Posted - 2007.06.04 23:50:00 - [3]

 

Edited by: Dark Shikari on 04/06/2007 23:49:00
Not bad. Not that great either, but not bad.

The news loans seem to show that business is looking up, however.

Posted - 2007.06.05 02:33:00 - [5]

 

Originally by: Ionia

---

Originally by: TornSoul

---

May dividend : 2.641.355.000 ISK

...

Worth noticing is that this is the 6th month in a row with dividends in the 3B range.

---

Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :)

---

Anything above or equal to 2 000 000 000.01 ISK is considered 3b :) that is the BIG way

Posted - 2007.06.05 08:50:00 - [7]

 

Originally by: Hennry Fromer

---

Is it a policy to not release the names of defaulters - I have followed a few threads and notice that names of people that default are absent from all of them?

---

Yes, it is policy not to release defaultors names at present.

Originally by: Ionia

---

Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :)

---

Well, anywhere between 2.5b and 3.5b as displayed by the dividend amounts for the last six months below :

DEC 2,481,280,000
JAN 3,538,240,000
FEB 2,913,108,600
MAR 3,119,294,000
APR 2,778,252,200
MAY 2,641,355,000

Posted - 2007.06.05 10:17:00 - [9]

 

Originally by: Ionia

---

lol Ray, you know I was only joking, but since you responded I felt the urge to do the same

Originally by: Ray McCormack

---

Originally by: Ionia

---

Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :)

---

Well, anywhere between 2.5b and 3.5b as displayed by the dividend amounts for the last six months below :

DEC 2,481,280,000
JAN 3,538,240,000
FEB 2,913,108,600
MAR 3,119,294,000
APR 2,778,252,200
MAY 2,641,355,000

---

---

Oops

Posted - 2007.06.05 13:17:00 - [11]

 

Originally by: Dark Shikari

---

Originally by: Ionia

---

stuff

Originally by: Ray McCormack

---

Originally by: Ionia

---

other stuff

---

further stuff

---

---

more useless drivel

---

I hate you both, wire me 18.72m immediately so I may fix this error. And I'll remove the excess 38.24m from Jan's figures. How do you do a negative dividend now...

Posted - 2007.06.05 14:57:00 - [13]

 

Originally by: Dark Shikari

---

Originally by: Ionia

---

lol Ray, you know I was only joking, but since you responded I felt the urge to do the same

Originally by: Ray McCormack

---

Originally by: Ionia

---

Just wondering, what are the min and max limits you use for the '3B range' :)

---

Well, anywhere between 2.5b and 3.5b as displayed by the dividend amounts for the last six months below :

DEC 2,481,280,000
JAN 3,538,240,000
FEB 2,913,108,600
MAR 3,119,294,000
APR 2,778,252,200
MAY 2,641,355,000

---

---

Oops

---

You missed one

Posted - 2007.06.05 21:34:00 - [15]

 

Originally by: Ray McCormack

---

Originally by: Hennry Fromer

---

Is it a policy to not release the names of defaulters - I have followed a few threads and notice that names of people that default are absent from all of them?

---

Yes, it is policy not to release defaultors names at present.

---

In a prior thread you asked for reasons to change thispolicy.

You were given several. Not only is this policy contrary to RL practice, it is also illegal in most jurisdictions. Even if it weren't SOP for lenders in RL, witholding the name in Eve is still contrary to both good-business sense and common sense.
You have confirmed the dates of the loan/default were far too close to each other and the Skiff changes to be a coincidence.
Therefore it is not a question of the borrower being un-able to pay. He didn't default, he sold you some magic beans and kept your CASH.
Therefore you were robbed.
Therefore you are continuing to be an accessory to the crime.

Perhaps it is time for you to offer a good reason NOT to change this policy since there are so many reasons why you should. Each of which, to me at least, is enough reason on their own. Ignored en-masse, really makes people wonder who you could possibly be protecting against the interests of both your shareholders, and of restoring the reputations of you and your corp.

Privacy for clients, while a good policy, is NOT a good reason for protecting the identity of a thief who is NOT your client.

Posted - 2007.06.06 01:26:00 - [17]

 

Originally by: TornSoul

---

And if it's not a theif?

---

Please tell me your entire post was an attempt at humour. I sincerely hope that someone entrusted with so many billions of other people's isk is not a gullible fool of such staggering magnitude. However, on the chance that you might, in fact, be just that big a sucker, I'll carry on.

Originally by: TornSoul

---

And how do you *for certain* distinguish between them?

---

Honest people pay their debts. Period. Your business is built on this fact so not sure why you don't seem to know it. Circumstances might mean the odd borrower can't pay on-schedule or as much interest. They would at least make an effort to start paying the principle ON principle. At the time of default the thief had approx/ 30 B or assets of that value, plus whatever assets/income they already had that made you think they could afford the loan. You'd have to work at it pretty hard to lose that much that fast and never again have a single isk you could start to pay back, especially after playing for so long after the theft.

Originally by: TornSoul

---

Not to mention, why is it so damn important for you to know?

---

You have elected to run a public corporation and list it on an exchange. The thief is still out there. You are helping them get away with the scam. It is not important for me to know as an individual. That the right thing to do isn't blatantly obvious to you or Ray tells me all I need to know about ever trusting either of you with anything.
It IS important for me to know as someone that owns shares in other corps. Scandals hurt the market, it has still not recovered from the last bank scam and ISS collapse. Your irresponsible inaction can only hurt investor confidence in the market at large and encourage more scam IPOs.
It is important that those who made the mistake of trusting you know who stole THEIR isk.

Originally by: TornSoul

---

I mean, if he truly *is* a professional theif, he wont care one bit about the "damage" to his name.

---

Of course not, but everyone that deals with him will. With 30 B in seed money he can set up some pretty legit looking operations to scam even more. Something your are in a position to prevent but are choosing not to.

Originally by: TornSoul

---

He'll either relish it - Or simply buy a new char and ditch the old one.

---

In the process he'll pick up the trust-stigma of being an alt that can't name his main. Not perfect, but better than the current situation.

Originally by: TornSoul

---

End effect is that the *only* one who risks getting hurt, unjustly, is the poor guy, who for some reason simply couldnt manage to pay back the loan for perfectly legit reasons.

---

He's got 30 bil of the public's isk, plus whatever profits he's made on it that time, whatever effect revealing his name has, that is justice. There is no reason to think there is anything legit about this. The only 'poor guys' are the folks out isk because they trusted you, that is unjust.

Originally by: TornSoul

---

I see no reason to hang this kinda person out to dry.
It will serve no purpose.
It will "protect" no one.

---

I agree IF the thief was the kind of person you describe. There is absolutely no reason to believe they are, just the opposite, so different rules apply.

Originally by: TornSoul

---

So far I have seen nothing that would convince me otherwise.

---

Then you are completely lacking in any sense of morals or ethics, wilfully blind, or both.

Originally by: TornSoul

---

But by all means - Keep at it.

---

I'm not the one in a position to make the issue go away. I'm also not the one effectively driving the getaway car from the 30 B bank heist.

Originally by: TornSoul

---

But you will have to convince me that it's a good idea to hang out, an fortunate but dishonest person, to dry.

---

Fixed!
Why do you even try to put one over on your shareholders by propagating the fallacy that this situation is something less sinister than it so clearly is? You fooled them for a while hiding the loss. That went over well. Why continue to treat them as fools?

Posted - 2007.06.06 03:22:00 - [19]

 

Posted - 2007.06.06 12:50:00 - [21]

 

Originally by: SonO***host

---

Originally by: TornSoul

---

I see no reason to hang this kinda person out to dry.
It will serve no purpose.
It will "protect" no one.

---

I agree IF the thief was the kind of person you describe. There is absolutely no reason to believe they are, just the opposite, so different rules apply.

---

And who judges this person's intentions?

Posted - 2007.06.06 14:39:00 - [23]

 

Originally by: Rthor

---

You do.

Then everybody else judges you based on your decision.

---

Yeah, that's gonna happen.

Posted - 2007.06.06 21:27:00 - [25]

 

Shar Tegral :, my post is about important information for shareholders and the market which should have been reported months ago. Since the coverup was exposed BMBE management owned up to part of it. The remainder still needs to come out. Until it does get included in a report, asking why the information that should be included isn't will always be relevant questions for every report until then.

Ray McCormack: The culprit judges himself every day they make no reparations. All you and TS have to do is open your eyes.

TornSoul:
My standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Reasonable is the word you seem to be omitting from your benchmark. There is absolutely no information to support your hypothesis that this player could be even remotely honest. The only doubts are of your own fabrication and have no basis.

Posted - 2007.06.06 22:21:00 - [27]

 

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

BMBE has stated that they are open to the idea if, and only if, someone can express a valid reason for disclosure.

---

But who is there to judge if an idea is valid? I would rather say that 10 ideas are not valid than find one valid idea that disagrees with me.

Posted - 2007.06.06 23:12:00 - [29]

 

Originally by: Rthor

---

I would rather say that 10 ideas are not valid than find one valid idea that disagrees with me.

---

Coming from the forum troll... I'm not in the least bit surprised at your lack of moral fiber. Gladly the only decision within your realm is whether or not to continue posting drivel.

Sadly, you are predictable even in that.