Posted - 2007.09.26 15:36:00 - [91]

 

Originally by: Ray McCormack

---

I'm getting a little tired of you EBANK lot telling everyone how they should be running their corporations. While there may be some validity to your arguments, I just find it extremely arrogant and patronising.

You have your own business to run, run it. Don't imagine that you have the respect or authority within the community to presume to tell others how to run theirs.

I am not arguing against people establishing guidelines for best practises, I am arguing against you guys feeling you have any authority to establish them and expect other business owners to follow them. So much arrogance.

---

I've been telling people how to run their companies long before EBANK. Check my sig.

In terms of arrogance, I do understand what you mean. If I do appear arrogant at times, it is not intentional. I have a very clear picture in my mind of where the Market is, and where it should be. I know that not everyone shares my vision (it's MINE damnit!) but I will always work towards it.

Improving the Market is all I ever work on. I resigned my CEO position and left my Corp not too long ago in order to focus fully on the markets.

On the flip side, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Posted - 2007.09.26 15:43:00 - [93]

 

Attention : Neither me nor Ricdic hate each other. In fact I dont think we've met or interacted. Nobody should think we are flaming the other in a personal fashion.

Now, I understand what your saying. I think we can distill your argument into a few points :

■ Some current IPO managers are setting a bad example.
■ The market should have a set of minimum acceptable practices.
■ Nobody should get a free pass when it comes to deceptive or false information.

I think that those are your primary points. And I agree with 1 and 3. When ISSO did somthing I thought was dirty I sold my shares and started talking about it. When they changed, I absolutly gave them credit.

But I dont think that you, or me, or Ray or anyone else can set up a body of standards for the market. Its free right now, no regulation, no interferance.

People CAN influence these policies. But they should do so with their wallet and within the structure of the game. If I was sufficintly upset at a company I have many ways I can make that displeasure felt.

Regulation, even self-regulation isnt the answer.

EVE is the answer. Work within the mechanics of EVE to advance your adgenda. If it were me I'd suggest starting up a find of like minded people and wardecing the companies that dont follow the rules you set out. Hurt them where it matters - their wallet. Keep at it untill they change. Then buy their stock before the Wardec end is announced and make a fortune off it.

Its the beauty of eve.

Originally by: EBANK Ricdic

---

Originally by: Montaire

---

I expect no more of them, and I expect no less. This whole thing is basicly a bunch of people complaining that they arent bieng told about the inner workings of companies they own stock in when they never bothered to ask in the first place.

---

Absolutely not. It's about public entities either communicating false information, failing to provide information when requested, failing to advise their investors and potential investors, and making broad statements to facilitate unannounced changes that can have a negative effect on their investors.

Every one of the corporations I listed in my post is responsible for one of the above in my opinion. Due to it being even more flamebait I won't list which category of each corporation that I feel is responsible for them, but their CEO's are welcome to convo/evemail me ingame if they want my opinion.

This was NEVER an attempt to single out specific corporations and attack them all at once. I never wanted to have public entities feel the need to defend their corporations as every statement provided was true in one form or another.

Ray is free to keep on belitteling anyone who attempts to give their opinion him if he feels the need, or he can convo me in game and go nuts on me. The second Hexxx saw the post he told me I was in for it, and I was ready for it. This is a topic that demanded attention and minus the flames and personal attacks has succeeded. We have seen first hand some of those listed corporation owners attempt to use their might to quash the opposition rather than agreeing with the pure concept that was being proposed.

So, keep quoting the parts of my statements that you can attack me with, and keep ignoring the fundamentals that go well beyond your little world. Point is, half the people who posted in here trying to tell me to mind my own business rarely ever post in these forums except when they have no alternate choice or when they want something from the public. Their posts were never here to assist the market or see a greater picture, just to take my examples as attacks on their companies. Without making references the point could not have been made.


Sutt gets cut for character limit

---

Posted - 2007.09.26 15:57:00 - [95]

 

In fact I agree - communication could have averted just about everything you are talking about.

I just dont agree that we should try and govern these things. People should vote with their isk, and that will move the market more than any number of committe's or official sounding regulatory boards.

Originally by: EBANK Ricdic

---

I will just say one thing.

If anyone can read the 6 points I provided in the first post and explain to me how communication has not caused damage in one form or another, I will retract that corporation from the list and provide a public apology.

Use ONLY communication as the deciding factor. Think of questions like:

1) Could correct and valid communication have averted the drama in said corporation?

2) Could better communication have provided a higher investor perception of said corporation?

3) Can we look at the ways where communication has buckled in the past and present using these (and other) corporations as benchmarks to learn from their mistakes (for lack of a better word)?

---

Posted - 2007.09.26 16:11:00 - [97]

 

Originally by: Montaire

---

But I dont think that you, or me, or Ray or anyone else can set up a body of standards for the market. Its free right now, no regulation, no interferance.

---

That is why this thread is important for CEO's to realize that when there is no standard you need to set expectations. If you fail the set an expectation you open yourself up to the unwritten public standard.

The second you start to allow the public to set expectations and standards on your corporation you have failed as a CEO.

Posted - 2007.09.26 16:20:00 - [99]

 

Edited by: Montaire on 26/09/2007 16:22:49
From past practice I can safely say that if I were to spend 1 billion is, I could easily cause 1.5 billion in damages.

DVRN or BYDI usually does better, but it depends laregely on intel. It takes some time and money to find out who alts are, what areas you work in, what markets you use etc. But once thats known its a walk in the park.

With sufficient research into a corp, any corp becomes vulnerable. And no, bieng an NPC corp wont save you. Suicide battlecruiser costs about 1.9m per after you take it all into account.

And again, since nobody has addressed it :

Why dont we let the people here simply vote with their isk ?

PS - Going to bed now. o/

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

The situation you describe benefits defrauding investors not some sort of market pressure towards better performance or even governance. A stock issuer's funds are suffer zero negative impact from sell-offs of their stock. (Totally unlike rl public corporations I might add.) And wardec's are somewhat redundant as most issuer's are insulated. (I.e. Wardecing me has zero influence on performance... which is the level of protection investors want/demand.)

---

Posted - 2007.09.26 16:23:00 - [101]

 

Posted - 2007.09.26 16:25:00 - [103]

 

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

My issue isn't that this happens. As you say, Eve shouldn't be safe. My issue is that those "people" you talk about are often enough inside traders. (Unverifiable of course, always unverifiable)

---

You say that like its a bad thing. Hell 90% of the stock I own is on random alts so I can hide what I own.

Posted - 2007.09.26 16:30:00 - [105]

 

Posted - 2007.09.27 01:47:00 - [107]

 

I knew this time would come.

The combined size of all your heads has finally reached critical mass.

Posted - 2007.09.27 03:32:00 - [109]

 

I'm sorry, I do not understand. Can you clarify what you are saying ?

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Originally by: Montaire

---

Then you better make that vote count.

---

Originally by: Montaire

---

People CAN influence these policies. But they should do so with their wallet and within the structure of the game. If I was sufficintly upset at a company I have many ways I can make that displeasure felt.

---

In the world of flip-flop that must take wish-wash to the nth degree.

---

Posted - 2007.09.27 05:18:00 - [111]

 

Originally by: Montaire

---

Why dont we let the people here simply vote with their isk ?

---

No one is saying they should, but people aren't replying much to his because this has nothing to do with the point of this thread. This is not about forcing all businesses to meet certain criteria, it is not about a revolt of the little guys, it is not about condemning past mistakes.

This is about respected members of the community voluntarily going above and beyond what they HAVE to do in order to set a good example for younger members of the community.

I don't want to force anyone to do anything. But if you want to have a reputation as a respected member of the community and as a promoter of IPO's in EVE then you should voluntarily go above and beyond the call of duty to set a high example. Those who do will be repaid for their extra effort by increased positive feedback on their current IPO's and increased investment potential for future ventures, as well as having more respect from the community at large.

This is purely about ideals and good practices, not about binding rules that people must follow. I know some people will scoff at the idealism in this thread... but I will accept the charge of being an optimist. Albeit a cynical optimist or an optimistic cynic depending on how you'd like to phrase it. I believe that a few powerful individuals with large IPO's can make a positive impact on the community if they tried, but my cynical side believes most will be too lazy or have other reasons to not want to behave in such a beneficial manor.

Posted - 2007.09.27 06:37:00 - [113]

 

Edited by: Daeva Vios on 27/09/2007 06:41:37
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 27/09/2007 06:41:06
Edited by: Daeva Vios on 27/09/2007 06:37:12

Originally by: Montaire

---

I see. I agree with you for the most part.

But we should never tell people that they should do things voluntarily. Because then its compelled at worst, or suggested at best and thus, not voluntarily done.

Also is it in the best interests of these companies to do so ? Limiting competition can maximise profits.

---

It is in the best interests of these corporations to do so at this juncture. In order to ensure investor confidence in the market as a whole, we need investors to have an idea of standard things they can expect. With a rules set laid out, people are more likely to enter the market scene. This increases profits.

A standard list of practices is nowhere near compulsory, nor is it likely to be ignored. As we have seen countless times in this forum, individuals with an established reputation can call upon that reputation to generate public funding without any of the standards or questions already in place. This stands to benefit a new and inexperienced entrepreneur more than an established player, because an established player already has more benefits than this could possibly provide.

Ultimately, for honest businesses, honest and open practices are best. Competition can and will be eliminated based on other criteria.

Posted - 2007.11.12 19:44:00 - [115]

 

i believe that if people are not satisfied they will sell their shares

Posted - 2007.11.12 20:13:00 - [117]

 

Originally by: Ray McCormack

---

I'm getting a little tired of you EBANK lot telling everyone how they should be running their corporations. While there may be some validity to your arguments, I just find it extremely arrogant and patronising.

You have your own business to run, run it. Don't imagine that you have the respect or authority within the community to presume to tell others how to run theirs.

I am not arguing against people establishing guidelines for best practises, I am arguing against you guys feeling you have any authority to establish them and expect other business owners to follow them. So much arrogance.

---

i like this post.

Posted - 2007.11.12 20:41:00 - [119]

 

It seems to me that the OP was regarding quality of ongoing communication between the public money holder and everyone else not a direct attack on anyones business or how they choose to do business. This, I believe, was meant as a discussion topic where people could comment if they see the same trends as Ricdic or not and why they feel that way.

Now, there are a few things that I think determine the amount and type of communication that is had, mainly the type of investment and the source of the isk involved.

If it is a true IPO, meaning that you have taken your company public (let people like me invest) so that you can expand or in many cases start operations, then the communication needs to be public as well. This is especially true since in many cases the shares are sold through one of the exchanges.

If it is all privately financed, through the different bond holders or individuals, the onely people that need reports are those that hold interest in the operation. the rest of us don't need to know squat.

If you have a bond, and by bond I mean you are publicly taking peoples isk and reinvesting it in other opportunities to gain a profit, then my belief is that the toons participating in the bond and those looking at investing in it need to know what is going on and the results. This would require some sort of PUBLIC reporting.

I guess my point is that the communication all depends on where you get your money.

I think that if you post here to get isk, then you should post here to give updates on a regular basis. Just like in RL, where publically traded companies and investments have to file quarterly and annual reports that ANYONE can read.

If you secure funds privately through contacts you have or are introduced to, then just communciate with those investors.

We all realize that this is a game and I think we all agree that there none of us want to have an EVE version of the SEC be created.

But as the leaders in this EVE business community wouldn't it be beneficial to come up with some standard that we can hold new business opportunities to? Many people that start businesses here don't have real life experience.

Let the next round of flaming begin.