moment.
In the meantime, do you have any questions about the business proper?
Doesn't matter about the audit. Grendell has already stated that the NAV is accurate. The only things in this bond that you CAN'T walk off with are the BPO's which will be locked down. I am sure those things have not changed in value much since Jan 1st. This means you are being trusted with nearly 50B ISK in public funds that is unsecured. In your judgement is that an acceptable risk for someone who has never run an IPO or bond, and at a rate of 4%? Now if you leave for whatever reason, there will be a business worth between 127 and 151B ISK, which Grendell will have to liquidate. In a slow economy for Cap BPO's and component BPO's this means taking a loss so assume NPC price at best if not under. Then there is a 5% fee which Grendell takes. This means if you run away the investors are likely to see about 140-150B ISK at best which represents about a 10-20% loss. Questions about the business do not matter. The only question that is relevant is should a new player get a 50B ISK unsecured loan? |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting |
Posted - 2010.01.14 07:05:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: cosmoray
People might notice but what could they do if you are running the IPO in game?
First, I do not scam. Second, I benefit far more from running this business than running off with assets. Third, Iīm not the CEO, so Grendell is in a position to kick me out. Finally, on a practical point, it would take days probably to take down that many in-space assets. Iīd suggest that time period would allow action to be taken. Quote:
Secondly you haven't run an IPO what is to stop you from doing an Atima and walking off
I donīt walk. Not having run an IPO does not mean I have not run businesses. I have. Iīm a bit confused here. Could you explain the link between not having run an IPO and Atima? Quote:
You are paying a premium to asset value so in a sale investors would lose ISK.
Yes, I am paying a small premium to asset value. However, there is more than one way to value a business, and I would suggest that this business is worth at least what it is being sold for, if not more, and that value will in all likelihood increase with every passing month. A forced sale will only happen if I die or am incapacitated for at least three months - it is as simple as that from where Iīm sitting. And I would suggest that while there is a possibility that investors would lose ISK in those circumstances, there is also a possibility that they would make money if you accept what I said in the preceding paragraph. Quote:
Your answers so far have been pretty evasive and flippant.
I donīt agree. However, Iīll grant you that tone is hard to assess in a post. Please let me know where youīd like further clarifications Quote:
I have seen you comment in many bond/IPO threads (including EBANK threads) talking about governance, yet as soon as you run a business you don't really answer questions and talk about trust.
If I havenīt answered some questions fully, please let me know. This offering has governance through Grendell. It has a very clear procedure to follow for liquidation. It has reporting, which is never seen in other bond offerings. Yes, Grendell needs to be trusted - in the same way you need to be trusted in T4U or other offerings you are guaranteeing. |
Thoraemond
Minmatar
Far Ranger |
Posted - 2010.01.14 08:12:00 - [ 16]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: cosmoray
1. If the profits were above 10B ISK per month why wasn't that reflected in LOW reports. In the December report there was profit of 8.2B.
[Three other items omitted.]
Please address those questions to LoW in his thread. This is a new operation.
It strikes me as a bit disingenuous to make claims about the business in support of your offering (e.g., 10 GISK / month profits) and on the other hand suggest that someone else should address those claims (even if that someone else is the vendor of the business that you're buying). If you can't explain or back up the claim yourself, perhaps you shouldn't make it in your thread? Perhaps audit results will confirm the figure you claim. Of course, that would definitely be appropriate subject matter for this thread. |
Phoebe Halliwel |
Posted - 2010.01.14 08:34:00 - [ 17]
Have you considered splitting the offering? The 125b which is secured into 1b bonds with 4% interest, and the remaining 50b with a higher return and perhaps a higher buy in? What steps will you take, beyond stating that you have no intention to scam, to prove to investors that you can be trusted with this amount of ISK on your first offering? Are you willing to submit to a personal audit to demonstrate your own current assets and record of competence? How much of your own ISK are you investing into this purchase? If you have no personal ISK to invest in this project, what demonstration of competence can you offer? I'm talking in game here, not interested in RL experience. Do you have any contacts who would be willing to privately fund even part of the 50b? Thing is that without a prior record of success, you are effectively a first time borrower asking for an unsecured 50b loan, your only contact with MD so far has been forum posting/auditing and investing, so literally the only thing you can be measured with is your forum personality. Which smacks of the very worst of the reputation/trust based offerings of the past, when MD has been moving more towards collateralised, audited offerings, with more scrutiny on the prior record of success the offerer has. The secured part of the offering is acceptable, but the unsecured is a concern, and one you would also be critical of I suspect. Will existing One Stop Investors have any priority in reserving bonds? LoW is stating in the One Stop thread "All Investors will be paid following the closing of this sale." Which suggests current investors will have to use new funds to invest here as they will be paid out by LoW after the sale is completed. I know that's more of a question for LoW but may also affect you if existing investors are unable to reinvest due to the transfer process. Think you should change this to a discussion thread. Whilst there's an apparent desire from you and LoW to get this in motion quickly it is a large offering, and I would imagine the existing investors will have questions. Best of luck with it though, I will probably invest but need to review the numbers if I'm unable to use my existing investment to do so. Quote:
Should an investor provide material support to known scammers, his bond(s) will be repurchased and offered for sale.
Can you clarify this please. Cosmo is securing Reithe's offering even though Reithe is a known scammer, which may be considered "material support". Is he barred from your offering, or am I misunderstanding? |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting |
Posted - 2010.01.14 08:34:00 - [ 18]
Originally by: cosmoray
Doesn't matter about the audit. Grendell has already stated that the NAV is accurate.
Add some 4B for assets not shown in the NAV. Add the value of the 6 research characters. The sales price also includes LoWīs one month retainer. Iīd suggest that once you factor those elements in the premium to NAV comes to some 10B. Quote:
Now if you leave for whatever reason, there will be a business worth between 127 and 151B ISK.
This means if you run away the investors are likely to see about 140-150B ISK at best which represents about a 10-20% loss.
I donīt run, but you can never discount death or incapacitation - letīs call it what it is. So Iīm perfectly happy to discuss that extreme scenario. However, I would ask you to consider the probability of those events when assessing risks. As Iīve already said, I disagree with your assessment of the "at best" value of the business. To me, it is just as possible that the business would be worth more than the full purchase price. What I will add is that my assessment is based on game knowledge - and RL experience of making business acquisitions and running groups of companies. Iīll leave it to others to decide whether RL experience is relevant in these circumstances, but I owed it to you to explain my thinking. Quote:
Questions about the business do not matter.
Someone once said that MD has not been good at assessing risk, relying more on rep. And rep has proved to be a poor measure indeed. By all means raise questions that address the risk of scamming or death. But to state that questions about the business do not matter is most strange to me, I have to confess. No, Iīm not being flippant. Quote:
The only question that is relevant is should a new player get a 50B ISK unsecured loan?
With respect, I disagree. All risks need to be addressed and weighted, not just this. I am not a new player. I am not asking for an unsecured loan for some random trading bond. I am looking for funding for what is probably the best run public business in EVE. The structure I have set out attempts to mitigate against a range of risks, not just one. No set of risks can ever be covered fully, in-game or in RL. My perspective, because of my RL experience and because I know I would never steal, is skewed towards mitigating the business risks, but I havenīt ignored the scam scenarios and I have tried to provide a level of comfort for investors that is consistent with running this business effectively. That said, Iīd be more than happy to listen to concrete suggestions for improving the overall weighted risk assessment. |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting |
Posted - 2010.01.14 08:50:00 - [ 19]
Originally by: Thoraemond
It strikes me as a bit disingenuous to make claims about the business in support of your offering (e.g., 10 GISK / month profits) and on the other hand suggest that someone else should address those claims (even if that someone else is the vendor of the business that you're buying).
If you can't explain or back up the claim yourself, perhaps you shouldn't make it in your thread?
Perhaps audit results will confirm the figure you claim. Of course, that would definitely be appropriate subject matter for this thread.
It was the bit about "why wasn't that reflected in LOW reports" that I felt should be addressed to LoW and not me. Apologies for any confusion there. Does that answer your question fully, or would you like me to explain why I referred the other 3 questions that you didnīt highlight? |
Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries |
Posted - 2010.01.14 09:02:00 - [ 20]
Edited by: Drab Cane on 14/01/2010 09:05:28
Varo: Even if you and the alts are not granted director rights to the corp(s) involved, and even if you and the alts do not have the rights to unanchor the POS's, you will still need to have full access to the corp wallets, and to the BPCs. There is a risk that you might grab up what ISK and assets you have access to, and leave a "goodbye, and thanks for all the fish" message.
While your rep and integrity may be worth more to you than game money, your investors do NOT know that for certain. This is cosmo's concern, that almost 50 billion in bond funds will not be backed by collateral.
Without the reassurance that you have run this type of operation before, without the reassurance that you have responsibly handled public investments before, your offering does involve a certain amount of risk that investors should take into consideration.
Past performance is not a certain indicator of future performance. However "the race may not go to the swiftest horse, but that's the way to bet."
That said, I applaud the efforts you've made to secure at least most of the assets, and to provide contingency plans should you not be able to continue the operation for some reason.
Good luck.
Edit: *sigh* From your earlier post, it appears that you do understand most of what I just said. Feel free to ignore the redundant portions of my post.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting |
Posted - 2010.01.14 09:11:00 - [ 21]
Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel
Have you considered splitting the offering? The 125b which is secured into 1b bonds with 4% interest, and the remaining 50b with a higher return and perhaps a higher buy in?
I considered a range of offerings, including bonds, an IPO and a mix. I chose a plain vanilla bond because it seemed the simplest solution in the circumstances. Can you elaborate on what you meant by "50b with a higher return and perhaps a higher buy in," please? Quote:
Will existing One Stop Investors have any priority in reserving bonds? LoW is stating in the One Stop thread "All Investors will be paid following the closing of this sale." Which suggests current investors will have to use new funds to invest here as they will be paid out by LoW after the sale is completed. I know that's more of a question for LoW but may also affect you if existing investors are unable to reinvest due to the transfer process.
That scenario was not discussed with LoW. I will do so this evening. Thanks for raising it. Quote:
Quote:
Should an investor provide material support to known scammers, his bond(s) will be repurchased and offered for sale.
Can you clarify this please. Cosmo is securing Reithe's offering even though Reithe is a known scammer, which may be considered "material support". Is he barred from your offering, or am I misunderstanding?
If cosmo secures Rietheīs offering he will be barred from investing. So far Iīve given him the benefit of the doubt as Rietheīs offering hasnīt been finalised. Certainly cosmo holding 1B in cash, which appears to be the plan, while Riethe borrows 1B in cash seems utterly pointless, and worse. There are more of your questions that I need to answer, but Iīll have to do that later on. My apologies. |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED |
Posted - 2010.01.14 09:21:00 - [ 22]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Security
Grendell has agreed to be CEO of the corporations, to hold all shares, and to lock down BPOs.
In the event that I disappear without warning and there is no communication from me for three months, Grendell will liquidate the corporations and repay investors.
Should the need arise, RAW23 has agreed to cover bond interest payments during that three month period.
In the event that interest payments are not made in full for three consecutive months, including making up previous shortfalls, Grendell will liquidate the corporations and repay investors.
His liquidation fee will be 5% of the then current NAV.
While Grendell's reputation may be sound, has any provision been made for if he should lose access to EVE for whatever reason. That is, what is your "Grendell has been hit by a bus" strategy? Originally by: Varo Jan
Grendell is above suspicion. Risk is zero.
Surely when you wrote this you knew it would invite criticism? While Grendell may have a sound reputation there is always risk. Reputation alone cannot provide zero risk. Even full lockdowns by a board of directors with very high reputations cannot provide zero risk. Originally by: Varo Jan
this has been set up in such a fashion as to clearly make it not in my interests to steal.
Can you expand upon this? Can you give us a clear explanation of why it is not in your interest to steal those assets that you will have access to? Originally by: Varo Jan
Risk is negligible.
Further to my request above, I'd like to see better explanation of how the risk of you stealing from the operation is negligible. |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED |
Posted - 2010.01.14 10:43:00 - [ 23]
I think Cosmoray and others raise a valid concern when it comes to your involvement in this enterprise.
Grendell, while available, provides a sound reputation to protect the locked down assets. As per my previous post, I'd like to see better cover for his absence.
LoW, while available, provides a sounds reputation and the 28 day arrangement should minimise handover issues.
You, Varo, do not come with the same reputation or proven track record. Don't take this as a smackdown or anything, I think it's just something you need to have a slightly more realistic view of.
There will be a section of the operation's assets that will not be locked down by Grendell. These assets are under your control and it is your reputation and track record that must be considered when evaluating the risk to these assets. Armed with a fair assesment of that risk each investor has to consider if the bond interest is sufficient.
So, if the deal is this:
175b of investment
127b of BPO assets secured by Grendell
48b of assets that are unsecured
In the case that you abscond:
127b or BPO assets are liquidated by Grendell
48b of assets are stolen
Now, let us assume that Grendell manages to get 127b for these assets and subtracts his 5% fee to yield 120b.
175b of investment
120b returned
So only 68% of the invested isk would be recovered. Your reputation and track record is therefore a significant factor in this for any cautious investor.
Could you therefore answer these questions:
What is the nature of the "48b" of assets that are not locked down BPOs?
Of this "48b" of assets, are any secured by other means?
Of those not secured by other means, can any additional security be put in place to protect them?
Once we have a better understanding of the nature and value of the unsecured portion of the investment then we can get into the discussion about wether or not your reputation and track record justifies the rate you are offering. |
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 11:17:00 - [ 24]
 Well if I didn't know you Varo, I would scream from the top of my lungs, that this was way way to risky. But I know you, and I know your integrity up personally, and unless you are some super smart, social engineer. You aren't going to scam. And since I haven't heard of anyone IRL being hit by buses ( lately), I think we can be pretty sure to say that none of you will die. Then there is burn out, and you have already addressed that satisfactory imo. It is a FACT that you are competent and qualified for running this venture. BUT, HOWEVER!Unfortunately you have made a clause in your bond, that refuses me access to it. Would have happily invested in you Varo. I suggest, if you want any chance of this to launch. (i.e. gather enough ISK) You change the bond to reflect the 125B@4% which Grendel can lockdown, and change the interest on the last 50B which you have access to. If you want, I will happily provide some of TMPI share portfolio as security, placed with a 3rd party. (I am keeping payments though) |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party |
Posted - 2010.01.14 11:28:00 - [ 25]
Originally by: Ji Sama
And since I haven't heard of anyone IRL being hit by buses (lately), I think we can be pretty sure to say that none of you will die.
Does it count if they were hit by a S-Train? |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED |
Posted - 2010.01.14 11:32:00 - [ 26]
I hope you understand that I have no axe to grind with you and I am seeking to provide a balanced and reasonable assesment of this offering. However, I will now be covering matters that are not entirely to do with this offering and are instead associated with one of my projects and the reputation of myself and my trusted associates. For this section, you may find that the gloves come off a little. Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: cosmoray
9. It took weeks/months for BB to raise the cash for Titans4U, what if you fail to raise the money. What happens to the business? Who runs it? What is plan B for LOW if this doesn't work?
Titans4U was a new and high risk venture for 4 BPOs which has yet to pay any dividends and is in bad shape because of market conditions. This is an existing business with a successful track record, steady profits, near-constant increases in NAV each month, and operates in far less risky market segments.
Originally by: cosmoray
Bad Bobby has 5 people locking down his operation and all the people involved in that operation have better reputations than you. Also nearly the full operations assets are in the Titan BPO's which are locked down.
I fully agree that there is risk in the Titans For You venture, however I feel that giving it the classification of "high risk" is unreasonable. I understand that you may be doing this to show your own venture in a more favourable light, but that does not allow me to overlook it's inaccuracy. Myself and others believe that the greatest risk in Titans For You was that the Titan BPC market would fail. This risk was high and recent experience has confirmed that. I will not waste words in your thread with predictions of how that offering will go in the future. The impact of this particular risk is that returns are non-existant and that locked down BPO assets may devalue such that liquidation would not cover the initial investment. It is fair to say that your offering is substantially more resiliant to this type of risk than Titans For You and it is fair for you to advertise your offering as lower risk in this portion of the risk profile. The other side of the risk profile in Titans For You was the risk that assets would be stolen. This risk was mitigated to a great degree by the creation of a board of trustees that could make it very difficult for any one person to steal the locked down assets. Of course a portion of the investment in Titans For You was spent on assets that were not covered by the BPO lockdown and these assets were vulnerable to theft by any one of the trustees. It is fair to say that your offering is substantially more vulnerable to this type of risk than Titans For You and it is not fair for you to advertise your offering as lower risk in this portion of the risk profile. Where Titans For You has it's BPOs locked down by a board of trustees of high reputation and proven track record, you have one such person. There are arguments either way for putting your eggs in one basket or not, but the key problem with the one basket approach is in the dropping of that basket. There is a risk there. Where Titans For You has a very small proportion of unsecured assets (one POS, some fuel and a warchest of a few billion isk), yours has a much larger proportion of unsecured assets. Where Titans For You's unsecured assets are vulnerable to theft by a board of directors and a CEO who all have very good reputations and proven track records, yours cannot boast the same. So please, when you are using my offering as a measuring stick for you own, please handle it with greater care. Originally by: Varo Jan
Are you questioning Grendellīs reputation, because heīs the one you should be comparing to yourself, as one of the 5 trustees in T4U?
Grendell's reputation may compare well with the trustees of Titans For You. Does your reputation compare well to mine? |
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 11:34:00 - [ 27]
Edited by: Ji Sama on 14/01/2010 11:37:29 Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Ji Sama
And since I haven't heard of anyone IRL being hit by buses (lately), I think we can be pretty sure to say that none of you will die.
Does it count if they were hit by a S-Train?
True, Varo and Grendel must promise not to Train Surf! Edit. I fail at reading :( S-Train, as in **** Train? |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED |
Posted - 2010.01.14 12:03:00 - [ 28]
Now I've got that out of the way, I'd like to say that I think there is promise in this offering. I think if you work with MD to close up gaps, properly assess the risk and offer a reasonable reward then this could be a great start for you.
But please, be under no illusion, you are being extremely ambitious by starting with something so large as your first offering. A 4% bond of this size, with your background and with this level of security is a step into the unknown for most potential investors. To claim otherwise is to insult us. |
Kalos K'agathos
Gallente |
Posted - 2010.01.14 12:11:00 - [ 29]
Originally by: Ji Sama
Edit. I fail at reading :( S-Train, as in **** Train?
he probably means his local incarnation of S-Bahn |
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 12:15:00 - [ 30]
Originally by: Kalos K'agathos
Originally by: Ji Sama
Edit. I fail at reading :( S-Train, as in **** Train?
he probably means his local incarnation of S-Bahn
 |
|
All Channels
Market Discussions
