http://slcapex.com/forums/browse/general Topics not related to a specific company en-us Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:59:27 -0600 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:59:27 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/ Kudang SQL2RSS admin@slcapex.com webmaster@slcapex.com 60 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
Have you applied for a transfer at Capex?

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by JayT Axel ]]> Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:40:03 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20983 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Scott Nestler ]]> Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:21:31 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20982 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Scott Nestler ]]> Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:21:28 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20981 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831 What Scott is saying is that NO application has been submitted.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:06:57 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20977 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Itchy Gamba ]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:06:26 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20976 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Scott Nestler ]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:37:52 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20974 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
Jan 27th - March 14th. (thats quiet a lot of days)

I guess all the known unknowns, the unknown knows, aswell as the known knows, and even the unknown unknowns have been sorted out ?

What/who is holding back the relisting to take place now ?

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:18:37 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20973 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2867
in topic ATT: Capex management by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:56:56 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2867/20966 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2867
http://slcapex.com/data/gimmestocks

in topic ATT: Capex management by Scott Nestler ]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:51:39 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2867/20965 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2867
Thanks,

Scott

in topic ATT: Capex management by Scott Nestler ]]> Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:57:33 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2867/20955 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2867
For historical context here is the original issue:

Customer Support Ticket #1940
Opened 2010-01-14 21:33:41
Feeds unavailable
Hey,

i have problems accessing the feeds. Both http://www.slcapex.com/data/stocks and http://www.slcapex.com/data/stocks/2 load forever and never return anything.

Thanks in advance.


Jan 16th, 01:51
Cash Yiyuan This ticket has been forward to the developer.
Jan 26th, 23:46
Andy Grant Almost 2 weeks and no progress at all ?
Please give me an estimated timeframe.
Feb 28th, 09:08
Andy Grant Status ?

I sent you an email, and received no response.

As stated above on februray 28-2010 i sent the following email (email adresses censored out):


RE: Support Ticket #1940‏
From: P***k C*****r (patryk@****.no)
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 2:18:58 PM
To: bogart.beck@****.com; chrisstewartfilms@****.com
Cc: nestler.investments@****.com; kudige@****.com; cash yiyuan (cash.yiyuan@****.com)

Hey, the feeds are still down and i got no response on my last question as you can see below. Can i please give me some update on this, if the update means Chango won't be back for next 20 years i'd prefer that than nothing or "as soon as possible". I need a rough timeframe so i can plan better myself.
Thanks,
Andy Grant

So can i get an answer, please ?

Thank you.

in topic ATT: Capex management by Andy Grant ]]> Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:18:08 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2867/20953 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2866
Any advice or background research you can give me would be much appreciated. I know that the business has been running for around 4 years and a server is used storing around 200GB. What does that roughly cost?

I have requested the the seller moves everything onto an alt so that I can request to take ownership of the alt with the business functioning fully when/if I take over. My main interest is to work out stability.

in topic Can I Get Your Thoughts Please by Bobbi Katscher ]]> Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:21:27 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2866/20950 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2866
Without know the details of operations, my only hesitation is with IP issues. Someone is making the DVD you are selling and distributing, and are they being compensated for that?

Just make sure you cover your bases.



in topic Can I Get Your Thoughts Please by Ashleigh Wade ]]> Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:49:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2866/20949 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2866
I am interested in your feedback regarding a recent venture that has presented itself to me.

I have been assessing an adult DVD business within SL for a number of months. I think it has stability. To be blunt, the business is for sale for L$2million. A bit steep I know.

The breakdown is 750k initially. A further 250k coming from 50% of gross profit. and the remaining 1mil from 25% of gross profit.

The business generates sales of between 50-180k with costs calculated at being 15k.

I am either looking to raise capital potentially under a separate entity, or otherwise speak with shareholders from MLS and VBL. Please share your thoughts and come back to me with any criticism and/or comments.

Kind Regards

Milos

in topic Can I Get Your Thoughts Please by firstdesigns Milos ]]> Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:26:56 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2866/20948 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2862
in topic With the fall of land values of late..... by Atreyu Frequency ]]> Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:16:50 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2862/20933 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2862
Dividends aren't as high as a year ago, but they are still there.

-Scott

in topic With the fall of land values of late..... by Scott Nestler ]]> Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:33:45 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2862/20929 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2862
in topic With the fall of land values of late..... by Cash Yiyuan ]]> Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:27:21 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2862/20927 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2862
companies on this exchange put in place that is different? or even with the

fall of Int and his ideals about being a land baron

what can be done to prevent these companies from failing.....

in topic With the fall of land values of late..... by Atreyu Frequency ]]> Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:11:58 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2862/20926 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2860
Operations Manager

A vacancy has arisen for the position of an Operations Manager to work for Verballis Translation Services.

The Role:
Reporting to the Chief Executive Officer
Marketing and advertising (increasing brand awareness and continually selling VBL’s translation services)
Processing order requests
Liaising with customers and VBL translators
Keeping good levels of customer service
Recording orders and allocating payments to and from the translators and the customers.

The Person:
Have the ability to work on your own initiative & as part of a team
Good organisational skills
Ability to communicate regularly
Highly motivated
You must have a flexible approach, be reliable, enthusiastic and a committed team member.


in topic VBL - Looking for an Operations Manager by Bobbi Katscher ]]> Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:52:33 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2860/20924 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2857
Anyone interested in either position please respond here and then contact me in-world by sending me a notecard with your experience, references, and what you will add to eDevelopment. Or just send me a notecard if you want, but with all the "junk" tps and such I get I might accidently delete...so posting here and sending a notecard is kinda insurance! :)

Thanks!

Pep
COO, eDevelopment

in topic eDevelopment Seeking CFO & Outside Director by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:06:18 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2857/20918 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2855

in topic Diggin the state of SLCX! by Arnaud Villota ]]> Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:36:55 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2855/20901 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2855
Wondering if anyone feels like I do or if just getting more sleep lately is making the world look so rosy! haha!

Pep

in topic Diggin the state of SLCX! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:54:47 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2855/20900 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
While the content of our conversation must remain private for practical business reasons, eDevelopment's meeting with Bo and SLCX management has concluded with our continued vigor to bring eDevelopment to IPO.

While my recent post was driven by extreme excitement and stated our readiness was mere days away, our CEO Povo Magic has set the very reasonable and reachable goal of April 5, 2010. This will give us the proper amount of time to review all IPO papers thoroughly as well as review all Administrative and Operations systems before going public.

Thanks again to everyone for your constructive comments! I look forward to all your productive input as long as you are willing to give it! I will continue to give updates on our progress to IPO as they happen!

Happy Trading!

Pep
COO, eDevelopment

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:23:36 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20895 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
No problem, done and done! I'm sure this has to do with administrative issues with bringing eDev to IPO and I will be happy to fill in all investors with the content of our conversation as soon as its complete!

Pep
COO, eDevelopment

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:57:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20890 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851 Pep, drop me an email when you get this. want to meet with you and povo.

bogart.beck@gmail.com

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:19:54 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20886 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
No worries about being negative, I totally understood what you were saying. Sounds very similar to other input on our company and is definitely very much on my mind as I am doing some careful calculations!

I agree with your thought about an SPO if demand is strong after operating as a public company for some time. I would much rather leave lots of room for growth as a company both short and long term than leave little room for growth short term and hope our long term is as good as expected.

Also very much appreciate the history on CR and will also keep this in mind as we continue forward. How officers and the company itself buy and sell stock can definitely affect investor confidence...I have always been very watchful of all officers shares as an investor myself!

I really appreciate everyone's input as well as patience with my absent-mindedness (is that a word? lol) and am putting together a much more carefully reviewed IPO before giving my final numbers to Povo Magic for review.

Thanks All!!

Pep
COO, eDevelopment

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:09:22 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20884 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
The business seems very good, and your preparation excellent, but i just think its a bit too expensive.

There is one suggestion i'd like to share, as food for thought, i suggested very same thing to ISE:CR, but giampaolo took it out of it's proper context and abused it to his own advantage, so please don't pull a Giam. (actually it wasn't to his own advantage neither, he got greedy and got educated by his own mistake)

The suggestion is, adjust the ipo price closer to the price i suggested, but don't sell as many shares as you intended, put the rest aside and do an SPO later on IF the shareprice appreciates.

If you need background on the big CR mistake here's some info:

In short i adviced Giam to do an SPO @ 1.20 after ipo IF the demand is there, instead he put on sale his personal shares (no less than 50k shares also, lol) at 1.20 at the first day he was allowed to sell shares by ISE rules, this ofcourse caused massive selling and ever since CR shareprice has been on the decline. His best defence later on was to tell me that i can sell my stake in CR if i don't like it. And here's the complete discussions on that topic.
http://intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=1495
http://intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewpoll.php?id=1483

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Andy Grant ]]> Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:24:47 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20883 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
Been great to get feedback from everyone so that I know the full extend of my mistakes before going to my boss with this! I am putting together new numbers for him to review, and then I'm sure he will post an update soon as to the status of our "refinements!"

Thanks!

Pep

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:39:41 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20882 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
You make 30k a month.

I usually am a fan of forgetting asset valuation and just look at EPS %.

In my opinion the IPO is too expensive, an ipo itself nomatter how fantastic is a huge risk and at 1,2% a month EPS / sharprice is nothing to run after.

I'd be interested if the EPS / shareprice was in the area of 2%. (or atleast if the shortterm estimate would double the revenue to match that 2%).

So to put it differently if you don't change the amount of total shares outstanding, i'd be willing to pay 0.12-0.13 L$ / share in IPO, but nomore.

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Andy Grant ]]> Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:14:51 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20880 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
Got lots of work to do still obviously, I guess that's why I put it out there, even tho I thought I was much closer than reality shows!

Pep

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:22:31 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20879 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
I'm in charge of Operations for Povo Magic who will be taking his company IPO very soon. He tasked me with putting together his IPO papers minus the Chairman's Letter that he will put together himself. Definitely something to remember, this was my screwup not his haha!

Also thank you for the kind words! We will be continually focused on refining all aspects of our business as we have been over our 9 months of operation. We always love constructive input and will always incorporate great suggestions in our business as quickly as possible!

Thanks again!

Pep

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:20:47 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20878 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
Here's how I value SL intellectual property;

24 months revenue potential - development costs, operating expenses and marketing = IP valuation

... and even at that 24 mo's might be a stretch; there are very few barriers to entry in SL and EVERY great idea has been copied (or stolen) within 6 mos of launch or less for the entire time I've been around.

The real key to SL success is taking that first mover advantage during the 1st 6 mos and building a BRAND identity and massive CUSTOMER LIST... then you have to come up with a diversification strategy that broadens your product appeal... either that or you're DEAD MEAT inside of a year. It's happened repeatedly and will likely continue for the foreseeable future.

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:19:20 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20877 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Legolas Delgado ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:10:55 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20876 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
That really was my intention, to get input, so thanks!

Always appreciated to be shown the full picture of why you feel the way you do, so then it doesn't seem arbitrary. I will definitely take all of your suggestions very seriously and you can be sure there will be changes to the IPO before going public.

Something that I will point out as a matter of principle more than practice. Valuation of Intellectual Property I found to be near impossible in a way that could be agreed upon by multiple parties. As such I purposely greatly undervalued much of our Intelluctual Property (in my opinion) and tried to focus on assets that have a very lively and identifiable market already.

But this really doesn't much change your overall point and somehow I didn't take this into calculation. Lots of late nites and quick decisions lately to get multiple projects ready at the same time.I really feel pretty stupid but I'll try to take it in stride. haha!

Thanks again for the input!

Pep



in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:58:38 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20875 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
If you were to send all non-variable net profit for the year to dividends it would take 5.2 years to make back your investment.

That is to say you are always profitable, and send all net income to dividends. Two unlikely events in Second Life. Not to mention actually staying in game for 5 years.

On the flip side your P/E ratio is actually lower than what most SL companies go public at, but it's just to much at 62.5. Try to cut that in half.

Lastly, please don't say, "Oh but we will grow so MUCH" even the best of intentions, best of plans, and best team, fail some times.

If you want to move this company onto the market, I would suggest bringing down the share total to a range like BO said in the 1 to 2 million range. If the company grows like you say it will, you can do a secondary offer later.

Pep, you must keep in mind that the public float is not the only thing that comes into play here. All shares available are really the number you would be working with, so 10,000,000. If you want to move a stock from IPO you need to make it a good deal for the investor. This at the moment does not look like a good deal to me.

"2 million shares at L$.25/share at IPO? Not much of a public float if we intend to keep any of those shares. IPO 500,000 shares at L$.25?? L$125k when our own capital reserves are L$100k to have to deal with SLCX accounting guidelines, etc etc?

We make L$30k per month and you want us to ask for only L$125k Bo?

Pep"

But you would still have the treasury shares to account for.

100,000 cash on hand plus 125k from IPO leaves you with a book value or nav of .1125. Still L$.1375 below asking price.



in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Legolas Delgado ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:26:07 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20874 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
We make L$30k per month and you want us to ask for only L$125k Bo?

Pep

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:15:30 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20873 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851 Cash, we should probably get Scott involved. The valuation and request for 10M authorized shares looks a bit shaky given the anticipated revenue run rate and assets listed.

Historically this type of IPO has warranted 1M, perhaps 2M shares. Food for thought. Are you Pep's sponsor for this?

Bo

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:40:15 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20872 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
Pep

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:00:28 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20871 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Cash Yiyuan ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:52:44 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20870 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
Would it be possible to have our "IPO Review" I just posted here to be put as a system notification? I think investors will be interested to see that a new IPO is about to come out!

If possible I'd appreciate it lots!

Pep :)

in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:30:27 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20869 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850
Thanks! I'll definitely get in touch with them, see what they can do for me!

Pep :)

in topic NEXT? by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:10:58 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850/20868 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850 i'd talk w/ Chango, Hamncheese or Andy... you don't want to trust an ATM to someone without lots of LSL experience - the potential for a security hack is very real.

in topic NEXT? by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:03:41 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850/20867 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851
I believe that a "soft start" to any large project can give invaluable feedback before a service is introduced, lessening the impact of any unforeseen issues. As such, as COO of eDevelopment I have decided today to present this material to you, the investment community, without first speaking to my boss.

I believe that this is in the best interest of eDevelopment as well as the investment community, and have made this decision after taking serious thought. All that is left to complete of our IPO papers is the Chairman's letter, which Povo Magic will write himself. As I am in charge of Operations, he tasked me with creating the IPO papers but of course left the Chairman's letter for himself to write.

The operations side of eDevelopment has been running for over 9 months and is quite set in place. Our administrative side that must be created in response to going IPO has been going through creation and refinement over the last 3 months. We will have these administrative systems fully in place before going IPO so as to be fully prepared for our responsibilities.

Having said that, we are very close on completing these systems and will be confident enough to IPO eDevelopment within days of this announcement. At the time of IPO we will post our financials for the last 9 months of operations, giving you a clear picture of our growth.

I hope you find our IPO interesting! Please post any and all comments (positive and negative welcomed, class also welcomed with any response) so that we can try to make our company the best on the exchange!

Thank you, and Happy Investing! :)

Peperi Franizzi
COO, eDevelopment



Stock Symbol
eDEV

Company Name
eDevelopment

Company Tagline
Sustainable Growth Through Diversified Exposure

Board of Directors
Peperi Franizzi - COO
Revan Gant - CIO
To Be Determined - CFO
Suntorn Blackheart - Outside Director
To Be Determined - Outside Director

Total Shares to Create
10000000

Shares to IPO
2000000

IPO Price
0.25

IPO Days
60

Cash on hand
100000

Land owned
30000

Tangible Assets
150000.00

Monthly Income
75000

Monthly Expenses
45000

Name for Chairman's Letter
Povo Magic

Business Overview

eDevelopment is a fully diversified entity spread over the grid in its physical locations and is exposed grid wide through highly efficient advertising/marketing.

With over 9 months in operation eDevelopment is poised to take the next step in its growth. Our advertising, rental, retail, gaming and affiliate marketing systems have been continually refined over the course of operations and will continue to be refined over time. Efficiency of Operations is our #1 goal, with Customer Service coming as a close second.

eDevelopment includes many profitable entities such as Good Times Gaming, Good Times Rentals, Good Times Prefab, Good Times Advertising, Good Times 420, Good Times Gear, Good Times Tats, Street Lord, Second Life Resources, and Good Times Affiliate Partnerships. eDevelopment is also on the leading edge of RL/SL relevant content advertising.

All of these programs have affiliate programs in process to allow for grid-wide distribution of all of eDev's Intellectual Property from its many entities and creators.

Some of these entities could largely stand as profitable enough companies to warrant possible investment on a case by case basis. But as a team that helps each other entity produce the income it needs to hit profit, these entities work together to create staying power through "slumps".

Business Strategy

eDevelopment's infrastructure is in place to take advantage of both motivated and unmotivated customers. IPO Capital will be used to bring the additional traffic needed to fully use the infrastructure in place and on a much smaller scale to marginally increase serviceability of our customer base.

eDev will continue to advertise for our most profitable entities under our system of Relevant Content Advertising. A large amount of highly efficient Relevant Content Advertising is available for our most profitable entities and we need only take advantage of it.

Our community style of business also leads to an increase of promotion cross-over, in which an effective promotion creates traffic for one entity which then spills over into another entity. By working in conjunction not in competition all separate entities promotions improve the ability of eDev as a whole to reach profit.

eDevelopment will also continue to develop its affiliate program for all Intellectual Property owned by eDevelopment. This is has the potential to become one of, if not the, major source of income for eDev. Allowing affiliate marketers to promote our products will extend our exposure and sales grid wide with little to 0 long term risk.

Business Strengths

eDevelopment's main strength is its diversity of income through collaboration of efforts and ideas. eDev's entities are never competing with each other for income or for recognition, but always seeking to work for the income of all eDev's entities.

Our large diversity of income will allow us to weather swings in particular markets. For example if retail sales dip but rentals rise and ads stay steady then our drop in income and profitablility will be muted.

As well, eDev's main revenue streams come from the builds Good Times and Good Times 2. These 2 builds were created as a community; a fully functional build that allows players from all levels to participate in our builds. As such these 2 builds have very high levels of return customers (from high class business owners to new players) which is a boon to eDev's bottom line.

Our affiliate program in development also looks to add a new and potentially significant income stream to eDev's already diversified income. By allowing affiliate marketers in Second Life to promote our product for commission we allow ourselves to grow beyond our own means.

Use of Capital

IPO Capital will be used for additional development of current markets and beginning market testing of newly identified potentially viable markets.

The goal for the IPO Capital is to push eDevelopment into a new level of profitability, and as such IPO Capital will only be used for costs that directly create either enhanced traffic (advertising expenses) or enhanced service for our customers (tangible assets).

IPO Capital will not be used for any administrative costs or for any labor whatsoever. IPO Capital will only be used for buying either tangible assets or advertising expenses. As well IPO Capital will not be used for any marketing or any other development costs.

Risk Factors

A variety of risks are present when investing. This presents a list of clear and obvious risks that are present when investing in this security.

Second Life Risk Factors Include:
- Linden Currency Partial or Complete Devaluation
- Drop in Second Life Membership Leading To Decreased Economy
- Complete Second Life Shutdown Due Either To Fiscal or Other Concerns

Business Operation Factors Include:
- Advertising Revenue Dropoff
- Retail Sales Revenue Dropoff
- Rentals Revenue Dropoff
- Gaming Revenue Dropoff
- Increased Costs Including Tier

This is a partial list of the risks involved when investing in this or any security. Make sure that you are fully informed before investing in this or any security.

Management

eDev Will Be A Growth Company For The First 12 Months Of Operation. Decision to become a Income Company will be decided every 12 months by shareholder vote.

Investors can look forward to a great potential for significant growth on both the balance sheet and the income statement. Although all businesses must expect seasonal dips as well as potentially unexplainable dips in revenue, eDevelopment is poised to weather the storm with large capital reserves and diversified revenue.

Peperi Franizzi will be eDev's Market Maker. Stated Revenue Growth Goals for the first 12 months of operation are +.01/share/month (e.g. in 12 months Revenue will have grown .12/share). Future Revenue Growth Goals will be stated at the same time as month 9 Financials.

Collaboration and power sharing are essential to our style of operation, and just as essential is a clear chain of command for making the hard decisions that do come. Shares between Povo Magic, Peperi Franizzi, and Revan Gant will always total 50% + 1 share at the very minimum. As well, share Ownership will stay in the following order; Povo Magic #1 largest shareholder, Peperi Franizzi #2 shareholder, Revan Gant #3 shareholder. This is again to reinforce the chain of command.

CFO will be compensated with 50000 shares/12 months.
Outside Directors will be compensated with 20000 shares/12 months.

All officers are able to sell their shares at the end of their 12 month term, encouraging officers to raise stock prices during their tenure. Povo Magic, Peperi Franizzi, and Revan Gant shares must total 50%+1 share at all times, limiting the amount of shares we can sell. This is to ensure that we are as invested in the future of the company as you are!


in topic New IPO! eDevelopment is Set, Ready To IPO in Days! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:03:36 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2851/20866 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850
Any chance you know someone who can help me with my project? Looking to develop an ATM and looking for a programmer to help me link it up to a payment system I already have...

Any advice would be much appreciated!

Pep :)

in topic NEXT? by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:42:24 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850/20865 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850 Ok, we'll just call it bouquet - still smells sweet ;-)

in topic NEXT? by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:18:31 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850/20864 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850
in topic NEXT? by Andy Grant ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:57:41 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850/20863 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850 Me thinks I bought a bunch of yer shares Thursday ;-)

in topic NEXT? by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:16:31 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850/20862 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850
in topic NEXT? by Andy Grant ]]> Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:48:15 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850/20861 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850
in topic NEXT? by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:17:43 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850/20860 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850


in topic NEXT? by JayT Axel ]]> Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:48:59 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2850/20859 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2843
Pep

in topic Help With ATM Development by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:06:00 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2843/20845 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2843
Anyone able to help?

Pep :)

in topic Help With ATM Development by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:46:54 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2843/20834 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2840
http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?pid=13481#p13481

in topic Another CEO gone missing:Bagz Zapedski. by Alain Delpiaz ]]> Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:08:32 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2840/20831 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
You can learn just as much with 500 L$ as you can with 0.01 L$, both aren't any value (what's a stipend these days, few 100 for premium and 50 for nonpremium). If people are not able to put 500 L$ to learn they likely never will put anything anyway, and then the exchange dont need these people.

Also i think raising these minimum would benefit the exchange by reducing server load (an order for 1 share at 0.01, causes about the same load on the webserver as an order for 500 shares).



in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:02:18 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20830 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2839
Here's repost of my "eureka post" from ise :)

IPO Price: 100.00
Maturity: 90 days after last IPO bond is sold
Amount of bonds to IPO: 1 (i'll buy this one myself)
Amount of bonds to create: 1060 (the rest will be auctioned off in open market at whatever price the market is willing to pay)
Payback: If RA does not bancrupt, RA will buy back (through a one-time liquidation dividend) at 100.00 L$ / bond. Otherwise RA will be forced to liquidate whatever assets it has to pay the bondholders upto 100.00 L$ / bond.

All this contract states is if the company does not go down under that the bonds may be paid back, at = IPO price. If on the other hand the company does go downunder investors would get whatever (if any) assets the company can liquidate.

I think this is highly LL friendly.

Thoughts ?

in topic Does proposed Andy Grant RABOND IPO violate LL Interest policy? 02/04/10 by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:34:24 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2839/20829 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2839
Please find links to the Official LL Policy Statements below. Here's my concern;

Regardless of what you are calling the RABOND product, it appears that the language you've used is in effect promising a "rate of return" or could be construed as such. I'm fairly certain that's SPECIFICALLY what is prohibited by the LL policy. The potential problem lies in the fact that you've packaged it as a term investment with a predefined yield.

That's my read on it anyway. You can probably get around the LL policy with some very carefully crafted caveats much like you've done in the above post - I think that could be done in the Prospectus with some wordsmithing and prominent risk disclosure... yada, you get the drill.

Not trying to cause you problems, just trying to help keep ALL of us free from any unecessary LL scrutiny - It's met with disasterous results in the past ;-)

Bo

https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2008/01/08/new-policy-regarding-in-world-banks

New Policy Regarding In-World "Banks"
Posted by Kend Linden on Jan 8, 2008 6:43:56 PM Please read this if you operate, or have transferred L$ to, an in-world “bank” or financial company.

As of January 22, 2008, it will be prohibited to offer interest or any direct return on an investment (whether in L$ or other currency) from any object, such as an ATM, located in Second Life, without proof of an applicable government registration statement or financial institution charter. We’re implementing this policy after reviewing Resident complaints, banking activities, and the law, and we’re doing it to protect our Residents and the integrity of our economy.

Since the collapse of Ginko Financial in August 2007, Linden Lab has received complaints about several in-world “banks” defaulting on their promises. These banks often promise unusually high rates of L$ return, reaching 20, 40, or even 60 percent annualized.

Usually, we don’t step in the middle of Resident-to-Resident conduct – letting Residents decide how to act, live, or play in Second Life.

But these “banks” have brought unique and substantial risks to Second Life, and we feel it’s our duty to step in. Offering unsustainably high interest rates, they are in most cases doomed to collapse – leaving upset “depositors” with nothing to show for their investments. As these activities grow, they become more likely to lead to destabilization of the virtual economy. At least as important, the legal and regulatory framework of these non-chartered, unregistered banks is unclear, i.e., what their duties are when they offer “interest” or “investments.”

There is no workable alternative. The so-called banks are not operated, overseen or insured by Linden Lab, nor can we predict which will fail or when. And Linden Lab isn’t, and can’t start acting as, a banking regulator.

Some may argue that Residents who deposit L$ with these “banks” must know they’re assuming a big risk – the high interest rates promised aren’t guaranteed, and the banks aren’t overseen by Linden Lab or anyone else. That may be true. But for all of the other reasons we’ve set out above, we can’t let this activity continue.

Thus, as we did in the past with gambling, as of January 22, 2008 we will begin removing any virtual ATMs or other objects that facilitate the operation or facilitation of in-world “banking,” i.e., the offering of interest or a rate of return on L$ invested or deposited. We ask that between now and then, those who operate these “banks” settle up on any promises they have made to other Residents and, of course, honor valid withdrawals. After that date, we may sanction those who continue to offer these services with suspension, termination of accounts, and loss of land.

We will not apply this policy to companies who submit a registration statement, charter, or other applicable license from a governing regulatory authority, or who are merely conducting marketing or education, but not accepting payments.

You may report a violation of this policy through the Help/Report Abuse feature in your Second Life viewer, and follow the instructions given.

Answers to FAQs are located here: http://secondlife.com/community/support.php?questionID=4899

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:FAQs_on_Policy_Regarding_Inworld_%22Banking%22





in topic Does proposed Andy Grant RABOND IPO violate LL Interest policy? 02/04/10 by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:12:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2839/20828 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2839
Let's start with an equity offering:

An equity offering, is the most speculative one, since equity holders are absoultely last in line to claim a companys assets. To balance out this disadvantage they are at the advatage of having unlimited profit potential. In short the risk is highest here, but also the profit potential is best.

A bond offering, is less speculative than an equity offering, because bond holders are creditors and therefore have the right to claim a companys assets before equity holders. Bond holders still risk (just like equity holders) total loss of investment (100%, zero). To balance out this huge advantage bond holders have VS equity holders, bonds have a MAX-PROFIT: A bond will never pay more return than the predefined rate.

To put a more practical example, for february RA is estimated to make a profit of 4k L$, equity holders may receive all of the 4k through a divdidend or some of it or even none (as the management sees fit). While bondholders actually care less about the profitability their contract is that they will receive a payment of XX so long as the company has cash+liquidatable assets to pay off their obligation.

This is not a deposit account, and there is no return on that deposit that doesnt exist. There is no direct nor guaranteed return, at all.

My understanding is that LL didn't ban stocks nor bonds, because neither guarantee any returns. The only difference between the 2, bonds are an expense to equity holders, but therefeore have a max profit potential (but they also have a similar max loss: 100%).

With all that being said, if someone can point out exactly where this kind of offering violates LL's policy, i'd be more than happy to adjust the offering.

in topic Does proposed Andy Grant RABOND IPO violate LL Interest policy? 02/04/10 by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:31:12 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2839/20827 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2839 I read an interesting post over on ISE today that caused a bit of alarm. It has been my understanding that the "LL Interest Ban" specifically prohibits any activity that provides a guaranteed rate of return on an investment product.

I've not talked w/ Andy yet (I'm still at the office) but wanted to get some feedback and commentary from others regarding their take on the proposal as written. I'll check back here when I get home to see what others think.

Link to Andy's post provided below;

Bo
===========================================================

http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewpoll.php?pid=13446#p13446

AndyGrant
Certified Investor
Registered: 2008-02-28

Posts: 1192 Should RABOND IPO be approved?In connection with RA's infrastucture financing

(http://www.intlstockexchange.com/displa … aseid=1036), RA shareholders voted for the option to issue companys bonds.

link to shareholdervote: http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/ … 414#p13414

Pursuant to ISE listing rules, a vote by the ISE community is necessary in order to list the shareholder-approved intention to issue (non-interest-bearing) bonds.

RA indends to issue the following bonds:

IPO Price: 94.34
Maturity: 90 days after last IPO bond is sold
Amount of bonds to IPO: 1060 (gross proceeds L$ 100,000.00)
Payoff: Bonds will be liquidated at maturity at 100.00 L$ / bond, equivalent to an annual ROI of 24%.

Risks:

In accordance with RA investor rights policy (http://intlstockexchange.com/punbb/view … hp?id=1435) bond holders are the 3rd to claim companys assets in case of bankruptcy/default. (above both direct/CEO loans and equity holders).
For details about companys latest financial statement please see: http://www.intlstockexchange.com/displa … aseid=1025

Following the issue of these bonds, based on the january financials, the companys debt-to-equity ratio will increase to: 3.4 to 1 and assets will grow to 583k L$

Use of financing:

The bonds aim is to increase the companys liquidity, to help fund the infrastructure. And allow current operations to continue uninterrupted.

Please state your vote, or ask any question at your earliest opportunity.

Thank you.

Last edited by AndyGrant (Today 09:04:52)


in topic Does proposed Andy Grant RABOND IPO violate LL Interest policy? 02/04/10 by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:55:16 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2839/20826 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
The total amount of L$s in ISE is actually not affected by the RDX single large shareholder as Redux herself has access to that account and is keeping the 1MIL linden separate from the ISE account.

On your thought Andy, i don't agree. As i think SL's stock markets are somewhat a learning platform and still should remain as such, coz folks might want to try some investing with the lindens that they have somehow earned in-world. So in that regard, i wouldn't like for certain quotas to be put on buy and sell orders. This is the way how i actually got into investing and i liked the experience (i started out with 100 lindens).

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Alain Delpiaz ]]> Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:09:30 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20821 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
The reason I wanted to talk to you about the topic in the first
place was becouse I respect SLCAPEX's policy.

It was one of my shareholders that asked me if I would do somthing to fix the problem with dead shareholders, so thats why I try to see if there was possible to soulve the problem.
I accept and understand that SLCAPEX don't want to have anything to do with this until a clear policy and a solution that protects both parts is worked out.

For me as a CEO, the dead accounts isen't a big problem, only a little irritating that 22% of the hard earn money is "lost" to dead accounts. It's acctualy the exchange it self that will have the biggest problem, as they need to keep all the money saved up in the dead accounts safe.

I will send an email to scott with a new prospectus and updated financials that comply with the currenty policy of slcapx as soon as they are finnish.

Sincerly
Johnny Norwood

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Johnny Norwood ]]> Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:08:45 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20817 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831 Interesting idea Andy. Let me get Chan's thoughts on programmatic complexity.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:20:00 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20815 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
The points raised by Alain and others about the micro-investments. Reminds me of a different suggestion i have wanted to make to the exchanges for a while, this has ithink multiple benefits to the exchange aswell as investors, and is quiet relevant to this topic:

When placing orders each stock should be assigned what's often called "minimum lot size", that is minimum amount of shares it's possible to trade. If this lot size would be fixed at say 500 L$ then at least more people would care before they quit sl, and also it would remove much of the irritation of bid riggers. That would also ithink increase liquidity in orderbooks.

The other suggestion in that direction is to implement minimum price change, make it say:

for stocks trading below 0.50: 0.01 L$
for stocks trading > 0.50 & < 1.00: 0.02 L$
for stocks trading >1.00 & < 2.50: 0.03 L$
and all above 2.50 at 0.05 L$

I don't wanna pollute the original topic at hand with my ideas, but i think the problem is best approached if we can make investors not "dissapear", if minimum investment is more substantial more likely ppl will liquidate before quitting. Of course 500 L$ is still just 1.85 USD but thats much more than 0.0x L$ which is really nothing.

The problem with what i say here is that all of this would require time changing the trading mechanism, and dependent on the framework that can be more complex than one would expect at first, but i thought to share this as food for thought.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:20:15 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20814 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
I think the biggest reason the dialgue spread in this thread is the similarity beween ESN's dilema and the RDX issue you've mentioned on ISE. I know Andy has had a discussion going on ISE for the last few days as well.

I'll start a new thread in the SL CapEx "Suggestions" Forum although I'll need another day or two before I have time and my own thoughts together and a framework for discussion with Scott, Cash and Chan. That'll also be a good launch point for more serious dialogue among the community - in my experience here, many of the best ideas come from people other than the CapEx team... did I really say that? (LOL)

Your comment about L$1M being stranded in a single ISE account is a bit scary - assuming Cocky's Total Deposits line is accurate (it shows about L$2.8M today, that's over 1/3 of the total Lindens on deposit at ISE. Hmmmmm....

We haven't really experienced a similar problem here - probably due to a few of our own "terminal events" ;(ie; the LL interest ban and Arb's folly) which ultimately resulted in a whole boatload of depositor Lindens being converted into SLW and eventually VPAY shares. We've also had a lot more co's come and go (delist, etc.) which has compelled alot of people to "cash out" in frustration.

Nonetheless, there's no denying that EVERY SL public co. probably has somewhere between 5% and 25% of the IPO shares stranded in inactive accounts. That's indeed potentially enough $$ to make a significant difference for some co's.

Again, thanks for the comments!

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:03:04 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20813 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
First let me note, that SL is not RL. The rules that apply here are somewhat different.

Now that said, i think that you can not apply the same policy as in RL, that when a person buys shares of a company he/she will have them for the rest of their lives.

The first point which i think supports this argument is that the amounts we are dealing here are microscopical. And someone could buy into a company and then totally forget about SL and the whole. Now that same money could make up most of a company here. And THAT would render the whole existance of the company absolute, as there is no trading with the shares and the possible dividend just keeps on piling up on one single account and then might never be touched from there. We have an example of this in RDX on ISE. Over the last year, that account has accumulated over 1 MIL lindens and that money might never be touched.

Regarding this issue, i think a policy creation/ debate thread should be created. But i can not do that/ run it, as it has to be done by someone in charge of things here at SLCAPEX. I am more than willing to contribute to that thread.



in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Alain Delpiaz ]]> Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:49:48 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20812 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831 There are several things we can do on the backend (much like we did with the whole Allenvest and Skyranger debacles... we just need time to craft some clear policies.

As to the CAPX Fin's - feel free to spank Scott. I've been off-the-hook for Fin's since like April or May

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:25:19 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20811 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
Read the income statement and balance sheet if you don't believe me... the total funds on deposit is listed as a liability... most months it averages somewhere around the +/- L$2M mark. " - Bo

The same SLCX financials that haven't been published since the August 2009 reporting period? :(

------------------------------------------------------------

In a brief overview of this thread I think it would be best to relist the entire list "as-is" directly from ESN, because:

- As you know, any mistaken discrepancy will be flogged in the forums.

- We haven't established a clear policy dictating what we did, why we did it, or why we might do it again in the future.

- SLCX will receive the brunt of the complaints if any, as it is easier to put in a support ticket than chase down Johnny.

- People are still coming out of the wood work regarding ACE’s closure.

- There is a lot of scrutiny regarding this situation and I think it would be better to have buy-in on a clean policy instead of acting first and creating a potential headline for certain gossip blogs.

While there are a lot of dead holders, we all agree this is a problem and hot topic, I think it’s very important we develop a clear, precise and pre-communicated policy prior to any actions being taken (communicates why we need to do what we are doing and how we will do it). As is, there is room for perceived manipulation. More concerning however, is my fear that someone would raise hell about it. As much as I trust Andy, I don't want him or Johnny being called a cheat or a liar in a public venue because someone gets upset that their shares are not there, or at least not as many as they "think" they had, or as many as they want to complain about (and you know they potentially could, even though we could prove it).

Specifically with Capex, something I missed and we need to dialog about what they can do on the back end regarding this matter and incorporate that into the policy.

Bottom line, I just don't think we are in a place to act on someone's equity without a clear and pre-communicated plan of action that gives people time to react. Gut check doesn't feel right here. Particularly because you would be the first out of the gate on this new thinking.


in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Ashleigh Wade ]]> Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:02:17 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20810 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
I understand the situation well enough, unfortunately we don't yet have a mechanism to deal with dead accounts and therefor can't make an exception for your relisting here. It would set a precedent that we're unwilling to support.

If you can't accept our standing policy then I suppose you would have to consider relisting elsewhere. We all have dead acccounts on our shareholders lists.

When we find an appropriate mechanism to deal with them we will apply that standard equally to all companies listed here, however, we are likely some time away from making such decision.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:56:03 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20809 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831 I understand your point of view of things, and I respect your desition. But the link you refer to is shareholders that still have an account with SL. but don't use it.

The shareholders I have on my list that is dead, is people that no longer have an account with SL. they have canceld their account and accept that the avatar and all assets that belongs to it will be lost after one month if the account is not reactivated.

This is take from the secondlife website:

"If you still want to cancel your account, click on the cancel button below. You can reactivate your account by 03/04/2010. Your Second Life name, avatar and inventory items will still be yours if you reactivate before 04/03/2010. You will need to create a new account if you decide to rejoin Second Life after 04/03/2010."


Sincerly
Johnny Norwood

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Johnny Norwood ]]> Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:49:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20808 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831 Andy, I too appreciate your creative ideas - they're often clever and usually well founded even when they don't always pan out. I do agree that we ultimately NEED to do SOMETHING about dead accounts, I just don't think transferring the risk administration to a third party adds anything to the equation.

In the end, when shareholders DO return (and many do) they'll first come looking to the Exchange for answers (and redress)... so, the solution probably needs to be something that is Exchange driven. Give it some time to percolate and the proper solution will surface - I have the seed of an idea that's not too dissimilar from where I think you were headed but will need to bounce it off of Scott and Chan before I present it here for dialogue.

I think ESN will have extreme difficulty underwriting an SPO that dilutes shareholders by the percentage you suggest - ESN's current revenue wouldn't justify that kind of valuation (even with the new gaming concept). I also thing Jonny will need to substantially prove-up the business plan before investors will throw new money at it.

I also agree that the overall community has a lonnnng way to go to restore the confidence it once had (as if that brief run in late 2007 is even replicable - NOT! - and that's probably a good thing), but, it is what it is and we can't change history. People have said much worse about CapEx and yet we're still here adding value where we can. There are MANY things I'd love to have an opportunity to "do over" but that's simply living in the past.

We ARE doing things differently since Scott came on board - generally in my view for the better. In reality, we're better capitalized, better organized, and the platform is stable and secure. Yes, while Arb was surely a master marketeer - I'd rather have a savvy and conservative professional like Scott as a partner any day. It works ;-)

Oh, btw, your $#'s on Arbitrage Wise are WAY off, but save that for another time too.

Cheers.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:55:59 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20807 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
Then there are 3 options, for ESN:

1. relist and change nothing, continue to waste resources paying 20-25% of dividends to investors who don't care/exist.
2. same as #1, except do a LARGE SPO to reduce the 20-25% to a minimum of say 5%, that way the company can fund growth and at same time make it's capitalization more efficient.
3. relist at capex, immidiately liquidate the company, and consider to float a new IPO. Or why relist at capex to do that, liquidate it personally like other companies did in the past.

Personally, i'd prefer #2, eventually #3. I could also live with #1 but that option opens too much room for abuse through shareprice manipulation, and to be honest i'm not going to pay a premium for someone who doesn't want to get paid in the first place, lol.

Btw. i DO appreciate that you are taking a very responsible approach to this Bogart, my remark in the ISE forum that the exchanges only care to survive is something i still believe as a fact of the past year, and the result of the communities very much dead. But that's a whole different topic for another discussion.

That's IMHO.



in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:08:28 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20806 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
After reading Andy's recent posts on ISE, I found myself this evening thinking seriously about the viability of a third party like RA performing shareholder conversion and trustee services on behalf of an Exchange or Board of Directors.

Ref; http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?pid=13278#p13278

To be honest, regardless of the peculiarities of SL Finance and the potential for persons to abandon SL and the assets they may have acquired thereof, SL CapEx's current Official Policy regarding shareholder survivorship and transfer is not likely to change.

In our view, EVERY Exchange has an OBLIGATION as the defacto Custodian of Records to maintain its members assets and transactional account histories in perpetuity until such time as the member or their legal beneficiaries instruct otherwise without exception or regard to the value of such assets or the inconvenience such obligation begets. We cannot in good faith transfer or assign that obligation to another individual or entity.

(sorry Andy - it's just not a well enough formed concept at this point, thus not something we're willing to consider - it's just potentially too messy with way too much opportunity for abuse - we have one too many Hugo's as-is).

We and, to my knowledge, each of the other remaining Stock Exchanges still require that any company re-listing on its Exchanges MUST transfer ALL Shareholder records without exception. I'm fairly certain that Cocky and Samantha's custodial philosophy substantially mirrors our own. We will validate any shareholder list submitted to us for accuracy prior to the company commencing trading on our Exchange.

Johnny, I'm sure Hamncheese is more than willing to assist you/us in authenticating your current shareholder list. I'm sorry about the 20% inactives - we all have some - it's part of the risk and costs of being publicly traded.

Bo

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:49:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20805 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2832
Take a look at our new rates!

www.therockinsurance.com

Of course, Andy's are better because at the same price he has longer expiration dates but, we do offer more companies and with a fully automated system!

I like this type of competition!



in topic Very Long Term Insurance Certificates (VLTIC), for FED & ZEN shareho by Eliale Morigi ]]> Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:26:54 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2832/20804 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2832
SLCAPX:ZEN - 6month VLTIC, introduction price: 2.99% for entire period (equivalent to 0.498% a month, or 0.116% a week)

SLCAPEX: FED - 6month VLTIC, introduction price: 2.99% for entire period (equivalent to 0.498% a month or 0.116% a week)

ISE: SAS - 6month VLTIC, introduction price: 2.99% for entire period (equivalent to 0.498% a month or 0.116% a week)

:)

in topic Very Long Term Insurance Certificates (VLTIC), for FED & ZEN shareho by Andy Grant ]]> Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:23:54 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2832/20803 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2835
Thank you for your quick respond. The ATM works now.

thanks again.
Best regards.
JayT

in topic ATM issues. by JayT Axel ]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:39:43 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2835/20798 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2835 Not that I can see JayT. I'll check the backend in a second but everything looks AOK here. Please open a support ticket so that Chan and Cash can track their efforts too.

in topic ATM issues. by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:41:03 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2835/20794 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2835
I am currentely unable to add money on my account, throught the capex ATM.

Is there any reason why I am unable to pay the ATM?

Thank you.
JayT

in topic ATM issues. by JayT Axel ]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:07:08 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2835/20793 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831 I have gone true my hole shareholder list again.
A total of 24 people on my shareholder list have no longer an account with SL.
Amount of shares belonging to these people are: 44.7375
(22.36% of total shares)

Andy. sounds like a good idea.
I will speak to you about this online :)

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Johnny Norwood ]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:56:35 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20792 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
I do like the idea of perhaps having RA perform a Market Maker / Trustee role. That is something I've done here previously as you probably know.

It can be quite tedious - I used to charge CapEx 1.5% of the proceeds (less than our commission rate)... not alot of money in the end.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:30:43 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20787 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
I'll have a chat with Johnny, and see if i can help to work as a "trustee unit" for those dead accounts, basically what i'll suggest is that the liquidation cash will be "lent" to RA, i'll keep the track of those shareholders, and be contact person in case they ask for their shares, some of the cash i'll use to exclusively invest into ESN, the remainder will be kept as reserve on the exchanges deposit (i use a quiet large CEO loan right now for those market making purposes anyway). Best of all, i will charge no fee to do this.

Problem solved (if Johnny agrees to this sort of solution).

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:18:53 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20786 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
The marginal FLOAT that we have on excess capital is better put to use on development projects to improve our platform.

Just so everyone clearly understands, at present, the trade commissions that SL CapEx earns barely put us above break-even most months.

Read the income statement and balance sheet if you don't believe me... the total funds on deposit is listed as a liability... most months it averages somewhere around the +/- L$2M mark.



in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:46:32 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20785 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
When a company moves from another Exchange to SL CapEx our Import/Merger routine is designed to create a NEW account for any shareholder not already in our database. Then they just need to access one of our in-world ATM's to reset the default password to activate their new account.

Our current rules assume that every CapEx account has a corresponding VALID in-world SL Avatar, and further states that SL CapEx will NOT facilitate manual transfers between avatar accounts (too difficult for us to administrate and authenticate the validity of someone's claim.

We have, however, in a couple of isolated instances (on an exception basis) been willing to transfer shares between ALT's when we have sufficent clear evidence that the ALTs are controlled by a single party. In those rare cases we've used a combination of TCP/IP source route authentication tools and some other technics we routinely use as part of our ongoing fraud prevention measures.

In the RW, (in the US at least) banks and investment banks have a process called escheetment that is mandated by their state charter and Department of Corporations that routinely audits "dead accounts" with the funds actually going to the state. At the moment in SL CapEX *we* are the "state" and do maintain balances in accounts that we know are "dead".

Surprisingly, the aggregate balances are not as large as many might assume - most "dead" accounts here typically have a few shares at most and an average $L balance LESS THAN L$1.00 which demonstrates that MOST people who leave SL do indeed "cash out" here before exiting. We can all thank Ginko, WSE, ACE, and LL's policies (as well as Arbi's folly) for much of that exit.

Our intent at this point is to maintain those accounts in perpetuity as-is assuming that "at some point" we'll need to comply with future RW regulation of SL entities. Yes, we believe THAT is COMING (perhaps sooner than many would believe).

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:30:13 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20784 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
The money really doesnt belong to the exchange anymore than it belong to the company in liquidation.

I think propably a good solution, to deal with the situation is that the exchange then grants the company an interest free loan for a term of upto one year (for propably not full amount but say 50% or 70% of the total liquidation amount), if after 12months of time the "dead shareholders" show a sign of life and request their investment the exchange would then call the company to pay back the loan, if that for any reason fails the exchange would then pay out from the remaining reserve (which in my example would be 30-50%). If on the other hand the shareholders dont show any sign of life after that period, the exchange would then forgive the loan completely, and the company wiould move on with improved balance-sheets.

This would, protect the exchange from abuse, and more reasonably distribute the cash, to the 2 parties to whom the cash doesn't really belong in the first place.

I don't see any reason the exchange needs cash at all, unless it starts some sort of collaterized lending business, (ie stock as collateral for lowcost business-loans), or unless it starts to use the money for market making purposes. But thats a whole different topic.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:26:24 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20783 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
They can't log in to SLCAPEX as they don't have an account and they can't create an account because they can't log in to SL. Also as far as I know their is no way for someone to prove an old AV belonged to them.

Surely in this type of scenario it would be ok to destroy the shares, it's not as if the owner is ever going to be able to reclaim them or any dividends they may have accumulated.

I have a feeling a lot of ESN shareholders fall into this category so what would happen to the money their if their shares are bought back but they are never able to access their SLCAPEX accounts, does it just sit in SLCAPEX account forever? How is that beneficial to anyone except SLCAPEX?

What would a RL company do if a shareholder with no will or family disappeared off the face of the planet? (I know its highly unlikely just interested to hear what people think)


in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Itchy Gamba ]]> Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:11:17 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20782 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
Propably a fixed fee should be good, to avoid having CEO's request this if they only have a few dead/idle shareholders.

One possible way to save the exchange much of the headake is as proposed by Anja in the ISE VSIF discussion, she suggests, IPO a new company, use the funds of the new company to fully liquidate the old one, so investors from old company get a dividend use that to buy more of the new ipo. Once the entire company has been liquidated the old company is delisted and the new one has active shareholders.
(propably may be a challenge to raise enough cash in some cases, but if this procedure was done in ESN i'd certainly participate in the new ipo)





in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:56:48 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20780 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
In the instance of existing charters, i'd think a simple majority ratified shareholder resolution should be sufficient to ammend an existing charter. (Although on CapEx changing the prospectus is impossible at the moment due to a deficiency in the way the original code was written... it's something on our list to fix but is so far down the feature priority list I have no idea when Chan might get to it).

Now, from a mechanical standpoint, both concepts ultimately put a substantial burden on the exchange operators to manually administrate such share trasnfers - which we shouldn't have to do "for free"... it is time consuming and exceptionally tedious (at least witrh the CapEx backend - I can't speak for ISE or VSTEX). Such transfers would likely need to be at a premium to the standard trade commission structure... i'm not sure how much, but definately food for thought.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:33:24 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20779 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
Stocks are basically futures, a profitable company is worth a factor of it's earnings, an unprofitable one is worth a discount, often regardless of it's NAV even if all assets are 100% tangible.

Ithink the best solution is an open market "SPO", in other words place all those dead shareholders shares for sale at a given price (be it BID, ASK somewhere in between), and allow it to sit for a while. If existing shareholders outbid it too much, lower it to where the market finds a reasonable price for the given amount of shares. Simultanously, if the company has cash available also participate in purchasing those shares.

To point out how large of an hidden expense these dead shareholders are, here's an example:

In ESN we estimate about 25% of them are dead, and another example in VSIF we KNOW about 50% of the shareholders don't exist they didn't show up at all on any of the 3 previous mergers (vsif,pba,giif), quiet incredible, heres the price of that:

ESN: monthly profit: 50000
profit lost to dead holders: 12500

VSIF: profit (based on last financials): 22000
profit lost to dead holders: 11000

That's 2 companys with a combined market cap of just about, 1,5mill. The hidden loss of the 2 was 1.56% a month on CAP, if those shareholders was alive, every month, every single month there would be 1.56% more cash in the market much of it propably redistributed, in the longer run there is a compound effect to this.

I think it's an important issue, and it needs to be sorted out. For older companies i think the "auction" method would be most appropriate, while for new companies the CEO can define shareholder rights more liberally.


in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:50:26 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20778 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
Were we to consider share conversion, my PERSONAL opinion is that a shareholder should recieve whatever the current BID is for the underlying stock at the time of conversion. I've not discussed this topic recently with Scott or Cash so I'm not sure where they stand on the issue at present.

If there is no intent to liquidate the company why should the shareholder be compensated anything LESS THAN current market for his investment?

I don't believe that paying out at NAV (or something less) adequately compensates the shareholder (it'd allow a company to buy back shares at a considerable discount to current market - seems to me to be an unfair advantage versus the absent shareholder AND the remaining investors, thus arguably quite unethical.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:42:35 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20777 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
That said, there have to be some adjustments made to accommodate the reality of SL:

-People leave, delete their Avatar, and disappear. They don’t care about $$in the exchange.

-Alt accounts can’t be tied to people. Specific to ESN, I have a sneaky suspicion that many of those accounts tie to one person.

-Dividends paid to dead accounts do nothing to increase trading activity, and force the exchanges into an awkward position of increasing capital reserves to offset the rising cash value of these accounts. This probably isn’t a good use of exchange $$.

So how do we deal with this?

I also feel this is a company issue, not an exchange issue. Although the exchange may temporarily take some heat - I think it is clearly the companies’ job to maintain shareholder interest, good relations and effective communication.

Some of the ideas I’ve seen proposed are:

*Take the shares for the treasury of the company after XX months/years and XX ways of attempting to contact people.*
I don’t think this is the route to go, because it creates a conflict where it would be in the company’s interest to find dead shareholders. Also it sucks ethically because it goes against the grain of inherent ownership. We don’t want to create an environment where people feel as though stuff will be taken if they take a break from SL

*Buy dead share holders at NAV after XX month/years of no activity and XX ways of attempting to contact people*
I think this is much more effective way of showing that we recognize equity. However this creates potential issue where people may have intentionally intended to allow their shares to sit and collect dividends. People may also dispute the NAV price as the optimal price.

So what does that boil down to?

If a company feels that they MUST have something in place to address this issue, the optimal way (to me at least) would be for the companies to develop absentee ownership policies that they communicate to shareholders and place on file with the exchange (in a 2 part approval, 1 BOD, 2 Capex). This policy would outline the shareholders rights; include mechanisms and procedures for a buy back trigger, as well as methods to ensure succession/survivability of ownership if wanted and an option to opt out of the absentee policy altogether. Perhaps the policy should even be put to shareholder vote since it does affect equity.

This way everyone is protected. A clear and dually approved policy and procedure is on file and published. The exchange can rightly place responsibility on the company for its actions towards it's shareholders. There is no question what is to happen in the event of an absentee.

Obviously there will be some issues in enacting a policy like this retroactively, but perhaps we first need to look at what the real impact is on ESN (and whether some of those accounts can be identified as alts of people we know).

I don’t have time to go into detail now, but that’s my initial thoughts on matter. Ensuring succession and survivor ability should be paramount to any policy development of this nature.

For ESN, my gut would say just relist the entire list Johnny. I don't think this issues is going to be solved in a fast enough manner. I think in order to protect yourself it would be best to develop a concrete policy, get approvals and publish it first and then enact it. Besides relisting is enough of a headache with new prospectus development, creating compliant financials and keeping ops going. Why add another to do now? ;)

Happy Friday Everyone.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Ashleigh Wade ]]> Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:02:25 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20776 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
In RL, the legal entity of an individual is extended by law beyond death as means of providing a hopefully consensually-amenable conclusion for the survivors (as much as possible) – but in virtual worlds, a deleted account makes the avatar a non-person, someone who never existed. This creates a unique situation RL companies don’t have to face, and a conundrum for SLCapex entities attempting to function as counterparts to those in RL. It would make sense if SLCapex addressed this by acknowledging the fundamentally different nature of the individual investing, i.e., virtual investors have spoilage dates and create guidelines for listed companies to address investor participation and recompense for non-participation. Companies would establish their own policies at the time of creation, subject to SLCapex approval, and be required to follow them.

Some seat-of-the-pants suggestions: Any investor who does not respond within 120 days of some required action has their voting rights suspended for the means of reaching quorum levels on critical issues – rights that are automatically restored merely by checking in. Shares are retained for a period of, say, two years after suspension, at which time they are redeemed or auctioned. SLCapex then retains the balance for the RL individual, etc.


in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by SmokedSalmon Canning ]]> Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:11:45 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20775 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
The most current NAV should make most sense, since that is what would be done if the company would be liquidated.

Alternatively put their shares for sale here at capex once all accounts have been created and allow investors to bid for them, if there's lots of intangible or non-marketable assets the auction may make more sense as it would be the price the market is willing to pay.

This way the exchange will have more deposits to "play with" and investors who are active, and interested will be allowed to purchase a stake in the company. And if the dead ever wake up they at least will have a liquid value.


in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:45:21 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20774 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831 Thanks for replying to my question.

First, I haven't made any desition on what to do with the shares for the people that have left SL.
I agree that is their shares should be reclaimed/liquidated, they
should get somthing for it. it's not fair to take their shares and not giving anything back for them.

The question is, What should they get for them?
should they get the IPO price back, the current shareprice or the current NAV?
where should they be payed? ACE dosen't have a working terminal, and you can't pay them inworld as their SL account no longer exist.

Rigth now, over 25% of the shares in ESN belongs to people no longer having an account with SL.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Johnny Norwood ]]> Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:15:17 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20773 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2832
eliale, take note ;-)

in topic Very Long Term Insurance Certificates (VLTIC), for FED & ZEN shareho by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:06:14 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2832/20771 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2832
Based on my market research, i wanted to offer a different addition to protecting your investments without competing with the already existing insruances available (ie: weehly insurance from TFIG, or monthly / quartery insrunace from The Rock). Most people seem to demand a longer term certificates at a reasonable price, and this is the birth of VLTIC, at first those will be available in only a few selected companies:


SLCAPX:ZEN - 6month VLTIC, introduction price: 3.99% for entire period (equivalent to 0.67% a month, or 0.15% a week)

SLCAPEX: FED - 6month VLTIC, introduction price: 4.99% for entire period (equivalent to 0.83% a month or 0.19% a week)

ISE: SAS - 6month VLTIC, introduction price:5.99% for entire period (equivalent to 0.99% a month or 0.23% a week)

Terms are very simple: Delivery is cash, you must own shares at the time of a "bancruptcy event". A bancruptcy event is defined as follows: the company either gets delisted without compensation to shareholders, or the company fails to communicate for a period of 90 days or more, following the default event an investigation lasting upto 30 days will be executed, and after that investigation you will transfer your shares to me (to prevent systematic abuse) and you will be paid the entire amount you insured, to give an example:

Let's say you owned 10,000 L$ worth of SAS shares, you pay me 599 L$ and that will cover the next 180 days, should the company then "bancrupt" i will pay you 10,000 L$.

Prices are introductionary, and will fluctuate according to demand, those who order first will be guaranteed the lowest price (currently from 3.99%).

For ordering, send me an instant message inworld (Attach a notecard if not online), or through the ISE PM/email.

*RA's ability to pay:RA currently has 335,368.15 L$ in assets, 182,968.43 L$ only in cash. Investments and cash is diverse, part of our investment portfolio is locked (at our will) at The Rock Fund, the remainder is held at deposit across ISE, SLCAPX and VSTEX and in a few stocks. With this in mind, RA will remain a policy, a firm policy to at any time be able to cover the investment certificates during a reasonable period of time in the event of a "bancruptcy". Should the CEO of RA (me) for any reason cease to exist the procecure is stated here: http://intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=1435

Please post any comments you may have here.

in topic Very Long Term Insurance Certificates (VLTIC), for FED & ZEN shareho by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:54:47 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2832/20770 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
actually, this is the first time i've heard someone suggesting that the co. BUY BACK the shares which might actually be a fair compromise in some instances. What I've typically heard previously is a desire/intent for co's to simply repossess the shares without at least tendering current share value compensation to the shareholder...

given that the few SL co's that do pay a regular dividend are usually distributing an annual yield of perhaps 5-7% (yes there are rare exceptions), ultimately i'm guessing it's probably about the same median cost to the company (they either allocate immediate cash to a shareholder account that may indeed be "abandoned" or continue to have shares allocated and dividends paid to shareholders that may be gone.

As the fiduciary & intermediary, administratively we've just found it "easier" to deal with the already distributed shares... converting that to an ongoing cash liability for the exchange, particularly when it doesn't pay interest (unlike the former SL banks) doesn't really fundamentally change anything other than increase the cash on-hand in exchange account balances... I'm not convinced that ultimately "helps" the listed co. and it certainly would create a whole lot of manual administrivia for the exchange... in my view it's not worth the marginal material change.

If you knew how many support tickets cash and i have had to answer over the last 2 years of people asking "where's my #$%^$#@ shares... where's my $$$$?" (think of how many co's have been delisted!) you'd certainly not want to add any more burden to what we already do PULEEZ??? my thoughts anyway...

at least we do agree that at minimum the shareholder should be compensated... that's a good start for further discussion.

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:35:46 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20769 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
It was i think i who came up with this proposal to Johnny, so blame this one on me. What i saw in ESN is that it has been existing for a VERY long time (in sl terms), and during that time several shareholders likely quit sl.

It is my opinion that if someone takes a longer break from SL and does not sell their stocks first or at least inform the CEO, they likely are much better off not owning shares. Because in my opinion in order to own shares in sl, one must on a continous basis micro-monitor every step of the CEO.

Another point is that those investors cancel out profits a company could make for other investors who want to actively participate, becasue the dividends get distributed to people who often don't find them useful.

It is of course a strange action to take, to buyback someones shares without them asking first. But in my opinion if they fail to respond it is no different than a company holding a shareholdervote on liquidating the company completely, those who fail to meet up wont have their votes counted and the company would be bought back at NAV.
Which brings me to a dfiferent way of advocating this:

If it is ok for a company to hold a shareholder meeting to liquidate completely, it should also be ok for a company to liquidate some of it's shareholders. With reasonable deadline for shareholders to express they don't want a liquidation.
I use this process in RA, every year at end of Q3 i will send a message, email + notecard to every investor asking them if they still want to keep their shares, after 90 days those who responded either "No" or did not respond at all will be bought back at most current NAV by the company's account. Of course i posted those rights quiet early so the case is slightly different. You can view the (to be completeled) investor rights policy of mines here:
http://intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=1435

Overall i think it's a reasonable policy, to not destroy, but buyback shares at their NAV, conservatively calculated.

Personally whenever i took a break from SL, for more than a month i always sold my shares, whenever i quit even periodically a virtual world or an MMORPG ie Entropia Universe i auctioned off all my stuff and if possible sold my account, and cashed out.

That's my opinion, but i'd love to know what others think about this.

Thoughts ?

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:58:45 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20768 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
i read your post tonight over on ace. yes, we ask a co. to account for all issued shares when relisting here so transferring "dead" avi shares to treasury is generally not something we want to be involved in.

yes, while it does create the potential for "stranded" shares it also affords people the satisfaction and security of knowing that when they invest in a CapEx-listed company their investment is theirs regardless of whether they take a break from SL. that's really the foundation of the role and obligation we've assumed as a trustee and transactional intermediary.

We have had several instances in the almost 3 years that i've been here where someone has "left" for 12 or even 18 months (went away to college, military deployment, etc.) and were pleased to find that their shares were still here when they returned.

in our opinion, if you purchase shares in a company they are yours FOREVER until you or your legal beneficiaries determine to sell them or transfer them to another party. It is NOT the right or priviledge of the Co. CEO or BOD to decide arbitrarily when and if someone has abandoned SL.

i'm sure ashleigh has some strong opinions there as well and even went so far as to insure that he and his officers have a formal survivorship plan in place - that's worked really well given the long absence of ford edelman.

i know that runs contrary to the opinion of several people in the community, but, we've looked at the alternative proposals and find all of them flawed in one way or another, so, at the moment it's our policy - always subject to change if someone comes up with the right idea.

if you have any other questions please feel free to drop me an email.

bogart.beck@gmail.com

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:09:12 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20767 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831
in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Andy Grant ]]> Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:45:12 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20763 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831 For those of you that don't know me, I tokk over ESN at ACE in september 2009.
ESN is a old company at ACE, that was started by jasper Tizzy (correct me if im wrong) and have been what people call a shell company for a long time. JayT Axel, the former CEO of ESN tried his best to raise the company from the ground, but unfortunaly he lost his motivation in the end.
I decided that I wanted to take the challange of ressurecting the company, and make it a successfully and healty business.

We have just had a shareholder vote about relisting, and most people voted for SLCAPEX.
But before we submit an application to SLCAPEX about listing at this exchange, we need to decide on the futher on the company, since the development and prospect of the company have changed a little since I tok over as a CEO.

My plan was to contunie the development of the magazine that JayT Axel started on, but allot of feedback about the magazine, have made me realise that the magazine may not have the future I was hoping it would have. At the same time ESN have started and run a gaming place, witch have been successfully, with a profit from month 1. This month it looks like the profit will be more than 50K. And this is the road I want to contunie.

I ask all you possible investors at SLCAPEX (if slcapex lets us list here) to discuss the future of the company at our post on the ACE forum here: http://www.ace-exchange.com/forums/topic/1333
or you can post a reply here. I read all forums everyday.
But for the sake of the shareholders and others, it is easier
to take all the discussions at one place.

I also welcome some input from scott and BO.
Im interestted to know your toughts about this. I don't know if a gaming company is against your listing rules/morale or not.
But I can't see why it would be. Advices of all kind is welcome.

Sincerly
Johnny Norwood

in topic ESN. Future investors advice needed. by Johnny Norwood ]]> Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:27:16 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2831/20761 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2517 http://slurl.com/secondlife/Tryggvason/232/132/56

Thanks!

Pep

in topic SLCX Affiliate Program by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:26:40 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2517/20753 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2828
These swings in currency valuations will drive commodity prices much as we've already seen in the commodities markets but on a more massive scale.

There is a lot more driving currency valuations than "faith" of course, but faith is so far muting the effects of the true fundamentals in our current system. Fact is we are all too invested in the current system to give it up, so we stay in and even double down on our current bets.

I fully agree Cash, this is history repeating itself. This has been seen multiple times before in over extended civilizations and the intelligent will see it now before it truly takes its full effect. One of the markers of such a hyper-inflationary state is seemingly irrational securities gains. Anyone who made money after we hit the false bottom would be wise to get out now imo before the real ish hits the fan.

I also agree with you Andy, interest rates must go up to try to protect against this hyper-inflationary state. I don't believe it will work, but agree this is a short-term issue to be dealt with on a personal level.

I agree with you as well Atreyu...this will take a very long time to rebalance. We are in a state of extreme uncertainty marked by wild swings up and down.

But before you think its all doom and gloom, I believe that while this will be detrimental to the majority of the population, there will be groups of individuals that succeed and even thrive in such an environment. This does not relieve our responsibility as men and women to care for our fellow human beings within our own means, but it does give hope for everyone that opportunity will still be around; even if only as small pockets of large opportunity.

I started this thread to kinda get a everyone's pulse, see what everyone feels about the economy right now. I also wanted to see how everyone feels about my comments, see if I am the lone nut on the hill shouting non-sense or the lone nut on the hill shouting the truth! haha!

Best of luck to us all in the times ahead. One thing is for sure in my opinion. No one KNOWS what is next.

Pep

in topic The Fate of Finance by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:52:44 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/2828/20745