Posted - 2010.06.07 14:02:00 - [31]

 

In order to answer post I will answer posts I wish I answer, as I come to them, if some are answered in later posts, that's OK.

@Cosmoray - Questions
The BOD actually answered your questions on the private forum two days after you posted them. However, like a typical the BOD there is variance between the answers. So here goes. I left out Ray's due to his answers where very short and lack description, one in which he has said he will elaborate on. However, Ray's short answers very closely matched others answers. Apart from obvious change most answers are similar.

I'm posting this as a form of full transparency, these are unaltered apart from spelling and punctuation.

CEO = AC155
R = Ray
O = Omber Zombie
A = Athre
S = SencneS

You should note that CEO under the new structure the one with the operational control. All are Board of Directors how server as an oversight or steering comity.

1)
CEO: - Yes.
O: - Yes - that has been the goal since the restructure and I see no reason not to continue along that path.
A: - Yes.
S: - Yes, I mean why stop now? We've said all along that full solvency is our goal, if we fail to achieve it, then we are not better then the ones that put us in this position in the first place.

2)
CEO: - Yes.
O: - For ALL customers yes, as that is our responsibility, not looking after the few while the many suffer.
A: - I believe it is in the customers best interest for a complete recovery of capital.
S: - We always try to do what is best for the customer base on a whole. Everything that has happened was done out of this sense of what is best. We created processes to make sure no more ISK is lost, and find out how much was missing to the penny. If we had kept accounts opened and operated as if nothing had happened we'd only be deluding ourselves and our customers.

3)
CEO: - Leaving Eve is like dieing, once you do it you really don't have to give a **** anymore. If people leave Eve they stop worring about how long it takes to restore bank operations.
O: - It doesn't, I don't see why it should either.
A: - If they are leaving soon then what use is it really to them? Buy ship, blow up ship, gone isk. If they are long term they have already cut their losses and when we are able to make a full recovery will enjoy the "windfall" by the account being reactivated.
S: - People that leave the game would no longer be interacting with EBANK anyway. We fully recognize those that leave for good, benefit those that continue to play. In all honestly people that leave are not a concern. It's not as if EBANK is available in the real world or other games. It's available in EVE only, so it only effects EVE players, so only EVE players benefit.

4)
CEO: - I guess that would depend on our policy regarding dorment accounts.
O: - What SencneS said
A: - EBANK reserves the right to use capital to make capital where it sees fit.
S: - That is something the new Chairman along with the BOD and CEO/COO will be contemplating. It's impossible and stupid to speculate on something in the future of something uncertain to begin with.

5)
CEO: - Should a "large customer" have more say than a "small customer"? As I always imagine Chribba saying, "It's not the size of the customer that counts."
O: - Why should large customers benefit more than smaller customers? All our customers have an account, essentially they are all on the same footing as far as I am concerned. Hooray for socialism.
A: - Maybe a better question to ask is "Why are the remaining people in EBANK still working on recovery when they are paid nothing?"
S: - We actually expected those large customers to come to us. With all the notifications, news sites, and forum activity along with the in-game and website messages we have only had a very small few come forward. Can't force an opinion out of people if they don't want to give it.

Ray's answers will be posted once he adjusts explains his "one word" answers. He will most likely post them in this thread, I haven't spoken to him yet.

Posted - 2010.06.07 15:15:00 - [33]

 

ME2 Titan BPO's ought to sell.

Add a small discount as well, and you'll have a queue I'm sure.

Aka - Shouldn't take too long to liquidate.

I.e. better get those plans hammered out on how exactly to deal with the influx of ISK (how much goes to what)

Posted - 2010.06.07 15:42:00 - [35]

 

Withdrawals, and issues, theory behind them.

Since the beginning of this mess, the BOD have been working toward a single goal, full recovery. However, every step of the way has been about the customer as well. While policies where made to satisfy the need of both the integrity and security of EBANK, and the need of the customer. The balancing act could best be described as one side of the scale only has limited range, meaning the EBANK side has play but it limited the range in which it can move.

If we opened up completely and sold assets as withdrawals came in for whatever we could get for them, that's not only irresponsible but it's blatantly stupid. I'm sure we could sell a Titan BPO for 40b, I KNOW we could sell it for 20b. Every time we liquidate an asset for under value, in order to for fill a withdrawal request, everyones withdrawal ratio goes down. Eventually people would be collecting 10% on the account. It was out of the question at the start, all of this which is why people clamoring at the bit for liquidation and withdraws just don't get it. To give you an idea, Ricdic had almost a Titan's worth of building materials out at a 0.0 station, BPCs, minerals, capital components. When Ray was out there trying to sell to the local alliance they said, sure 5bil we'll take it all. It was like this for all un-collectible assets, all over EVE. While Liquidation seems simple solution it is actually much more difficult to achieve without looking like a dumbass.

Thus is the mentality of 0.0 alliances, they believed they where doing US a favour, wouldn't even consider 20% below Jita pricing even though the materials where local, which should demand a PREMIUM! So while we could liquidate everything, the people buying believe we're desperate and would only accept the lowest offer. Who here would buy a Titan BPO for 60b? Anyone? What if we sold it for 40B? Anyone now? No? How about 30B? That's the point. Liquidation has a major pitfall, it makes that 30-35% ratio only equal 10-15%.

EBANK was not and is still not quite in the position to be stable enough to make ISK available for those that want 30% now, and those that want to hold on until the end. However that time is coming up, and when it does everything will happen at once. New Chairman, Policies enacted on, will all happen at the same time. EBANK is in a much better position then it was six months ago. There are no more lingering loans without collateral, everything account for, and ISK being generated, solid sell-able accesses being purchased, production chains filled. Most importantly everything tracked.

As I stated above if those Titan BPOs sell, EBANK will be in a much better position to not only fill the need for those not wanting to wait, but be financially flush for those that want to stick it out. That in combination with current policies might even be enough to declare victory and reopen the doors to EBANK in every sense of the meaning. It's closer then it was, just needs a little more time.

Posted - 2010.06.07 15:59:00 - [37]

 

Posted - 2010.06.07 16:12:00 - [39]

 

Edited by: SencneS on 07/06/2010 16:15:03
RAW23 - No sorry about the Cosmo questions, that would not fit.. It's extemely close to the character limit and if I remove some things it would not make sense.

Originally by: Mme Pinkerton

---

If you could only get 5B for some assets locked up in a 0.0 station by liquidating them within a reasonable time frame, these should appear in your books as 5B worth of assets - even if this means that you have to depreciate them by 45B when compared to purchase cost.

---

That actually kinda surprises me this came from you. If EBANK was going to accept 5B for all of that, I would be paid 5.5B for those assets then tried to negotiate with the alliance a 20B sale. Might want to be careful what you ask for, because that 30-35% could easily turn into 20% ratio if we listed assets to move regardless of market value. In fact I am deeply concerned as to this line of thinking. While in a liquidation mode this might be acceptable, EBANK is not liquidating so valuing assets at market value is the norm is it not?

Posted - 2010.06.07 16:19:00 - [41]

 

Edited by: RAW23 on 07/06/2010 16:21:36

Originally by: SencneS

---

That actually kinda surprises me this came from you. If EBANK was going to accept 5B for all of that, I would be paid 5.5B for those assets then tried to negotiate with the alliance a 20B sale. Might want to be careful what you ask for, because that 30-35% could easily turn into 20% ratio if we listed assets to move regardless of market. In fact I am deeply concerned as to this line of thinking. While in a liquidation mode this might be acceptable, EBANK is not liquidating so valuing assets at their market value is the norm is it not?

---

Market value just is what you can expect to sell the assets for, what the market will bear. Assets in highsec simply have a different market value to assets locked in a 0.0 station because the market is different. When locked in a 0.0 station you are very much in a buyers market - if there is only one potential buyer and all they will offer is X then X is the market value of those goods in that place. Is there any expectation of being able to get the goods out within a reasonable timeframe or do you think they are stuck there indefinitely?

Edit

Originally by: SencneS

---

Edited by: SencneS on 07/06/2010 16:15:03
RAW23 - No sorry about the Cosmo questions, that would not fit.. It's extemely close to the character limit and if I remove some things it would not make sense.

---

Thanks. I'll copy the questions into my first post on this page then.

Posted - 2010.06.07 16:31:00 - [43]

 

Originally by: SencneS

---

While in a liquidation mode this might be acceptable, EBANK is not liquidating so valuing assets at market value is the norm is it not?

---

No, it is not. Accounting statements for a going concern are prepared under a general principle known as prudence. More specifically, assets are stated at the lower of cost or net realisable value.

Mind you, it's a stretch to account for EBank as a going concern.

Posted - 2010.06.07 16:36:00 - [45]

 

It's all a little mute point anyway as I believe those assets are sold, there are two 0.0 stations that house access I can see, combined it is about 400mil. (Hanger clearance type stuff) But honestly capital components are some of the hardest things to move without lots of assets assigned to the movement. Offering 10% of Jita market value was not just an unreasonable office, but also a slap in the face.

I can only imagine the trollage that would happen if we came on an announced we sold 45bil in assets for 5bil. I would have even trolled Ray.. Not that I don't now

Posted - 2010.06.07 16:41:00 - [47]

 

Originally by: SencneS

---

The problem with Varo's suggestion is assets are hard to move, everyone needs to realize this.

---

Which of these assets are hard to move:
Shares
Characters
Defaulted Collateral
BMBE Bonds

Posted - 2010.06.07 16:47:00 - [49]

 

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: Varo Jan

---

No, it is not. Accounting statements for a going concern are prepared under a general principle known as prudence. More specifically, assets are stated at the lower of cost or net realisable value.

---

You are correct in point, incorrect in application. Firesale/Circling Vulture offers are not a valid realizable value.

---

Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I didn't mention firesale offers anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally by: Varo Jan

---

Mind you, it's a stretch to account for EBank as a going concern.

---

Of course this here just proves that while you are educated your opinion is so biased that you marginalize yourself as you speak it.

---

Look up going concern basis. You may understand my comment better.

Posted - 2010.06.07 17:06:00 - [51]

 

Originally by: Varo Jan

---

suggestions

---

Liquidating under-performing assets is of course a sensible suggestion. However we're currently not looking to return that capital to depositors and thus need to compare the performance of those assets against the performance of other potential investments. Something we do, of course; we recently sold a titan blueprint and ended up investing that ISK into an asset that will out perform it considerably in the mid- to long-term.

Posted - 2010.06.07 17:08:00 - [53]

 

How long would it take ebank to liquidate if it made liquidation its primary goal? 12 months?

I think a lot of the frustration with the ebank board stems from the obsession with attaining full liquidity especially when looking at the current ebank investments. Titan BPOs/BPCs and loans are not the sort of thing that makes full liquidity in the near future look promising. I think it'd be nice to see something like the following:

1) Ebank board commits to a liquidation date. All activities come with this date in mind, such that 100% of ebanks assets will be in isk form by the time that date arrives. 12 months from now seems reasonable, and much better than some nebulous "when we are fully liquid!" date that is apparently the current goal.

2) Titan BPOs and underperforming assets (including most loans) are liquidated and the isk is invested more aggressively between now and the liquidation date. 10% a month is terrible, but current assets aren't even making that. Even if the isk is just sitting around sometimes, opportunities to spend that isk and make much more will pop up. The 1000 CNRs being sold on the WTS forum board for example.

3) After the liquidation date and everyone gets their 30% or 40% or whatever, the board either reboots ebank, starts a bank of their own, or quits entirely. Those impressed by the board's ability to make isk for those last 6 months might reinvest. Those who don't, won't. Then at least there will be a *choice* in the matter.

Posted - 2010.06.07 17:18:00 - [55]

 

Originally by: EBANK SencneS

---

Withdrawals, and issues, theory behind them.

...

If we opened up completely and sold assets as withdrawals came in for whatever we could get for them, that's not only irresponsible but it's blatantly stupid. I'm sure we could sell a Titan BPO for 40b, I KNOW we could sell it for 20b. Every time we liquidate an asset for under value, in order to for fill a withdrawal request, everyones withdrawal ratio goes down. Eventually people would be collecting 10% on the account. It was out of the question at the start, all of this which is why people clamoring at the bit for liquidation and withdraws just don't get it.

---

This is just wrong - both ethically/morally and financially.

Firstly, its the depositor's choice. You can tell them "If you pull out now, we project we will only get X based on existing sales. We believe we can get you X+Y if you just hang in there." But that is *their* choice. On what ground do you deign to make that choice for them???

Secondly, *you* may very strongly feel that if you just get more time with investors money that you will be able to make more back. But not everyone sees it like that - that's why they want their money back. Refer back to First Point.

Last: The whole goal of a reorg is to revalue and start over. The depositors have losses. If you predict that liquidation means that they each only get 10 cents on the dolalr - so be it. That's their new debt, the rest is written off. Its gone. You now owe 10 cents on the dollar to each creditor. From there, you can explain to the creditor - look we got a Titan BPO. Leave your now 1/10 deposit with us, we can make you a better rate of return that what you'll get on the open market. Many will, espeicailly if you have been showing profits in the interim.

But you can't FORCE people to stay with you and continue to trust you with their money ... that's just theft under different guise.

Posted - 2010.06.07 17:26:00 - [57]

 

Originally by: SencneS

---

While I detest actually replying to you because despite my willingness to help you months ago, you turned hostile and argumentative to everything I said. I see nothing has really changed. You tread me like a ***** so I have zero time for you. You should have thought about that long ago, when I gave you TWO WARNINGS about how you where treating me. You ignored them so I'm ignoring you from now on. It was a two way street dude, until you wanted to ride the steamroller.

---

lol

Posted - 2010.06.07 17:29:00 - [59]

 

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

---

This is just wrong - both ethically/morally and financially.

Firstly, its the depositor's choice. You can tell them "If you pull out now, we project we will only get X based on existing sales. We believe we can get you X+Y if you just hang in there." But that is *their* choice. On what ground do you deign to make that choice for them???

---

Please try to keep comments about the morality of EBANK decisions in this thread and just link to them here if you think they are necessary to the constructive suggestion you make.