| Author |
Topic |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.02.27 21:26:00 - [ 1]
The old business plan was created before FIN had been operating at all, and hence a lot of the wording and structures are no longer aplicable. As a result the old business plan has been rewritten, with mostly wording changes from future to past and present tenses. There are however two changes that I would like to draw your attention to: 1) The trustees will be changing to a full board rather than just the current two, although the current two will also be on the board. Also to make life easier with rights etc, I will be taking over as CEO of the Trust. This however does not allow me to kick any trustee without a vote, nor does it give me effective control as the other trustees could remove me. 2) The old method of buying back bonds was created when the payment was once a month. With the changes to twice a month, to maintain the same effective result bonds had to be transferred to FIN first and then the 2-4 week waiting period had to expire before you were paid out. So although you were getting 95% for the bonds, you were loosing out on an average of 6% dividends in the time. The change makes the buyback value 90% but takes away the waiting period, which in effect gives the same (slightly more actually) but allows an option to cash in faster if needed. This change has been made on request from a few investors who need cash fast and could not use FIN bonds for that. You can find the new proposed business plan here. Sincerely, Eefrit |
Alain DeMorgan |
Posted - 2007.02.28 00:25:00 - [ 2]
Can you list all the material changes in the business plan, please?
Can the existing trustees please comment on (1), most importantly that what is being claimed ("CEO can't do any damage") is actually true.
Why is it necessary for you to be CEO of the trust, and not just a regular member with appropriate rights? As far as I know the only thing you'd need to do in the trust that requires any rights is manufacturing from the locked-down BPOs that secure the bonds, correct?
|
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari
Space Meanies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 00:26:00 - [ 3]
Read the new business plan, well the amended business plan, and I must say, like the original, I like it.
However my investment at time of investment return was "guaranteed" at 5%, and you want to change that to 4%, not to want to quibble over 1% too much but it is 1/5 of what I expected my return to be.
I never did see the actual reason for that change, can you explain that please.
|
Hangman69
Evolution
IT Alliance |
Posted - 2007.02.28 06:32:00 - [ 4]
website needs work, and wrt to above i believe the original guarantee was always 4% return with a promis to try to make higher. |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 07:54:00 - [ 5]
I'll try answer all the questions raised so far.
I need the CEO rights as I do not just build in the Trust but actually run it as a corp. Right now EMFi is the CEO and that requires him to do every little thing that a CEO has to do and to be fair it is not his primary responsibility. This often results in delays of sorts and quite frankly a lot of frustrations for me as I can not run it as efficiently as I otherwise could.
CCP fixed the corp control after FIN was launched which means that the CEO of a corp can only kick a member with shares out by having a vote of all shareholders. That effectively means that the trustees have to agree to vote out any of the trustees and can run for CEO if needs be. The only functional difference is that I will not have to rely on someone else to effetively run the trust and can take action on my own to enact votes that have been passed or any other general admin of the trust. This has been tested and I can confirm that it is now the case. If you are unsure I invite you to create an alt corp and test this out yourself.
Although the minimum is 4% we have averaged over 6% since inception, so the time value would actually have been 89% on average with the previous system as opposed to the 90% currently. However if we start paying the minimum 4% for some reason I will agree to up the buyback amount to 91% which then leaves no way for investors to loose out on the changes.
Sincerely,
Eefrit
|
Motivated Prophet
Zerodot Schools
|
Posted - 2007.02.28 16:03:00 - [ 6]
 Originally by: Alain DeMorgan
Can the existing trustees please comment on (1), most importantly that what is being claimed ("CEO can't do any damage") is actually true.
1. Naphthalia is currently CEO, and thus is (presumably) trusted. 2. Only the CEO (or a majority vote of shareholders) can appoint a new CEO. Therefore, if you trust Naphthalia enough to have invested in the first place, since Naph would have to transfer control of the company, in doing so she implicitly validates the statement in question. Or, to put it more directly--if Naph doesn't feel comfortable doing the transfer of CEO-ship, she won't, and since you already trust Naphthalia completely, this proposed change does not increase your risk exposure one iota. MP |
Alain DeMorgan |
Posted - 2007.02.28 23:45:00 - [ 7]
Originally by: Motivated Prophet
Originally by: Alain DeMorgan
Can the existing trustees please comment on (1), most importantly that what is being claimed ("CEO can't do any damage") is actually true.
1. Naphthalia is currently CEO, and thus is (presumably) trusted.
2. Only the CEO (or a majority vote of shareholders) can appoint a new CEO.
Therefore, if you trust Naphthalia enough to have invested in the first place, since Naph would have to transfer control of the company, in doing so she implicitly validates the statement in question.
Or, to put it more directly--if Naph doesn't feel comfortable doing the transfer of CEO-ship, she won't, and since you already trust Naphthalia completely, this proposed change does not increase your risk exposure one iota.
However, the vote that I cast may increase my riskMy investment in FIN was done on the basis that it was unlikely that the two trustees would run with the money, and that Eefrit did not have access within the trustee corp to run with the money. Making Eefrit CEO seems to be potentially giving him more access. Therefore I would like the existing trustees -- who (a) are more experienced than myself in the intricacies of corp management and (b) are presumably going to act on the results of the shareholder vote -- to evaluate the changes publicly so I can make an informed decision. For example, I'm not sure about the exact mechanics of kicking a member who owns shares or unlocking a BPO.. does it require >=50% of votes, >50% of votes, >=50% of total shares, or >50% of total shares to kick in? For example, could the CEO hypothetically team up with a single corrupt trustee and raise a 1-day unlock vote just before an extended DT, so the only votes made are from that corrupt trustee? and then make off with the proceeds before anyone can react.. I suppose the same scenario applies to a trustee being the CEO, but the whole point of the trustee system is that you don't have to trust Eefrit! These are the sorts of questions that presumably the current trustees are evaluating, and I would like to see their analysis before I cast my vote. |
Alain DeMorgan |
Posted - 2007.02.28 23:49:00 - [ 8]
Originally by: Eefrit
I need the CEO rights as I do not just build in the Trust but actually run it as a corp.
Um.. seems to me that the solution to that is to run the Trust just as a Trust, with the only side activity being manufacturing. Can you explain what else you do in the Trust that you couldn't do in a separate corp? I'm getting a bit nervous about the Trust doing anything but hold the BPOs backing the bond principal, tbh. |
EMFi Manager
EvE Mutual Fund Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 09:33:00 - [ 9]
I am still trying to get in touch with Femintaki to discuss this issue. I am witholding commentary till I have spoken in a trustee meeting.
One thing I can say is that I am unhappy with the "vote structure" (type of vote, terms of acceptance and numbering and orderin of options) but also I will withold comment on particularities till the trustees have formed a joined oppinion.
In a way it is three names on the line here, Naphtalia, Eefrit and Femintaki... The current trustees have been assigned to guarantee the security of their investments with their name, and that is what they will do.. FIN afterall is the only 100% full proof investment oppertunity thanks to this structure.
Anyways, Stay tuned. (fem get on MSN!!!!) |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations |
Posted - 2007.03.01 12:18:00 - [ 10]
Originally by: Alain DeMorgan
Can you explain what else you do in the Trust that you couldn't do in a separate corp?
Manufacture from the BPOs for one. Any reason why RESX was opted for over the EGSE? Imo it's an unsafe environment for the handeling of shares and dividends. |
Alain DeMorgan |
Posted - 2007.03.04 11:11:00 - [ 11]
Edited by: Alain DeMorgan on 04/03/2007 11:08:56 Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Alain DeMorgan
Can you explain what else you do in the Trust that you couldn't do in a separate corp?
Manufacture from the BPOs for one.
uh.. reread my post, I know that manufacture roles are needed, that's why I said "what else?"  You don't need to be CEO to do manufacturing. Originally by: EMFi Manager
Stay tuned.
Any news? |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.05 17:38:00 - [ 12]
Alain the CEO roles are there to facilitate the smooth running of a corp. It is why they exist in the first place.
If I was building from 1 BPO then no problem, but at present there are a large number and doing them all myself is not something I am prepared to continue doing. That means that I will have to recruit people to build, sell and procure and then manage those people.
Why does anyone need CEO roles? Efficiency is the simple answer.
On the report from EMFi, I am also still waiting to hear what is in it. I was promised it days ago but have still recieved nothing.
/Eefrit
|
Alain DeMorgan |
Posted - 2007.03.06 22:40:00 - [ 13]
Well the vote has completed now without a review by the trustees so I don't know quite what to say. (I would have voted "no" due to the lack of review, but forgot to do it before the vote expired) |
Alain DeMorgan |
Posted - 2007.03.06 22:53:00 - [ 14]
Originally by: Eefrit
If I was building from 1 BPO then no problem, but at present there are a large number and doing them all myself is not something I am prepared to continue doing. That means that I will have to recruit people to build, sell and procure and then manage those people.
You don't need to be the CEO to recruit. You don't need sales or procurement in the trustee corp. Still don't understand why you'd need CEO, please explain, can't you do this with Granted Roles: Personnel Manager + Grantable Roles: Factory Manager/hangar access? Yes I agree it is a bit of a pain to have to push stuff between the trustee corp and another corp all the time, but uh isn't that what you signed up for in the original business plan? There was no discussion about needing extra roles or corp management issues in the original bond issue documents. The trustee corp was there solely to hold the bond collateral, not to do anything else, as I understood it. Basically I'm not happy about what seems to me like increasing risk to investors for your personal convenience. |
Johnny ReeRee
The ReeRee Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 06:29:00 - [ 15]
Then you should sell your shares.
|
Alain DeMorgan |
Posted - 2007.03.07 07:44:00 - [ 16]
Originally by: Johnny ReeRee
Then you should sell your shares.
Having to sell my shares because the nature of the bonds I bought has changed unexpectedly is a last resort. I'd rather get a resolution that means I can hold on to them. Even just a review from the trustees that says "there is no increased risk if Eefrit becomes CEO, because ..." would be sufficient. TBH I would have expected that to have been done before the vote was posted  |
Eefrit
Eve Financial Services
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 20:44:00 - [ 17]
Originally by: Alain DeMorgan
Originally by: Johnny ReeRee
Then you should sell your shares.
Having to sell my shares because the nature of the bonds I bought has changed unexpectedly is a last resort. I'd rather get a resolution that means I can hold on to them.
Even just a review from the trustees that says "there is no increased risk if Eefrit becomes CEO, because ..." would be sufficient. TBH I would have expected that to have been done before the vote was posted
So would I have thought it would have been. The first time I head there were issues with it was when EMFi posted in this thread. I posted the link to the new plan about a week before the vote was created and had no comments or complaints besides spelling errors that I had to fix. For the record the vote passed with 94.5% in favour. However I'm getting pretty bloody tired of people complaining about the "default to option 1" old wives tale. There have been votes where option one had 0% of the votes which conclusively disproves that idea. However to finally shut the naggers up I will re-issue the vote with nothing for option one, and take that as the final result. I will also be clarifying one or two more things (no changes) in the business plan before then. Hence consider the last vote null and void even though it passed according to the rules of the business plan. /Eefrit |
Kasia Pelarar
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.03.07 23:57:00 - [ 18]
Originally by: Eefrit
So would I have thought it would have been. The first time I head there were issues with it was when EMFi posted in this thread. I posted the link to the new plan about a week before the vote was created and had no comments or complaints besides spelling errors that I had to fix.
Marvellous communication  Originally by: Eefrit
For the record the vote passed with 94.5% in favour. However I'm getting pretty bloody tired of people complaining about the "default to option 1" old wives tale. There have been votes where option one had 0% of the votes which conclusively disproves that idea.
Can someone (official type person ) clarify the whole share voting system, or point to anywhere that explains how it works. It seems pretty simple to me; a vote is announced, shareholders vote, the results are announced. Looking at the figures, this is how I think it works; For this vote; 95.7...% of shares voted yes to the change, and 100% of the shares voted. For this AATP vote only 3.55...% of shares voted yes and only a total of 4.08...% of shares voted at all. I also believe that there is no such thing as the "default to option 1" having several examples (personal wallet) of option one not passing with less than 50% of shares voting on the other options combined. How does the "Run for CEO" button work, who can use it, who can start votes, what is needed for a run for CEO vote, etcetera. Sorry to drift off the OP course a bit, but I think this would be beneficial all round, especially with the number of recent IPOs requiring the keeping of 51% of shares "to keep control". I would be willing to help write a guide, but I need the facts. |
Alain DeMorgan |
Posted - 2007.03.08 00:55:00 - [ 19]
Originally by: Kasia Pelarar
For this vote; 95.7...% of shares voted yes to the change, and 100% of the shares voted.
That is what is displayed on the closed votes page, but it can't be right because I hold 500mil of shares and I did not vote. So the 100% thing seems bogus .. Is the system just scaling those votes to a percentage of actually cast votes, and lockdown votes are somehow different? (bleh, how useless..) |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.03.08 07:06:00 - [ 20]
Originally by: Eefrit
For the record the vote passed with 94.5% in favour.
I think there may be a bug there considering the number of shares i both personally own and broker were not used to vote with. That number is more than the 5.5% that weren't 'yes' votes. |
Kasia Pelarar
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.03.08 09:02:00 - [ 21]
Originally by: Alain DeMorgan
That is what is displayed on the closed votes page, but it can't be right because I hold 500mil of shares and I did not vote. So the 100% thing seems bogus .. Is the system just scaling those votes to a percentage of actually cast votes, and lockdown votes are somehow different? (bleh, how useless..)
Originally by: Omber Zombie
I think there may be a bug there considering the number of shares i both personally own and broker were not used to vote with. That number is more than the 5.5% that weren't 'yes' votes.
Moved the voting discussion to this thread. |
All Channels
[FIN] Adoption of new shareholders agreement and business plan
Screenshots & Art
