http://slcapex.com/forums/browse/suggest Suggestions and discussion for SLCapex site improvements en-us Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:00:19 -0600 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:00:19 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/ Kudang SQL2RSS admin@slcapex.com webmaster@slcapex.com 60 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2869
in topic ATM bug by naohito Ruby ]]> Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:30:32 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2869/20969 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2869
Thank you,

Scott Nestler

in topic ATM bug by Scott Nestler ]]> Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:33:18 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2869/20967 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2869 my name is naohito Ruby.

On March 10 of the Japan time, I drew out 10,062L $ from ATM. →[9:08] JT Financial ATM 7.1.5 - CapEx: 10,062 Your withdrawal of has completed. Your new balance is 8,200.67. Thank you!

But..... I let you spread ・ ・, and the money is not transferred to my avatar. Please confirm it as soon as possible. Thanking you in advance.

and.....today....I cant used ATM. But, about 2000L＄
was not transferred to my avatar.

in topic ATM bug by naohito Ruby ]]> Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:46:03 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2869/20962 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2821
As i can see, this data is already internally available. For example the graph at the mainpage shows each stocks volulme in L$ rather than shares. However data shown in stock history (both on-site) and the downloadable CSV lacks this data. Because of this we're forced to guess.

My suggestion is, simply put: Add a column @ the stock history page called "Volume L$", this way people can view the actual trade record (essential when either calculating their recent value, or when estimating future value).

I would appreciate and hope this can be implemented relatively shortly.

in topic (more data) Total L$ amount traded by Andy Grant ]]> Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:13:07 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2821/20693 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2800 I am pleased with the volume traded of the day on November 28, confirming that slcapex is still attractive to investors sl.
all my wishes of encouragement to those who offer their time platform
Heck, my English did not always better!
kikok

in topic for more information by kikokenpyr Beaumont ]]> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:22:04 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2800/20551 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2800
Thanks,

Scott

in topic for more information by Scott Nestler ]]> Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:00:10 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2800/20545 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2800 it would be possible to add the function: "volume history" of all companies on the platform slcapex?
thank you to consider my request.
amicably
kikok

in topic for more information by kikokenpyr Beaumont ]]> Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:29:27 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2800/20543 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523
in topic Rules? Where are they? by Cash Yiyuan ]]> Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:16:32 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523/20362 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523
in topic Rules? Where are they? by SynCere Talon ]]> Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:55:54 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523/20356 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523
Pep

in topic Rules? Where are they? by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:17:04 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523/20331 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523
All other links re-direct to where they should.

in topic Rules? Where are they? by Bogart Beck ]]> Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:33:16 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523/20327 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523
Pep

in topic Rules? Where are they? by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:11:47 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523/20325 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2769 yes it seems a good initiative. more companies, more trading volume, more activity short, more interesting or more fun. all manners slcapex needed changes so that the platform is more atacting . greetings

in topic Check out this idea forming in ISE by kikokenpyr Beaumont ]]> Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:14:13 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2769/20324 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2769
in topic Check out this idea forming in ISE by Alain Delpiaz ]]> Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:01:40 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2769/20323 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2769
Basic RL example in Portland is the Antiques District. There are upwards of 10 antiques dealers in a fairly small neighborhood, but because they are all in vicinity it attracts large amounts of people wanting to see large amounts of antiques in a small amount of time. All of the dealers have slightly different product offerings and price points, so they are never directly competiting but improving the overall availability of that kind of good in the area.

That's my thoughts on it Alain. :)

Pep

in topic Check out this idea forming in ISE by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:34:09 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2769/20314 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2769
http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?pid=11043#p11043

in topic Check out this idea forming in ISE by Alain Delpiaz ]]> Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:58:46 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2769/20313 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2606
Date 2nd Aug, 2009
-------------------------
I have been told that the problem is that I have cookies set off.

Maybe this is so ... I don't really know.

However, I access and trade stocks in the two other SL stock exchanges without a problem. So, why should it be a problem for this " stock exchange " ?

Also, the " ATM instructions note card " does not say anything about cookies.



in topic ATM Instructions Need Updates by Ernyd Wozniak ]]> Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:31:35 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2606/19962 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2711
Pep

in topic Charting and Volume Numbers Not The Same... by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:21:56 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2711/19898 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2710
Pep

in topic Continued Listing Policies by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:59:06 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2710/19894 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2663
Pep

in topic Are you kidding? by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sun, 31 May 2009 21:45:47 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2663/19542 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2663
BAY - Brittany Bay Resorts(Chairman of the Board:
Bogart Beck, Founder)

BIG - Beck Investment Group Public Forum{Chairman and Chief Exectutive Officer:
Bogart Beck, Founder
}

BTX - Beck Technical Research II(Chairman and Chief Exectutive Officer:
Bogart Beck, Founder


CAPX -SL Capital Exchange(Chairman of the Board:
Scott Nestler, Founder NIC

Chief Executive Officer:
Bogart Beck, Founder BIG

How is this person allowed to have access to there account,stocks and lindens. Bogart is all over the forums about this and that. If he would spend have the time working on what he should be like not having 4 companies stopped in trading.

CEO most likely to run next my vote is this person. Please prove me wrong. PLEASE make this post look stupid. By undoing what is happening in this market. Do the thing you position in your companies requires you to do. PLEASE !!! Scott if you read this. You seem so passionate about this market you have built. Why are you allowing this to go on? Do worry about what the other exchanges are doing. Make your better then them. You will see the return in the long run. Sorry just tired of seeing the train coming down the tracks. and no one has untied the investors before they get crushed.
You have a great tool going here use the dam thing right.


in topic Are you kidding? by Niccolo Brentley ]]> Sun, 31 May 2009 06:24:20 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2663/19539 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596
Even with authorized and verified accounts. Which is why LL if they catch someone sharing an account or selling an account will just delete that account.

They have turned a blind eye in some instances (corporations) but for the majority it is not a wise move.

in topic (sub)accounts linkage? by SynCere Talon ]]> Wed, 06 May 2009 16:05:25 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596/19371 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596
-Scott

in topic (sub)accounts linkage? by Scott Nestler ]]> Wed, 06 May 2009 14:54:37 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596/19369 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596
OK I couldn't resist a suitable and well thought out affiliate program.





in topic (sub)accounts linkage? by Cayman Beaumont ]]> Wed, 06 May 2009 12:46:30 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596/19367 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596
in topic (sub)accounts linkage? by Scott Nestler ]]> Wed, 06 May 2009 11:20:57 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596/19366 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596
I tend to agree, would you consider allowing this facility for those with payment info on file?

However I would prefer to see many other improvements before this.

CB



in topic (sub)accounts linkage? by Cayman Beaumont ]]> Wed, 06 May 2009 11:18:38 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596/19365 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596
One of the issues that arrises when discussing Alts and linkage is that verification of the ownership is impossible.

As we are all aware we are not Linden Labs and CapEx does not have access to account information and for the safety and security of all of our financial interests here it would be better to play it safe on this subject and not link them together.

Anyone disagree?

Thanks,

Scott

in topic (sub)accounts linkage? by Scott Nestler ]]> Wed, 06 May 2009 06:54:20 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596/19364 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596
The short answer is accounts cannot be linked by SLCapex.

in topic (sub)accounts linkage? by Cash Yiyuan ]]> Tue, 05 May 2009 22:57:59 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596/19360 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596 http://www.slcapex.com/pages/subaccounts

Found this. Hope it helps.

in topic (sub)accounts linkage? by SynCere Talon ]]> Tue, 05 May 2009 22:21:19 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596/19355 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2606
Pep

in topic ATM Instructions Need Updates by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:27:14 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2606/19156 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2606
Thank You,

Scott

in topic ATM Instructions Need Updates by Scott Nestler ]]> Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:59:34 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2606/19155 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2606
Pep

in topic ATM Instructions Need Updates by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:16:35 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2606/19154 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2604
I would argue that slcapex can't afford not to invest into it ;)

As far as brokerage, it is indeed interesting but why not do it without the exchanges involvement ? Just setup your own ATM, and pay not-guaranteed indirect dividends if you make a profit on your stock trading. (except if Nicholas is your customer then you just tell him, oh we failed, and then relist his investment at WSE he'll sure understand while everybody else would receive it without ginko BS :P)

Nicholas, if you're reading this, and i'm sure you are, "the james theory" makes by far more sense than your "credit conspiracy theories".

in topic Invest into better charting by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:45:08 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2604/19147 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2604
Cayman's idea about brokerages is very interesting to me, and tho it'd take a fair amount of setup, may be worth the time and money involved. The devil is in the details of course, and that's what I'd like to learn about before implementing such a program.

Pep

in topic Invest into better charting by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:30:18 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2604/19145 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2604
http://www.advsofteng.com/gallery_finance.html

in topic Invest into better charting by Andy Grant ]]> Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:54:10 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2604/19111 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596
Now I know that one can make Sub Accounts other than one's Main account on the website, but how difficult would it be to set it up in such a way that one could make a Sub Account for a different SL name so they could (after verification) both add and/or remove funds from said sub account as they please?

This would keep the portfolio relatively centered around the main account with the sub accounts 'governed' through in-game interactions by the sub accounts when needed.

Has this been explored/brought up before, then I'm very sorry to bring it up again, but it seems like something that could be useful to many. Including myself.

in topic (sub)accounts linkage? by Maki Guyot ]]> Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:05:00 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2596/19047 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2524 Thanks for the thoughts Gordon. I'll talk w/ Chango and see how diffficult that might be... sounds easy enough but what do I know...

Bo

in topic Suggestion for the Caplinx Sidebar by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:58:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2524/18492 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2524
On the web link the color for companies with no web link should be changed from red to black since red instantly makes people think of a negative connotation like halted. I don't see how changing this would be negative at all considering that blue links would still be readily distinguishable.

in topic Suggestion for the Caplinx Sidebar by Gordon Wendt ]]> Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:38:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2524/18491 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523
What gives?

in topic Rules? Where are they? by SynCere Talon ]]> Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:39:06 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2523/18483 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2460
Thanks for the response and I like what I read.

I'll be patient for these announcements, however maybe the Affiliate / Broker program should be tied into (3). Should they introduce a worthy IPO then they receive a reasonable commission. Another way of using others to to work on your behalf.

I've noticed a lack of forum contributions over the last couple of months, anyone else out there with a wish list?

Regards,

Cayman



in topic Three wishes for the New Year by Cayman Beaumont ]]> Sat, 27 Dec 2008 01:41:32 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2460/17967 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2460
Yeah, taking us a bit longer than we'd hoped to get SL CapEx back on firm footing - I think we're getting there slowly but surely. Regarding your wish list; here's a quick status (more to follow within the next week or two).

(1) Affiliate-Broker Program to be RELAUNCHED "Sooooon". Chango and Cash have been working on some programmatic and Administrative requirements since before Thanksgiving... I'm hoping we'll be ready for LAUNCH by late January if not sooner.

(2) Advertising; while we agree that getting NEW Investors on board is IMPORTANT we need to get the POLICY and CORP STRUCTURAL stuff done FIRST so that those that DO COME will STAY... an update on THAT STUFF is coming in the next week.

(3) IPO's, etc.; Some of that speaks to the Policy stuff I've been working on for MONTHS. I hope that you've noticed that almost all of our recent IPO's have indeed been PRODUCT-based companies (versus Estate Managers or Investment Co's). While we agree that ALL THREE business categories are necessary for a balanced market honestly we can only underwrite what's presented (and we're still rejecting 8 out of 10).

Bo

in topic Three wishes for the New Year by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:58:01 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2460/17960 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2460
I hope they will participate and offer their realistic appraisal of the suggestions.

I'll start the ball rolling:

1. Introduce a Broker system, incentives should be made for "serious traders" to make some extra L$ through a Broker system. It would be in these Brokers interests to attract new investors, which would benefit all. They will no doubt act as market makers for some of the companies, this being an attractive proposition for Capex who currently encourage CEO's to fill this void with company funds. This suggestion was mooted many many months ago but for some reason the debate fell silent.

2. See consistent Capex marketing/advertising to attract new investors. This seems to have been absent for the whole of 2008, maybe because of Arb's embarrassment with the SLW fiasco. This marketing can be in a variety of forms but doesn't need to be that expensive, just management with ideas.

3. Introduction of companies to IPO who already have a SL business presence and to banish for ever IPO start ups, why should our funds be used as an experiment. Llet the CEO prove a concept apply elsewhere for VC if required and then apply for an IPO when they have delivered and require expansion.

Regards,

Cayman

PS I was also going to say a multilingual platform, but that might have been a little biased. All have a wonderful 2009!


in topic Three wishes for the New Year by Cayman Beaumont ]]> Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:28:09 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2460/17958 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2411
I really appreciate that there are quick responses to questions here on the exchange!

To be perfectly honest, I was kinda in a surly mood, so feel free to ignore my comment ;)

Thanks again!

Peperi Franizzi

in topic Happy Thanksgiving Is News?!?! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:02:12 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2411/17541 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2411 Yo Peperi

Some of us appreciate a kind word for the holidays.

And, yes, generally the "News" you'll find here is of a PRESS RELEASE nature - that which is purposed to promote a company and its stock.

Cheers!

Bo

in topic Happy Thanksgiving Is News?!?! by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:47:53 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2411/17513 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2411
Personally it seems as if the news board is used by CEO's to inflate daily volume in their stocks...but that's just my opinion...I'd like to hear yours.

in topic Happy Thanksgiving Is News?!?! by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:21:53 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2411/17512 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2302 lol....:)

Mystic

in topic FAQ link off of the Info tab ..... by Mystic Handrick ]]> Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:54:33 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2302/16720 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2301 Cay,

Yes a makeover is in the works - hopefully a lil more than lipstick on the same ol' pig ;-). No definitive dates for the cosmetic stuff - our primary concern is some of the backend, Administrative and technical challenges to make the system more reliable and robust.

B



in topic A question for the new owners by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:36:57 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2301/16715 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2301
Are you going to update the website? I'm not talking a costly upgrade just a sensible makeover. These requirements are well documented within this thread. Examples are:

Frequently Asked Questions - How can you afford to pay such high interest? ...

Affiliate Program - Host a JT Financial ATM and earn .01% Daily off of new accounts that sign up using that ATM ...

As you know I could go on, this does look unprofessional. Is it going to be addressed?

Regards,

Cayman
Verballis Translation Services - Words Across Worlds
http://verballis-translation-services.blogspot.com/

in topic A question for the new owners by Cayman Beaumont ]]> Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:33:57 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2301/16713 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2283

in topic Info Page Error by Giampaolo Huldschinsky ]]> Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:58:59 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2283/16647 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2283
iV

in topic Info Page Error by iVentures Volitant ]]> Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:43:54 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2283/16586 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2283 We're aware of it iV and Chan is working on it. You might note that the Prospectus pages are also missing at the moment.

in topic Info Page Error by Bogart Beck ]]> Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:46:02 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2283/16585 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2283
iV

in topic Info Page Error by iVentures Volitant ]]> Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:53:41 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2283/16583 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2244
in topic For forum threads start at 0 instead of 1 by Gordon Wendt ]]> Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:31:43 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2244/16344 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2243
in topic Shared owned on IPO stocks by Gordon Wendt ]]> Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:29:24 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2243/16343 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2100
Bumped..... looks like your post was ignored. I fully agree that this should be addressed.

CB



in topic Any chance that you will be updating information available ont he by Cayman Beaumont ]]> Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:45:40 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2100/16049 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2211
That would be a wish from me to have the list sorted in perhpas the same way as the subaccounts are sorted when I go to my portfolio. There they are easy to find.





in topic sort list of subaccounts by Bims Writer ]]> Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:16:41 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2211/15956 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2208
in topic Log volume for activity chart? by SciFi Voom ]]> Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:43:12 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2208/15932 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2199
It must be noted that SL CapEx will allow you to download the complete price history and it should be trivial to make your own graphs.

However, I concur that having readily available graphs for long term periods would be a nice addition.

Samantha Goldflake
VSTEX Communication and Public Relations Director
http://www.vstex.net

in topic Company Charts by Samantha Goldflake ]]> Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:41:55 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2199/15819 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2199


in topic Company Charts by Ivan Halfpint ]]> Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:07:10 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2199/15817 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
At this point, I have to say that I do agree with you. Despite some chest thumping from one of the 4 SL exchanges around (and I'm excluding the WSE, since it's no longer a "pure" SL exchange) the situation has dramatically changed since the last year.

Less and less shareholders getting involved into the many things springing up. Meetings going more and more deserted.

Earlier today I performed some Google searches as I routinely do and I found out that some articles dealing with SL finances are no longer available because the source website does not exist anymore. This is true for both Italian and English speaking sources.

And if you look at the news sources still around, the coverage they give to SL finances has dwindled down. I could mention a few things which got no attention at all. And I think they deserved it.

There is the hype (sort of) about the WSE, "don't go there". There are some talks about exchanges cooperating. Facts, just a few. Almost none. We started something with SL CapEx, but it's not enough. We can't get a good grip on ISE in order to do something similar. ACE? There is an ocean between us and we're not comfortable at all with some of their recent actions.

We shall see...

Samantha Goldflake

VSTEX Communication and Public Relations Director
http://www.vstex.net

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Samantha Goldflake ]]> Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:51:57 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15785 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
Looking at companies, you see willing acceptance of big promises that hardly seem feasible. When it all hits the fan, you see five or six people jumping into rant, flame, post clever insults, and generally derail any serious inquiries or resolutions. I've always felt that exchanges were promising virtual platforms. And I think given the right crowd they might be - one day.

As a writer, I've had people come to me asking me to investigate an issue that anyone could research. It basically comes down to people wanting me to do their research for them. I've been asking myself if the virtual exchanges are appealing to people who want to make unrealistic amounts of money by investing in infeasible promises because they simply can't be bothered to formulate a plan to make their money work for them in a more conventional manner. Exchanges are a great platform for learning. And MAYBE making a couple of dollars. But the risks are great.

Overall, I'm inclined to think that the first step is shareholders taking their "gaming" seriously. Not sure if people have acquiesced or it was always thus. But it's not the kind of behavior I like to be associated with.


Bearing that, I can only say: Cross your fingers, Sam. People may surprise us yet ;)

km

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Konner McDonnell ]]> Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:23:36 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15502 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2159
And maybe a "note" by e-mail when Limit buys/Sells are executed?

I know it will certainly not be easy ... But still this was my 1L$ thoughts.

Kind regards



in topic Visual Alert when Company is halted. by Fellatione Aabye ]]> Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:37:13 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2159/15463 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
"To what extent should exchanges be working with shareholders to pursue remedies beyond delistment/liquidation? If any."

Let's see what happened at the VSTEX over the last year.

We started our public operations on August 7, 2007. On August 26 we got a whopping amount of 6 companies as a result of a transfer from the competition:

AVC - Atlas Venture Capital
CGI - Countless Galaxies
BHE - Bart Heart Estates
VHI - Valentine Heart Inc.
KFM - Kristatos Fashion Mall
SLC - SL Creations (a merge of MDS - BOB - SLZ)

See: http://www.vstex.net/?p=103&id=2

AVC, CGI and KFM did not last long, since on September 14, 2007 a temporary halt was issued.

The options? There were no assets under our control, except for a few dimes here and there. A delistment was due, those companies could no longer keep trading with Jasper Tizzy and Teanna Nomura gone with the assets.

Liquidation was not an option, since assets were gone. At that time, we felt like the best option was to try and look around for people willing to take over those "public shells".

Basically the deal was "You take a company with no assets, you get to be listed on our exchange". In our eyes. that was a sensible move. Before we got to realize that we had opened a "canning" of monkeys... er... worms, we used that method again.

Time passed and we had to deal with CEOs disappearing from the scene, leaving behind them some assets. Not much, but something at least.

So, we still kept searching for someone to take over, but we imposed a forceful buyback on the new CEO, at a value equal to the liquidation value, or at least fair enough for shareholders wanting out (SLC, QCL).

This method will still be used for BNF, due to prior contacts and agreements, but we came to the conclusion that it may be not the best option, in the long run.

That's why DMG and DFC have gone through forceful liquidation after being delisted and that's why we changed our rules introducing the concept of "public shells". Now, for every delisted company we'll split any asset under our control to legitimate shareholders.

Could we do better than this? Sure. We'll try to reach agreements with SL CAPEX and ISE, in order to have assets of delisted VSTEX issuers seized, for later distribution to legitimate shareholders.

Beyond that, I fail to see what else we could do, but I'm open to suggestions.

Samantha Goldflake
VSTEX Communication and Public Relations Director
http://www.vstex.net

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Samantha Goldflake ]]> Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:52:30 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15322 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
Now we're really offtopic! :)

At the beginning of this thread, Bogart Beck stated:

"Feel free to moderate as you feel moved - I'll jump in when/if I feel compelled to take a position"

In keeping with that, Konner McDonnell previously wrote:

"Since this door was opened[by Samantha Goldflake], I think it's necessary for us to take a step back and look at the bigger picture before we start narrowing that focus."

So, we're not offtopic. We are right where we should be. Anything involving the limitations of allowing a CEO to do anything -or- limitations imposed upon those CEOs will always return to "how much can we conceivably do to enforce those limitations?"

The various rules and underwriting processes may serve to keep the riff-raff from opening shop on the three exchanges you mentioned. Once you turn them down, they'll simply go to Ancapex. The WSE is open now. And Luke has an SPO for the WSE (since the WSE is owned by HCL, how this is even possible, I don't know. There certainly wasn't a first public offering) and I suspect once he's squeezed every dime he can out of his "SPO" then he'll start letting other companies trade there. Both follow the logic of "Anyone can list, so long as I gets mine." Ancapex may be liberal, but I highly doubt they'd consort with the WSE. Nor would any of the other three. So a true council won't happen. Not that it'd be fix.

Let me put this crudely. Any company that gets past your underwriting processes has to 'woo' investors. Once they've successfully courted those investors, they're in the position to slip off in the night while those investors are still sleeping without so much as a "Dear John Letter." There's a few CEOs that aren't going to necessarily run away, but are simply lazy, inept, or apathetic towards the needs of their shareholders.

Now the exchanges would probably say: "shareholders need to riot." Such as with MNM. But the most cogent of arguments and persuasive of speeches are in no more a position to compel executive response than an all-out rant. Companies are listed at the pleasure of the exchanges. Shareholders are attended to at the pleasure of the CEOs.

Leaving the RL legal arguments aside, my question is simply: To what extent should exchanges be working with shareholders to pursue remedies beyond delistment/liquidation? If any. I think that's the question that must be answered before shareholders can even consider "how far is too far" in the privatization matter and all other matters relating to the current shareholder-CEO relationship.

Edit: I wanted to mention that there's a few questions I've previously asked that weren't addressed. I'll return to this later. Right now it's most important to consider the exchange/investor relationship.

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Konner McDonnell ]]> Mon, 04 Aug 2008 04:51:04 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15291 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
First off (and I'm not saying it to put down the others) the VSTEX has the most extensive set of rules covering different topics and areas.

Second, we are in very good terms with SL CAPEX and ISE. We speak with Borgart Beck on an almost regular basis. With Cocky Dagger we have very rare contacts, but we do respect him and the ISE, as he respects us.

ISE seem set on a "let the market forces work it out" policy and from their forum I got the impression that the general consensus there is not to have more rules than the current ones and keep on following the current path.

Before commenting on the council you're talking about Scott, I would like to hear from SL CAPEX. Anyway, I have doubts that such a council could ever get LL to change anything in the assets area.

Samantha Goldflake
VSTEX Communication and Public Relations Director
http://www.vstex.net

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Samantha Goldflake ]]> Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:53:37 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15271 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
All of the exchanges should get together, regardless of ego's or politics involved and form a council.

Policies and Rules should be set that all exchanges follow, exchanges would be free to have additional rules and policies as they see fit.

This would eliminate the company owners who move from exchange to exchange and also offer a level of protection to shareholders who do not trade on multiple exchanges.

Once the policies and rules are in place the council of exchanges could do to Linden Labs and one voice and ask for assistance in expanding the policies and rules into the Linden Labs arena of enforceability.

Also, this would end the speculation of Linden Labs banning the exchanges and giving Linden Labs the ability to communicate freely to that organized council.

Once this is all done the Council can petition Linden Labs to create the ability for Sims, Land and other assets to be owned by a company and not just a single avatar.

This ability would help prevent or hamper CEO's from "cashing" out of SL easily and leaving shareholders out to dry.

Any thought?

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Scott Nestler ]]> Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:00:04 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15268 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
We are aware that a CEO could just say "to the hell with your rules, I go private/delist/whatever", so why the many rules the VSTEX has, why we talk about "shareholders rights", "fiduciary duties" and so on?

We try to educate CEOs and management of every VSTEX issuer. We really try. A year ago it was very easy to get and keep a listing with us, now it's much harder, but that's not the point. Ethics, disclosure, sound corporate governance, are common and often used terms for us.

With some CEOs we did not have much success, but there's always hope for the future.

Samantha Goldflake
VSTEX Communication and Public Relations Director
http://www.vstex.net

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Samantha Goldflake ]]> Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:25:23 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15260 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Ironfist Hutchinson ]]> Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:44:11 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15246 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
The SL Capital Exchange is a FICTITIOUS STOCK MARKET SIMULATION operating SOLELY as an Element to an online GAME. It is NOT a REAL WORLD SECURITIES ENTITY and does NOT offer ANY opportunity for REAL WORLD PROFITS or INVESTMENT. Please be forewarned, we make NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE ACCURACY, FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OR USE
OF THE SOFTWARE CONSTITUTING THE EXCHANGE WHATSOEVER. PLEASE PLAY ACCORDINGLY!



in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Ironfist Hutchinson ]]> Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:35:56 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15245 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
While the induvidual exchanges were playing their powergames with eachother about being marketleader and ignoring the cries for better regulation and transparancy
they failed to protect their investors from being ripped off again and again.

This all has been a classic example of an unregulated freemarket mechanism doing its job. The term FREEMARKET MECHACHANISM does not mean free from rules or bounderies.

The little bit of rules upto now are only there to protect the exchanges from being held responsible for failures on their behalf.

The first thing that needs to be changed is making the INVESTOR the most important factor in this game and all rules should be directed towards her/his safety and benefit, because neither the exchanges nor would any company listed or willing to list exsist without them.

DUE DILLIGENCE from the exchanges on integrity and viabillity of companies that want to be listed on their platform should be much tighter, and accept responsibillity for those who slip through their Standards set and not leave the investor bleeding for their failure on DUE DILLIGENCE.

Due dilligence from the investor is about finding out if the company is going to be profitable enough to risk investing in, and NOT about if it is to be trusted with my money. Maybe it is naive but I rely on the exchanges to select those companies who are integer, otherwise I could just as well invest privately and run the same risk without expenses on tradefees.

I can live with loosing money on stupid investment choises I make myself or not beeing savy enough to make my money work for me, but loosing money on being ripped off due to poor security measures and even worse regulation makes my blood boil, specially when they then say, it is not our job to prevent criminals from stealing your money or persue them when they do so on our exchange.

hundredthousands,if not several millions of RL dollars invested through L$ have vanished in the last years. All claimed to be invested in RL oportunities or RL companies. The fact that LL slammed down the hammer on in world scemes does not mean that the RL investments stop exsisting too now does it.

A good rule to have would be the obligation to report on the prospectus if the company has intentions to invest the IPO money soley in SL or has plans to utilise it in RL. which btw leads me to the next point, are the exchanges soley a SL investment game and meant to be played in world or are they also platforms to raise funds for RL plans ? Should SL IPO money not be restricted to the SL economy only ?

If you have RL business plans go to a bank or at least raise your venture capital in RL.

Yes I am a bit of a SL fundamentalist on this one,

keep the GAME within the borders of the SL GAMEBOARD.

Hutch

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Ironfist Hutchinson ]]> Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:53:59 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15244 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
"Yet, a CEO can just delist his company, or run away. What the CEO wants, he will get it either way.

The VSTEX now has specific rules about "Public shells, reverse mergers, mergers, acquisitions" (Section E of our listing rules). If you read that section, you will see a "4. RESERVED"; that's going to be used for privatizations and everything in our "Section E" will go hand in hand with Section D. "Shareholders meetings and exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies".

We try to provide a solid foundation, meant to give both CEOs/company managers and shareholders an idea about how things should be."

In my previous writings, I've called attention to the CEOs absolute power. In writing this inquiry, I took what you've mentioned syllogistically. But since you opened the door, I think a discussion on the topic of privatization -or any other issue that wholly depends on the CEO's willingess to comply- is predicated by undeniable fact of absolute power.

So let's start there.

The exchanges have varying rules. But aren't the exchange's rules merely self-protective? While we all willingly admit to the fact that CEOs do have absolute power, does the implementation of 'rules' and the establishment of 'committees' such as the SLEC only really serve to provide the illusion of legitimacy when neither can regulate the companies themselves? Further, while we accept this absolute power, we also use terms like 'fiduciary relationship" between CEOs and shareholders. Finally and I suppose most importantly, are the exchanges not the gateway by which CEOs obtain their absolute power? To what extent should the exchanges burden themselves with seeking enforceable remedies to ensure the aforementioned 'fiduciary relationship' is honored?

Since this door was opened, I think it's necessary for us to take a step back and look at the bigger picture before we start narrowing that focus. But let's not lose sight of the broader picture. The implications apply to all exchanges, regardless of their countries of origin, disposition of their administrators, or any other factors that might separate any single exchange from its contemporaries.


in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Konner McDonnell ]]> Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:53:54 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15211 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
"events following SLC (and AVC that same month) led VSTEX to update their rules. Evolving. Changing. Remembering. Like I expect all virtual exchanges SHOULD."

http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/1207

Of course issues were different back then, but there's always a different issue. In a few days the VSTEX will have its first birthday. During this year we came to a conclusion: rules are needed.

Rules won't ever prevent a CEO from packing up and run away from unwanted regulations, but at least they provide a foundation, a framework to be used by the exchange itself, listed companies and shareholders. We're not anarcho-capitalists. We don't believe in a market regulating itself.

Again, our new rules are not meant to be a judgement of someone's actions. We're just trying to fix and prevent as many issues as possible, in order to help restore SL financial sector credibility.

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Samantha Goldflake ]]> Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:18:56 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15193 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111


in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Scott Nestler ]]> Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:39:36 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15188 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
Whenever we talk about SL public companies we shold remember that the "CEO rules". Our exchange has the most extended set of rules for companies, directors and CEOs (see: http://www.vstex.net/?p=89 ).

Yet, a CEO can just delist his company, or run away. What the CEO wants, he will get it either way.

The VSTEX now has specific rules about "Public shells, reverse mergers, mergers, acquisitions" (Section E of our listing rules). If you read that section, you will see a "4. RESERVED"; that's going to be used for privatizations and everything in our "Section E" will go hand in hand with Section D. "Shareholders meetings and exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies".

We try to provide a solid foundation, meant to give both CEOs/company managers and shareholders an idea about how things should be.

Everyone needs to enter into a different state of mind, a different approach to things. On our exchange we try to warn shareholders about the risks of virtual trading and at the same time to educate CEOs and company managers about their fiduciary duties towards shareholders.

Maybe this post wasn't really focused on the original issue, but I wanted to start like this, to get the ball rolling in any direction (which sometimes is better than in no direction at all).

Samantha Goldflake
VSTEX Communication and Public Relations Director
http://www.vstex.net

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Samantha Goldflake ]]> Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:37:03 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15180 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Konner McDonnell ]]> Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:21:35 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15179 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2115
in topic CEO and all staff of companies quoted by Cash Yiyuan ]]> Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:08:52 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2115/15133 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2115 If yes please explain me where
If not please do it

thanks for patience

in topic CEO and all staff of companies quoted by Giampaolo Huldschinsky ]]> Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:32:01 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2115/15132 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111 Konner, this is actually a very GOOD topic for dialogue particularly as we're all looking for appropriate reform measures (not just here but the other exchanges as well).

Feel free to moderate as you feel moved - I'll jump in when/if I feel compelled to take a position.

Bo

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:44:54 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15110 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111
This sickens me. The approach to privatizing companies usually involves trying to sell shareholders on taking an amount that is usually less (or merely equal to) the IPO price and bases the buyback price on the current NAV. The problem is that this defies the traditional logic of investing in a public company. As an investor, I do not make all of my decisions on the current NAV but invest with an eye towards potential growth. Were I to make NAV the sole basis of my decision when investing, wouldn't all IPO investors that partook in an IPO raising venture capital refuse to do so on the basis that the current NAV was nothing more than the sum of IPO funds MINUS IPO fees?

While I don't want to get lost in a battle of jargon with the self-proclaimed 'professional virtual analysts/brokers' I do want to initiate a dialogue on the trend of 'taking a (oft-successful) company private at whim." While SLCapex has made it clear that they will refuse to intervene or facilitate private transfers, the acceptance (passive-aggressive or otherwise) of a buyback proposal from a shareholder stance seems to be predicated on the fear of the CEO getting angry and simply walking away.

This isn't a 'suggestion' per se, it is more of an inquiry to fellow-investors, administrators, and CEOs for their insight into an evolved approach or perhaps clarification from my end. Nonetheless, if this inquiry is deemed misplaced, I ask that it be moved to a fitting location with my proffered apologies.

Edit: I should note this isn't a veiled attack on anyone in SLCAPEX. The basis for my inquiry and any concern therein is derived from a former company. I do not wish to waste time pointing fingers at that company or anyone else. My interest is in the dialogue. Simply a clarification.

in topic Privatization of Public Companies by Konner McDonnell ]]> Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:34:30 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2111/15109 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2110
"What is the worst thing that happens? The CEO/Chairman of the company goes missing and those assets are given to the next elected person?"

The worst that can happen is the BOD absolves the CEO of all responsibilities through firing the individual while making a decision that is reducible to 'hoping' the CEO will honor the BOD's decision. You cannot seize assets outside of CAPEX. In effect, you'd be adding a new complication with the same limitation: Hoping the CEO honors their committments.

BODs in virtual finance are nothing more a bunch of overglorified advisors with an opinion and vote that may or may not be recognized by the CEO in their decision-making process. Defying the rules would certainly get the company halted and maybe delisted, and if there were any company assets in their CAPEX account, those might be seized, but it would likely be a fraction of the company's total assets unless it was an investment company utilizing only SLCAPEX or governed by some inter-exchange arrangement. The latter will never happen across the board.

From an RP scenario - decent idea. But where introducing real rights and remedies to a BOD, much less shareholders, that would give rise to a substantial change to current trends? You may need to finesse it a bit.

in topic Bubacks/Delistment Rules by Konner McDonnell ]]> Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:18:05 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2110/15108 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2110
in topic Bubacks/Delistment Rules by SynCere Talon ]]> Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:24:21 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2110/15107 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2110
For example, the current MNM situation.

I would suggest that the Board of Directors of a company listed in CapEx must vote and approve any measure that will change a companies listed status.

the L&L companies recent delistment and the current MNM situation was done without the approval of the BOD and in the RL that would never happen.

CEO's serve at the pleasure of the Board and the Chairman of the Board is supposed to represent the board.

Putting a posting in place in CapEx for known BOD members to reply to for public voting is easy enough.

What is the worst thing that happens? The CEO/Chairman of the company goes missing and those assets are given to the next elected person?

CapEx survived Sully's disaperance and the shareholders in POW surrvived.

Any comments?

in topic Bubacks/Delistment Rules by Scott Nestler ]]> Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:22:59 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2110/15104 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099 Im keeping my rain coat on for this one. Listen this "RL" BS got me when I first started to read it and then the agressive manner in which the IPO was to close and the competition.

Show anywhere in all of these post where they state that SL investors would not bennifit from the "RL" company at first and Im talking about the time the IPO was closing and plan "B" was discussed. Show me. They used the term "RL" all the time but not the "you will not be included in the "RL" profits...sounds like a real cool plan to decieve to me from the get go..

The investors as far as I can see and um Im hoping the others who supported them were and not playing along because they may have as well been a part of it all along and it isnt just 20 grand im sure.

Theres a lot of very interesting topics being discussed on this site and Im following and most r risky at best to peoples wallets just because these so called "RL" ventures people r seeking as they try and raise capital thru suckers in sl ..

who is the watch dog once the funds r out in the pockets of these people. come on we wer'nt born yesterday. Or were we......

The credit beaurue the 3D company the real estate venture the the the ect.....is all fine and dandy but people can do it on their own in RL..but if they cant they screw people in places like SL.

Raise your own start up money if its for outside of SL. You can promote your "RL" company very easily by setting up sites for free and I just get blown away with these cost floating around. with the talnet they say they have they should be able to do it o n thier own.

MNM's intentions were not directly for SL and they knew that from the get go..im sure they did but theres a sucker born every day. Sorry to those who have lost.

Ive been watching the markets here for 18 months now I think Ive learned a bit.

I may get a bit huffy and my spelling can be a bit to be desired at times but I can tell you human nature is survival. And unfortunately some think sl is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I see it all the time.

This is a great lesson and we will look back at this and shake our heads and not all bad. There r legite things happening here and great ideas floating around but with out a face and a trace you have no chance to back up your case if you loose.

some may be embarased to disclose to family that they put thier paychecks in a sure bet on sl tisk tisk or put some savings in it from the BS they read....ignorance is not bliss and there r so many out here who could give a dam and some taking it all in ..some umm buying homes or cars and trips..anyone want to say who they r ? didn't think so.

Who benifits from your gains? You do and not the investors you suckered into giving a little bit here and a little bit there from listening to all your ideas about how you have this great idea. Well sorry that man behind the curtain isn't the warm and fuzzy guy from the Wizard of OZ more like a crew of cons working together to fleece a bunch of game players out of a few bucks that add up to quit a bit of do re me Cash ola..$$$

It will catch up to them sooner than later im sure and their little av friends wont be there to bail them out. It always comes back to bite you in the end...crime does'nt pay in the long run.

Sophia

in topic Thoughts on recent MNM buy back plan. by Sophia Yates ]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:06:20 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099/15032 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2100

requently Asked Questions

How can you afford to pay such high interest?

The interest rate we pay is determined based on the returns of our investments, and the rate of deposits isn't how the interest rate is financed.

The radical growth in SL makes the interest rate possible.
We have the interest rate set based on the success of our investments, and constantly monitor our accounting to determine what we can afford to pay.
Eventually growth will saturate and we'll have to lower the interest rate to match market conditions.

People are buying SL property and products at a fantastic rate, and the growth is simply amazing. This growth is what makes our high, daily compounded interest rate possible. We recognize that radical growth can't last forever, but we are doing the prudent thing: facilitating and riding that growth while monitoring our business carefully.

Edit: sorry about the topic subject. Was laughing so hard hit save when i meant to delete and retype title.

in topic Any chance that you will be updating information available ont he by SynCere Talon ]]> Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:49:22 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2100/15021 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099
Today, 21:42
Bogart Beck Re: MNM Virtual Share Buyback Plan
Edited by author Today, 21:54
Legolas/Zaldar,

I think people may actually be mis-reading what MNM's intentions are here. At the very least the announcement is a confusing message at best. I THINK (hope) what they are TRYING to say is that they will buy back 10% of the outstanding shares each month AS WELL AS a plan to RETIRE ADDITIONAL INSIDER SHARES

I have a message in to Cadence and Jaisson seeking clarification - let's all keep our pants on until we understand EXACTLY what has been proposed.

In any event SL CapEx will NOT be facilitating a discounted buy back (which would require manual intervention on the part of CapEx for each transaction). As was stated earlier this year ALL transactions and Private Sales MUST be filled IN THE MARKET (either at Market or Limit Pricing)... we no longer do manual share transfers.

Stay tuned.

Bo



in topic Thoughts on recent MNM buy back plan. by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:55:37 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099/15005 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099
How do you see this effecting the SLW buy back?

I assume you would apply the rule across the board?

Regards

CB



in topic Thoughts on recent MNM buy back plan. by Cayman Beaumont ]]> Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:37:46 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099/15002 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099 Stay tuned Zal.

Bo

in topic Thoughts on recent MNM buy back plan. by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:59:28 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099/14998 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099
The MNM "Buy Back" is a joke. (And a horrible one at that)

I am going to suggest that there be a new rule set in place for announced buy-back plans.

My idea for the rule would be something around this idea.

A buy-back plan must be Either
A) Purchased at market price only
And/Or
B) Purchased at a discount to equal the original IPO price minus dividend payments up to 50% below IPO price.

Also they can't force people to buy-back at that price. So if people don't agree they don't have to give up their shares.

So basically.
If the company is trading at 25% the IPO price the company can buy-back using only the market buy function.

If the company is priced at 2L/share and it IPO'd at 1L/Share for 1000000 shares. They paid no dividends, they can only offer to buy back at 1L/share. if they paid 100,000L in dividends they can buy back at .90L/share. But if they pay anymore than 50% of the IPO amount back in dividends they can still offer no less than .5L/share.

So the first example is if the company share prices are lower than IPO and the second example is if the prices are higher than IPO.

I know this doesn't sound fair to companies, but I'd rather see the investors safer because that is how our companies got here, and if you CEOs forget that fact then you are no better than all those scammers out there.

Ok Well that made sense in my head, but if you have any questions just post it here and I will clear it up as best I can. Also just post your thoughts on the subject.

in topic Thoughts on recent MNM buy back plan. by Zaldar Rhode ]]> Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:02:41 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2099/14996 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2054
I am very thankful to be given the opportunity to work with Cayman and to hopefully progress Verballis.
Before now I have been an observer of the capex exchange and now that I have the chance be a part of Verballis and its reporting of the monthly financials I would like to ask for some suggestions.

Below are some possibilities at how they should be shown in comany financials:

Treasury shares valued at 0.01 per share.
Treasury shares valued at the price set at IPO.

Financials that are reported each Month are an opportunity for the stakeholders to see how the company is running in terms of its assets and liabilities. With this I believe that the reports should show a true and fair value of the company.
However, there are some areas which create ambiguity and an element of decision making is required in terms of providing a realistic document which presents the company in the best way possible.

I very much look forward to any feedback on this topic.

With kind regards to all,

firstdesigns Milos.

Verballis Translation Services COO


in topic Is there a consensus for valuing treasury shares? by firstdesigns Milos ]]> Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:48:21 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2054/14624 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2006
in topic Personal Portfolio Graphs by Oldwan McDonnell ]]> Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:33:53 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2006/14265 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2001
in topic Stock Matrix by Eliale Morigi ]]> Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:43:35 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/2001/14204 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/25
in topic Good 'Till Cancelled (GTC) orders by Guardian Market ]]> Tue, 27 May 2008 15:58:00 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/25/13664 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/23 I know a friend who got banned for 5 days. That guy is hobbing on lucky chairs and got reported for abuse for other same letter people who compete with him to same letter chairs! And afte he contacted the support section, they claimed the account got disabled for lack/flase of rea life info! The guy's account is a free one, and no personal infos were required to be provided to open a free basic account... But they didn't want to say the true reason.. And when you get banned for once, your chance to get another ban in the future is bigger than anyone else who didn't get.

in topic have a way to transfer cash to a different person by AdReX Enzo ]]> Tue, 20 May 2008 07:32:47 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/23/13394 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1907
Given that SL is a global network and given that companies would like to have BOD meetings every now and then (hopefully more "now" than "then") and given the limitations of IM group chat (or any SL chat for that matter) and given the hassle of e-mail threads. Also given (a lot of givens here) that many times companies would like to discuss things privately without the whole world being in on the discussion, would it be possible to set up private forums that a company could subscribe to and hand out the password to the BOD or other interested/critical parties only, so that critical topics could be posted on the private forums for the company and discussed among the folks who have to make the tough decisions for the company?

This would alleviate the problem of trying to cope with different time zones, schedules, etc. and allow the BOD of a company to conduct business in a more sane manner, come up with resolutions and then offer finished "product" resolutions to the shareholders or just offer agreed upon statements to the general public in the regular company forums.

Companies, like people, have problems at some time or the other. In RL these problems are normally ironed out in the boardroom, not publically. Private forums could be the "boardroom" for SL companies and allow for a truly global board of directors. That way we may have less "dirty laundry" being aired in the public forums.

Just a thought.





in topic Private Forums by Arnaud Villota ]]> Mon, 19 May 2008 16:42:25 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1907/13385 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1904
Great suggestion Ivan! Good luck Bo and Cash on your efforts.


in topic Bi weekly or Monthly get togethers by Arnaud Villota ]]> Mon, 19 May 2008 16:30:41 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1904/13384 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1904 Heya Ivan,

In the "good old days" many of the CEO's and investors used to just hang out at the CapEx Bldg shooting the breeze and sharing ideas, etc.

Much of that commeraderie was lost when Xavier left late last year. As you know Scott and I are trying to build a whole Estate where our hope is that we can start rebuilding that community feeling... time will tell.

Bo

in topic Bi weekly or Monthly get togethers by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 19 May 2008 12:16:43 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1904/13373 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1904
I have often heard Bogart speak of the community aspect of SLCAPEX and the broader financial community as a whole. I think a good way to promote a little bit more community spirit may be to have monthly gathering at the SLCAPEX building. I have been ther a few times over the past month and never find more then 1-2 people there at most.

It would be a nice idea just top have maybe a day during the month where a few CEO's from the companies and Bo/Arbritage/Cash could drop on now and then and just chat with some investors and have a little small talk. It doesnt have to be something set in stone but maybe more of an informal gatering once a month or so?

Just an idea - I have only met a few of the folks here in world - and wouldnt mind having the chance to meet a few more. Has this ever been tried with SLCAPEX before? Any thoughts?

Cheers

Ivan

in topic Bi weekly or Monthly get togethers by Ivan Halfpint ]]> Mon, 19 May 2008 11:54:02 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1904/13369 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1882 If this was intended then I say good work towards the programmers.

in topic SL Capex is too clever by SciFi Voom ]]> Tue, 13 May 2008 11:19:06 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1882/12993 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1827
in topic paypal directly to/from SLCapEx by Jaxon Beaumont ]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:12:43 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1827/12511 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1827 Jax,

We used to support that however with the new LL Banking policy decided to discontinue that aspect of our Service.

Arbitrage may consider implementing it in the future as SLW gets on a firm footing, however it will not be supported by SL CapEx directly.

in topic paypal directly to/from SLCapEx by Bogart Beck ]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:52:15 -0600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1827/12500