All posts by Tranquilo Holgado
| Mar 1st, 07:58 Tranquilo Holgado |
L&L Financial Services Public Forum » Ideas to be put on the table Re: Ideas to be put on the table |
|
| Hello I’m an account holder, so, I have to admit I can have a bias in this matter. You be the judge about that. In my view, shareholders are indeed the owners of the bank. Only they have a word in the final decision about the bank. As owners they own the actives and passives of the Bank. So, they have to answer for the debts too with their shares. Well, account holders have a credit right (in SL, essentially, a moral one) over the bank. Morally, they can demand their money to be paid. And I have doubts that an corporation that has so many debts can pay any dividends until a big part of the debts were honored. This is a question of the bank and shareholders honor. A honorable person, be it an individual or an institution pays its debts. Profit only exists when there are no debts pending… and without profit there can be no dividends… I think for her deeds Lindsay has showed us all that she is going to do her best to pay everybody and to make a profit to shareholders. Remember, already in the past she bought and paid the debts of the former SLIB. And she is here now, trying to solve this mess. She didn’t run as some CEOs. I think that to avoid similarities with past compulsory means, that ended bad, a plan to solve this matter must be based in some rules: 1) LLFS should offer more than an option, to make this solution to be “voluntary” and to accommodate to different account holders views. 2) LLFS should avoid to convert all the money in accounts into non interest bearing CDs. Imagine that after 60 days all holders decide to ask for 50% of their money? Would LLFS have more than 3 million lindens in 74 days (60 days plus the 14 of waiting) to pay everybody? I doubt that. But if LLFS can’t uphold the plan made, it will loose credibility. So, every eventuality must be planned ahead. LLFS should avoid make that full conversion also because it needs at least a part of those 6 millions of depositors. Even if LLFS could pay all that money, it would be an institution without capital to invest. 3) So, I think the initial plan to convert money from accounts in shares should be applied too. The terms of 3 shares for a linden would be a nice price, without any obligation to buy them back (since they are shares of the Bank, LLFS shouldn’t be under any obligation to buy then back at a given price). But, since it is just an option, LLFS can offer just 2 shares or 2.5 for a linden. People will accept if they want. Off course, at 2 shares or less for a linden LLFS could end without anybody willing to convert their money to shares. LLFS should be ready to make an increase of capital of say 4 million shares, probably 6 millions would be better. The money of accounts should be converted in shares in the amount the holders were to request. If that amount were to be bigger than the amount of capital increase, proportional amounts should be given. No doubt, that would make the value of shares to go down, but that could be an opportunity to buy then cheaper. And the money that goes to shares is debt that goes away. It’s problem solved for that amount. With less debt, there would be dividends sooner… no doubt, smaller, since there will be more shares, but it’s better small dividends, than nothing… 4) I think a third option could be to create a liquidating fund, similar to the one of BCX (bcxlf in ISE), at a rate of 1 share for 1L of account money. Again, the value of the fund shares would be down to 0.5 or something, but at least people could sell their credits over LLFS immediately. But this option should have some clear rules: A) LLFS should be allowed to buy those shares at lower prices than 1 linden. B) On the other hand, LLFS should be committed to buy a fixed value every month in the same day of the month (or in a previously announced day) at the market prices, of about 1/6-1/8 of all shares, in order to liquidate the fund in 6-8 months at worst. Off course, this schedule depends on the ability of LLFS to raise at least 1/8 of the full amount of shares of the liquidating fund a month. That is, 1/8 of about 6.5 millions less the money that goes to shares or to a third option. But if in the CD plan, Lindsay seems to prepare to paid all in 4 months.. So, LLFS could buy the shares in other days at the price of the market (or even put in buy orders at lower prices), but those buys wouldn’t count for the mandatory monthly buyback. In the fixed day, probably the price of shares would increase. Patience holders would have an opportunity in those days to sell at a higher price, even if not that high, since some holders might decide to just sell to LLFS at a lower price to be the first to sell. This system would be good for LLFS and their shareholders, since they could pay the debt at a lower price. And still respect the will of account holders, since they could just wait. For the patience ones, a reward should be paid. LLFS should commit to buy those shares two cents higher every month. So, if the planned buy back is to last for 8 months, every fixed monthly buyback day, the top price of the buyback should increase in, say, two cents. 1.02 in the first month. 1.04 in the second month, until 1.16 in the eight month. This wouldn’t be a violation of TOS, since, of course, probably that top price will never occur, except in the last month, for the more patience ones, that waited until the last. In the first months, probably the buyback price will be between 0.7 and 0.9, since holders will compete to make shore they will sell. So, the income wouldn’t be fixed or certain. SL Wallet is applying a similar system, without problems with LL. If shareholders think that an increase of 0.02 cents a month is too much, in my view I guess 0.01 is also acceptable. But remember, account holders will have their money blocked for 8 months against their will, making profit to shareholders… If LLFS by its voluntary buybacks in other days at low prices could liquidate the fund sooner in the 4th month or 5th month, it would never have to pay more than 1.08 or 1.10 for any share, even the last ones. In the end, it would pay much less of the total debt, since LLFS would buy many fund shares at lower prices. It would be a good business for all, except the ones that wanted to have their money sooner. If LLFS fails to liquidate the fund in 8 months, I think a penalty should be imposed. Every month, the top price should increase in 0.03 or 0.04 cents. Again, this wouldn’t be a fixed rate of income, in violation of the TOS. Just a promise to buyback at higher prices as penalty for a breach of contract. Well, this is just my (long) two cents. regards |
||
| Mar 3rd, 09:22 Tranquilo Holgado |
L&L Financial Services Public Forum » Ideas to be put on the table Re: Ideas to be put on the table |
|
| Hello As I wrote in my support ticket, I don't like the 120 day Cd option. "To receive back 20.000L a month it's very little for someone with 200.000 or more there. I think it's unfair to have the money blocked for 4 months without any compensation (specially if you are going to give dividends made with that money). And there is the risk LLFS won't make 3.000.000L in 4 months... I still think that to create a liquidating fund under the conditions I suggested (or similar) was a better option for LLFS and for us. You probably have working software to create it in LLFS web site, so you wouldn't depend on others and, as one more option, only the account holders that liked the option would go for it. And if you are afraid that LLFS would loose money, go check the price of the bcxlf, it's at 0.49L." regards |
||
| May 14th, 06:52 Tranquilo Holgado |
L&L Financial Services Public Forum » Closing Operations Re: Closing Operations |
|
| Hello Once again, Lindsay is still here, willing to liquidate assets and pay the creditors and give the rest (if anything) to shareholders. Any accusations of dishonesty are unwarranted. Anyway, I wonder if this move is really necessary… I don’t know how matters about the debt related to the sim with LCA were settled. But LNL and LCA don’t have fixed expenses. LCA could, with a proper management, go on, giving profit. I understand that LNL just doesn’t have money now to pay creditors. But it’s just a question of making new plans of payment and put again limits on withdrawing. LNL can try to sell copies of its software (that seems to be the only asset) and keep going to make a little more money. In the last months there was some revenue. Of course, expenses with management must be cut. A bankrupt bank can’t pay wages, not even to the CEO. Lindsay would have to keep things going out of her good will to end this mess. Usually, one expects that the CEO/owner to be paid out of profits received from his “free” shares that he got in the IPO. If there is no profit, he can only blame himself. Regards Tranquilo Holgado |
||
| May 14th, 07:52 Tranquilo Holgado |
L&L Financial Services Public Forum » Closing Operations Re: Closing Operations |
|
| Sorry Lindsay, I thought that the consultations and fees had some form of payment to the CEO. I see now that they didn't. Anyway, you still have my trust. Your honesty was never an issue for me. As a creditor, and a shareholder of both LNL and LCA, I think you could go on with both. You could still lock all peoples money in the LN liquidating fund and open the brokerage. LNL and LCA can still give some profit. I hope you won't sell your position, since I think you are our hope to get our money back, at least a part of it. |
||
| May 14th, 18:36 Tranquilo Holgado |
L&L Financial Services Public Forum » Closing Operations Re: Closing Operations |
|
| Legally, of course, Lindsay can't close the company without a decision of the majority of the shareholders present at the meeting. But I can bet that her 39.01% (20.2+11.5 of the alt LNLBT Miles+7.4 of her partner) would be enough to make a majority of more than 50% of the shareholders present and voting. Most people won't care to go to the meeting. Beside, she would get my 1.91% vote, for closing LNL, if that is her decision. I rather have Lindsay liquidating LNL than anyone else liquidating or running it. At least, I know she won't run with the money. I'm sure others would do a fine job running LNL, but I don't know them. I prefer to stick with someone I already know. Moreover, Lindasy has her name on the line. I'm shore she will do her best to compensate as far as possible everyone in order to get out as clean as possible. Someone else wouldn't have the same moral pressure. He would just say, there isn't more money, so, live on... So, forget courts, forget meetings to try to coerce Lindsay. This is SL, we need her. The only way is to talk with her and understand her point of view. She did her best, without receiving nothing. She lost money too. Stop bashing and may be she will be ready to go on with both companies. Did you sent a copy of the email to me, Lindsay? I can't remember which email I gave you. Anyway, I think there is nothing to hide, the discussion should be public. Lets just ignore all the stupid comments. regards |
||
| May 15th, 15:55 Tranquilo Holgado |
L&L Financial Services Public Forum » Closing Operations Re: Closing Operations |
|
| Lindsay Thanks, my email is correiodigital&yahoo.com (you know what to put instead of the &). I have some suggestions to made about LNL and LCA. But I might wait for your email first, unless it take too long to receive it. regards |
||
| May 15th, 16:34 Tranquilo Holgado |
L&L Financial Services Public Forum » Closing Operations Re: Closing Operations |
|
| I got the email, thanks. | ||
1 
Sort by: