All posts by Vitall Beck
| Feb 25th 2008, 00:20 Vitall Beck |
L&L Financial Services Public Forum » Ideas to be put on the table Re: Ideas to be put on the table |
|
| Servme, I understand your concern about well-being of the LLFS shareholders, but what about poor LLBT depositors who have their money currently trapped on non-interest bearing accounts against their will, and who currently have no chance of getting out? At the same time, the money trapped on those accounts interest-free still WORK and create value for LLFS shareholders. If LLFS is currently illiquid and unable to honor its liabilities giving back all money to its depositors, would not it be FAIR for LLFS shareholders to offer debt-to-equity conversion option to the depositors? It will give depositors a share in the profits of LLFS which they are otherwise denied, as well as improve liquidity for LLFS. BTW, without such liquidity, the prospects of LGEX ever taking off the ground look REALLY bleak. I agree, however, with the opinion that the conversion should not be obligatory, but optional. Those shareholders who would rather prefer to keep their cash balances until such time when LLFS is in a position to give them cash back should get special locked accounts (non-interest-bearing CDs?) until June 1st, or such other time as LLFS management thinks is feasible. |
||
| Feb 26th 2008, 22:53 Vitall Beck |
General Investment Discussion » Welcome to our new CTO - Chango Kanto Re: Welcome to our new CTO - Chango Kanto |
|
| Does this mean that the share of SLCX that belongs to SLW holding (and therefore a projected dividend stream from SLCX to SLW shareholders) has proportionally decreased? Correct me if I'm wrong, but from SLW prospectus I got a very strong feeling that half of SLCX belongs to SLW now (half of SLCX dividend listed as SLW revenue), NOT to Mr. Wise personally. If this is the case, how come he claims that the new CEO was allocated shares "from his personal portfolio"? This is not something he would be able to do now without explicit agreement of SLW shareholders. If it is not the case, and 50% of SLCX does not belong to SLW, why was its revenue was listed in SLW prospectus? I find it highly misleading for SLW shareholders and investors buying SLW shares on the market then. Any clarification will be highly appreciated. Regards, Vitall Beck |
||
| Feb 27th 2008, 18:05 Vitall Beck |
General Investment Discussion » Welcome to our new CTO - Chango Kanto Re: Welcome to our new CTO - Chango Kanto |
|
| Arb, I understand your perspective, and I can even admit that you may have had best interests of both companies shareholders in mind. However, IF SLW is a real holding company and not just another "play token", definitely giving away one half of its most valuable asset is a VERY important decision that could only be taken based on shareholders vote. No director of the company could take such decision, even if he has the best intentions. I would go so far as to say that taking such decision without shareholders approval may be seen as a clear breach of fiduciary duty by SLW officers by any impartial observer. |
||
| Feb 27th 2008, 22:23 Vitall Beck |
General Investment Discussion » Welcome to our new CTO - Chango Kanto Re: Welcome to our new CTO - Chango Kanto |
|
| We are not talking about "EVERY SINGLE" decision, it would be ridiculous to request that the company Officers get the shareholders approval for any trivial matter of running the business. However, the matter in question is NOT trivial in the least. We are talking about GIVING AWAY 50% of the company's MOST IMPORTANT ASSET, which amounts (if my calculation from SLW prospectus are correct) to approximately 1/3 of company's TOTAL REVENUE. It is a common and well established practice in RL companies, both public and private, to request their shareholders approval for capital transactions involving important company assets, and THIS is exactly such case. That being said, the Company officer may have very valid reasons to believe that giving away one third of company's revenues is a great deal - he just needs to explain the benefits of such move clearly to shareholders and get their approval for this. On the other hand, if you consider transfer of company's major capital assets a trivial matter which SLW Officers can execute at any moment and in any manner they please, then your critics are right, and SLW is NOT a valid holding company at any rate, but a "dump stock" lacking any intrinsic value, very similar to WTF in any practical aspect. I would be certainly VERY disappointed if this is indeed the case. All your prior communication suggested otherwise, and this is actually the very reason why I became vested in SLW and SLCX and advised other people to do the same. Please confirm that my understanding of your position is correct. I would appreciate if you could take your time and explain your position, rather than dismissing all this as a "trivial matter" or just another example of "annoying bashing". It is NOT, and if you stop to think about it, how you handle this situation NOW will have very serious consequences in terms of both investors confidence in SLCapex and SL business practices in general. |
||
| Feb 28th 2008, 01:02 Vitall Beck |
General Investment Discussion » Welcome to our new CTO - Chango Kanto Re: Welcome to our new CTO - Chango Kanto |
|
| Thank you, Arb. I know it takes great effort to admit that you are wrong. Especially in uncertain and shaky times like this, when lots of people are still angry with you, and will no doubt take every opportunity to rejoice at your mistakes. In the long run, though, it always pays off to do the right thing, admit your mistakes and correct them, rather then persist for the fear of "losing face". Just look at WSE and where its founders persistence in insisting he's right and everyone else is wrong brought him... I certainly hope that SLCapex will not go into the same downward spiral. Please rest assured that I'll be on your side when it comes to this particular vote - I definitely see the benefit of this deal to both SLW and SLCX, it is just the way it was done without shareholders approval that gave me the shivers. |
||
| Mar 11th 2008, 05:11 Vitall Beck |
SL CapEx Public Forum » Invoices not billed yet ? Re: Invoices not billed yet ? |
|
| Sean, I'm not sure what you are referring to - I cannot see any unpaid invoices/bills in February financial report. Care to elaborate? I have to agree though that a drop in commission revenue from January to February is VERY surprising and totally unexpected. I've tracked Capex activity on a regular basis and if anything, daily and weekly volumes were significantly higher in February. So, I guess SLCX management owes an explanation to shareholders as to why these volumes did not translate into commissions. |
||
| Mar 11th 2008, 05:13 Vitall Beck |
SL CapEx Public Forum » Traders sweep accounts Traders sweep accounts |
|
| I have another question to SLCX management regarding the sweep deposits accounting. My understanding is, before the ban all traders sweep accounts were on JTF balance (later converted to SLW). However, as Arb stated many times in his communication, SLCX operations are completely separate from JTF and other sister entities right now, so I would assume that all trader sweep accounts should now be considered a liability of SLCX and reflected in SLCX balance sheet accordingly. If this is not the case, I would actually be quite worried for my Capex trading balance - who is responsible for this money if not SLCX? We all remember what was the unfortunate result of mixed responsibility for trader deposits previously, I would hope that SLCX management learned from past mistakes and keep all traders money safely on SLCX balance going forward. |
||
| Mar 13th 2008, 06:20 Vitall Beck |
SL CapEx Public Forum » Traders sweep accounts Re: Traders sweep accounts |
|
| So, what is the answer to this? Why are SL traders deposits not reflected in SLCX accounting? Mr. Wise, Mr. Beck, anyone? | ||
| Apr 1st 2008, 08:51 Vitall Beck |
SL CapEx Public Forum » Traders sweep accounts Re: Traders sweep accounts |
|
| Now that the CEO of this exchange made a strong call for increased transparency and better reporting from all listed companies, I'm still curious what is the answer to a very specific issue I've raised regarding SLCX REPORTING. So far, this question remains unanswered, even though the company management made clear that they heard the question. So, Mr. Beck, can you lead by example and provide investors with some TRANSPARENCY here? ;) | ||
| Aug 21st 2008, 04:54 Vitall Beck |
Kush Islands Public Forum » HOT status update HOT status update Edited by moderator Aug 21st 2008, 04:59 |
|
| Dear HOT shareholders, First of all, I would like to thank Clintovius Trotter for the efforts he put so far in order to keep the company afloat. Given the current gloomy situation with SL economy in general, and land market in particular, he definitely had to fight a tough uphill battle... Following is a short update on the situation the company is currently in. All HOT sims has been transferred to my account and tiers to Lindens paid, so there is no immediate threat of losing the company assets. However, HOT currently has no working capital, and occupancy rate is extremely low - below 40%. Effective occupancy rate is lower still, as about half of the residents are not paying their tiers... So, according to my estimate on-going tiers revenue is barely covering 1/3 of HOT estate fees. So, the company continues to lose money, and it does lose money fast. In order to turn around the situation, a very immediate task is to increase the land occupancy to a more healthy level allowing the company at least to break even on tiers. So, we started a "fire-sale": for a limited time, all unoccupied land on Kush islands is on sale for 1L$/sqm and even below. A wide selection of plots (ranging from 2048 to full sim); is currently available, including such unique offering as Opensim plots with FULL PRIM allocation. In addition to this we initiated a "referral" program for Kush residents AND HOT shareholders- yes, FOR YOU. ;) Now you too can help the company while making good profit from it. PLEASE let ALL your SL friends and acquaintances know about a great limited&-time opportunity to buy land at one of the best Residential estates at a very attractive price! Once you've informed your friends, just IM me the list of your referrals, if one of them buys the land on Kush islands, YOU will get 50% - yes, one half! - of initial land purchase amount. Please do not miss on this great opportunity to help yourself and your company! Act today! :) Forward everyone you know this SLurl: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Kush//// Thank you, and I will keep you updated on further developments. Regards, Vitall Beck |
||
1 | 