open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked My Unsanctioned EBank Analysis and Solution
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.09.07 06:32:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: SetrakDark on 07/09/2009 06:40:59
Originally by: Drab Cane


To assist the bank with liquid ISK, the bank could charge a fee when transferring an account to another player. This fee would be 10% of the account's balance, payable to EBank by the person receiving the account.


I think once speculators sit down and crunch the numbers they're probably going to be offering closer to 20% than 30%, plus I think the supply of sellers will put downward pressure on the rate. I've seen some higher offers, but they seemed more so to be testing the idea than making a firm offer. Any transaction tax would be borne by the seller, further diminishing this already harsh proportion returned.

Edit: just to be clear, my point was to suggest the buyout rate will be low, not to suggest an actual valuation. If the buyouts end up being an option, I will crunch some numbers and offer an actual opinion.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.09.07 15:41:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: cosmoray
The current consensus of opinion of account holders tends towards liquidation at whatever percentage is left of the bank, as they would rather use a small percentage than let it sit for a year.

Don't repeat hearsay as fact. We base our assumption on threads such as the one created by yourself, as well as various emails, evemails and chats.

To date not one person has contacted myself or another employee (I may be corrected) asking us to verify an account sale. I believe that speaks for itself.

Originally by: cosmoray
You guys need to ask your customers what they want, so far you haven't.

We'll let them decide themselves, and allow the market to set the rates.

If needs be we'll code a quick vote and allow account holders to cast their opinions, but I'm not investing resources going that route based on what I view as very flimsy 'evidence'.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.09.07 16:26:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack

To date not one person has contacted myself or another employee (I may be corrected) asking us to verify an account sale. I believe that speaks for itself.



...or it speaks for the fact that depositors have no idea what's going on and they're waiting for the next EB announcement. It's definitely open to interpretation.

However, I agree that we don't really know what the distribution of the depositors' desires is.

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2009.09.07 17:31:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: cosmoray
The current consensus of opinion of account holders tends towards liquidation at whatever percentage is left of the bank, as they would rather use a small percentage than let it sit for a year.

Don't repeat hearsay as fact. We base our assumption on threads such as the one created by yourself, as well as various emails, evemails and chats.

To date not one person has contacted myself or another employee (I may be corrected) asking us to verify an account sale. I believe that speaks for itself.

Originally by: cosmoray
You guys need to ask your customers what they want, so far you haven't.

We'll let them decide themselves, and allow the market to set the rates.

If needs be we'll code a quick vote and allow account holders to cast their opinions, but I'm not investing resources going that route based on what I view as very flimsy 'evidence'.



OK maybe heresay, but there have ben a lot of comments about liquidation and to be fair some people have said they would stick out whatever you do.

But no one really wants to sell their account to the market until they know what the account is worth. At that point the account holders would want some options what to do with their account.

This stance about account transfers implies that you want lots of accounts to be bought out, so you can work with the capital to keep the bank open.

Until EB gets PROPER feedback from a significant portion of their customers there are no options, only opinions. I might be right or wrong but so might be EBANK.

You need to engage the customers.

I think it would be worse if you held onto the money without feedback IF a major proportion of the accounts wanted liquidation. EBANK is currently doing what they think is right for EBANK not neccdessarily what the customers want.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.09.08 05:26:00 - [35]
 

REVISION AND COMPROMISE SOLUTION

First off Iíd just like to apologize to the MD community for putting up with my posts. I am currently waiting for my next RL contract to start and Iím a little burnt out on my RL projects, so you guys have to put up with my overactive brain. Also, I try to be as concise as possible, but this is a complicated issue.

1)This post represents a revision of some trouble spots in my original post, some alterations due to reader feedback, and a compromise solution that would allow EB to continue as a functioning institution.

Although I stand by my original assessment, I am attempting to offer workable solutions. Therefore, if the dissolution of EB is out of the question, I am happy to modify my solution accordingly. Fortunately, the products of the three goals of this post mesh well together, offering a simple and equally effective solution.

2)A large portion of the responses were regarding the claiming periods and cannibalization of various deposit types. Upon further reflection I donít believe anyone should lose their accounts.

From a moral perspective, every depositor has as much a right to their share of their deposit as any other. Furthermore, now that we are attempting to preserve the reputation of EB as a whole, equal treatment of all depositors seems essential.

3)The simplest solution is to convert all unit millions into the corresponding number of shares in each of the 4 investment vehicles, send these shares to the depositor in question, and then unfreeze the remaining isk in the deposit account.

For example, a depositor with 2,300,000 isk in his account would receive two times the base share amount in each investment vehicle and have 300,000 unfrozen isk in his account. This way all of the share distribution takes place at once, no one has to claim their intention to collect, no account is cannibalized just because itís small, and no one loses their deposit just because they havenít checked-in for a couple of months.

The most these unfrozen deposits will add up to is 6b, which can be covered by the liquid isk. Depositors whose last 6 digits of their deposit amount are high will win out compared to those with lower amounts in their last six digits, but the spread is negligible to all but the biggest noob.

4)The biggest change to my original solution is to keep the spin-off investment vehicles as subsidiary corporations of EB. This compromise maintains all the benefits of the rebundling of assets proposal and allows the EB directors the opportunity they feel they deserve to restore EBís reputation, save the bank as a functioning institution, and do what is best for the depositor.

By staffing the corporations with EB directors and staff, EB has the opportunity to prove themselves day-in and day-out by maximizing the returns from these corporations. Furthermore, instead of earning back-logged salaries, EB staff and directors can receive performance-based income from managing the subsidiary corporations.

I know some may object to this, but it really is essential for agency of any kind to be incentivized by payments tied to productivity.

5)After further consideration I believe the cash-in option for the liquid ISK investment fund to be a bad idea. Foremost it just adds another level of complexity to an already complex situation. Second, the process will significantly hamper the income generation of the fund from both capital loss and the period of reliquidation before the proposed cash-in window.

It is far better to just let depositors sell their stocks on the market. Since this fund would represent 40-50b in ISK and enormous profits if managed well, depositors should have little trouble divesting their shares at a substantial premium.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.09.08 05:31:00 - [36]
 

6)The subsidiary corporation assigned the management of EBís loans and ventures should actually receive a significant boost for staying under the EB umbrella. Collecting for a dynamic market participant with a resurgent reputation will put significant pressure behind the repercussions for defaulting.

7)The most surprising result of this solution is that EB could actually start running as a bank within a short-period of time. The spinning-off of all assets to compensate for the liabilities frees the actual bank up for accepting deposits and making loans again(hopefully, with some collateral this time) without the weight of a massive gap between liabilities and assets. Any isk not withdrawn from accounts after the share disbursement represents a starting point, though interest would have to remain off for a while longer.

If EB is successful in its attempt to redesign its saving and loan system (copy/paste ECR), it may just be able to win new depositors over or convince old ones to come back. Furthermore, the increased reputation from the successful management of the subsidiaries should bolster EBís attempts at restarting its core business.

However, to avoid conflicts of interest no subsidiary may invest in EB main, nor will EB main be able to operate in any other industry besides loans, since all profitable opportunities should go to the subsidiaries. Should EBís banking become stable and successful, it may buy back its subsidiaries from the market, and only be able to force a sale once a high percentage of total shares has been bought through the market (75-80%). Once it has bought back its corresponding subsidiary, it can then enter that industry again.



This post should be read with the original solution. However, I will be writing a short summarized solution, as well as a brief look as to why it is superior to the two options EB is suggesting it is looking at. Depending on the responses and my own continued interest, I might add a post with a detailed overview of the restructuring process and the corporate governance of the subsidiaries.

Felix Jugo
Posted - 2009.09.08 07:21:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Skarii TuThess
Ray, thanks for answering the number of accounts and ISK under 10m. What about those under 100m? Out of interest how much would your liability be reduced if every account had to forfeit the first 100m ISK?


In the words of George Bailey, "Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars?" 100M matters to some people. If someone has to be outright robbed blind, why start with the poorest investors?

HawkBlade
Posted - 2009.09.08 10:52:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Felix Jugo
If someone has to be outright robbed blind, why start with the poorest investors?
This ^^^^.

PS: In my case... I want my 1.45 isk that's still invested in ebank!!

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.09.08 14:08:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: SetrakDark on 08/09/2009 15:21:34
Originally by: Felix Jugo
Originally by: Skarii TuThess
Ray, thanks for answering the number of accounts and ISK under 10m. What about those under 100m? Out of interest how much would your liability be reduced if every account had to forfeit the first 100m ISK?


In the words of George Bailey, "Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars?" 100M matters to some people. If someone has to be outright robbed blind, why start with the poorest investors?


I don't really get the point of this...

Edit: oh i see. I looked for the quote and missed it so I thought it was from another thread. My bad.

And I agree, once we start taking others' accounts things gt ugly fast.

Brock Nelson
Posted - 2009.09.08 14:25:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Brock Nelson on 08/09/2009 14:25:54
Heard of Robin Hood?

Granted this whole EBank story isn't similar to the story of Robin Hood but the principle of why he does what he does remains.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.09.08 14:42:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: SetrakDark on 08/09/2009 15:23:44
under this plan the only people who lose out are ones whose accounts totals end with the last 6 numbers closer to 000,001.

For example, two accounts, 4,999,999 and 10,000,001. Account A gets 4 times the base amount of shares in the assets and has 999,999 isk left unfrozen in the account, Account B gets 10 times the base shares and has 1 isk. Account A is better off because more of his isk is unfrozen at full value instead of being converted into assets of approximately 30%. However, no one gins from anyone's loss, it's based on luck instead of total deposits, and the smallest depositors, < 1 million, get all of their isk back.

It represents an administrative solution that is as fair as possible.

Edit: Once again, my bad. I wasn't following the convo corretly. I'll leave the above explanation up anyway

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.09.11 02:26:00 - [42]
 

The purpose of this post is to present a short and accessible version of my solution to the Eve Bank crisis. This proposal adequately solves all of the major issues raised so far.

1)Since EB is insistent that liquidation is not an option, this solution represents a compromise between maintaining EB as a functioning institution and doing what is in the depositorsí best interest.

EB intends to use its remaining assets to generate revenues which will be used to pay depositors back. This is good for those who have no other plans for their deposits, but bad for people who could put that money to better use themselves or those that no longer trust EB with their money.

2)My solution is to distribute shares that represent a claim to these remaining assets and their revenue. This way everyoneís remaining deposits are turned into items that can be bought, traded, or sold depending on their personal situation.

If you want your money right away, you sell all of your shares; if you want to leave your money, you hold all of your shares; or any combination you prefer. EB would make estimates of various ways to price the shares (which others will review), so depositors arenít overly vulnerable to bad deals.

3)I have worked this out in much more detail, but this is the general idea. Please read the original and revised solutions before criticizing or complementing specific aspects ("bankruptcy" in 2nd and 3rd post of page 1 + "revision" on 5th and 6th post page 2).

Thanks for your time.

Johnny ReeRee
The ReeRee Brigade
Posted - 2009.09.11 17:53:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: HawkBlade
Impressive post.

My first contribution was to report the three (3) trolling posts. Doesn't necessarily matter if we don't know who you are. If you make sense, you make sense.

My second comment, your post is not analysis.
It is opinion.

Well thought out but you present statements as forgone conclusions when in fact they are simply your opinion. Nothing wrong with opinion unless they are presented as something else.

Again, impressive post.

PS: Seriously, I reported them. Don't know if the op did or not but trolling has gotten to be a bit rampant around here. Doing my share to correct that.


This post is a troll, and I have reported it. It's just more arrogant posturing from someone who has zero credibility.

Have you followed Hexx's example yet and handed over all your money to EBank? You should.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.09.11 18:01:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Johnny ReeRee
This post is a troll, and I have reported it.

Your name should be Johnny Hall-monitor and your corp should be called The Waaaambulance Brigade.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only