http://slcapex.com/forums/browse/suggest en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:56:00 -0800 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:56:00 -0800 http://slcapex.com/forums/ Kudang SQL2RSS admin@slcapex.com webmaster@slcapex.com 60 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 -0800 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 -0800 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 -0800 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 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 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1827/12500 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1827
in topic paypal directly to/from SLCapEx by Jaxon Beaumont ]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:07:59 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1827/12498 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1807
in topic Sort Company List in Various Ways by Jensen Spinnaker ]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:22:44 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1807/12225 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1510
in topic Order book by Jensen Spinnaker ]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:20:08 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1510/12224 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1806 Hello,
Could we have on the home page, a button under the table daily volumes share, or by clicking on it, appear a table summary of the volumes of each company on a month?
Thank you for Listening

in topic volume shares by kikokenpyr Beaumont ]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:47:38 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1806/12202 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1510 Personally I wish the extension of the order book purchasing and sales by 10 to 20 while keeping the same price orders.
What do you think?

in topic Order book by kikokenpyr Beaumont ]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:37:21 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1510/12201 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1590
in topic request from long ago by Jensen Spinnaker ]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:45:08 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1590/12190 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1804
in topic Email/IM notifications by Jensen Spinnaker ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:21:00 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1804/12137 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
I know that you and Cash are frustrated. I would be as well if I was in your position. Thank God that I am not and I don't want to be, ever.

In my opinion, to return the forums to their humble beginnings, I think we need respect on all sides. This respect needs to be laid at it's foundation, and that, I regret to say, is at your front door. I say "regret to say: because I don't think that you can handle it, I say it because in order to get things back on track, you guys have to ignore the cheap shots and be respectful in your responses. In other words you have to lead by example. If you respond respectfully to a person and that person responds in a disrespectful way, then ignore it. If they continue then ban them. Simple as that. I think if everyone understands this, then we will abide by it. I don't think anyone here wants to purposely "dis" someone. If they do, they deserve to be kicked out. I think everyone would understand that as long as it is not perceived as being subjective.

Respect will follow respect. I think a lot of folks here have asked legitamate, innocent questions and have been bombarded with BS, not from you or Cash necessarily but by other folks on the forums. When the original person who asked the question raises the "ante" as it were then you or Cash tend to respond in a not so respectful way. Then it just goes to hell after that. It cannot be salvaged.

So I am just suggesting or asking that no matter how you respond, please respond to the "THE PERSON" and not to "THE SUBJECT". It would help if you repeat back what the person has asked and respond to that directly. That way others will not be confused as to what you are responding too.

Just some thoughts.

EDITED: The link I referred to earlier http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/general/1801?page=2

in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Arnaud Villota ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:54:06 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12136 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
If anybody is interrested in listening to my crazy ideas about virtual markets and whatnot i'll still be posting at ise forums, or if you just wanna send me an IM send it to fine@live.no

Take care all.

in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Gen Ferraris ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:52:30 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12124 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788 Sean,

I'm all FOR constructive dialogue AND shining light on dark topics - that is just one of the reasons we have generally had a NO CENSURE philosophy on SL CapEx for as long as Arb and I have been here. However, MANY of the comments since the SL banking ban have gone FAR BEYOND providing CAUTION or helping people make INFORMED DECISIONS, and have even gone beyond simple sarcasm (which actually both Arb and myself OFTEN find quite humorous) to a very bitter and devisive tone including accusations of criminal intent.

Those types of comments are NOT CONSTRUCTIVE, are NOT TRUE and DO NOT PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION FOR ANYONE but rather simply induce additional FEAR and UNCERTAINTY in an ALREADY FRAGILE Marketplace.

As should be VERY EVIDENT, we ARE doing what we CAN to IMPROVE SL CapEx - what we're asking is that YOU DO YOUR PART TOO. Our increased diligence needs to be BALANCED with increased cooperation on the part of Investors and CEO's here - until THAT happens we're all just tossin' good Lindens after bad. I hope that helps you understand our position - I'm sorry it's come to this, but it has.

in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:27:56 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12111 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788 If some of my posts,which you think always are negative, can prevent some newbies( or anyone else) from making a bad investment in a company and prevent them from loosing money it would make my day.
My purpose with posts are always to make ppl think and reflect on whats going on. And also to take a point at something that ppl should spend some thoughts. Questions and questioning is also a contribution to improvements.
There is a proverb ( dunno if its the right word):
If everybody think the same , nothing will be thought.

Yes, the posts make ppl to avoid investing. But we have some responsibility against investors. We can focus this exchange and forum constructive and positive. Avoid facing what needs to be improved. We can avoid talking about hidden bills or balancesheets valued skyhigh.
And the disappointed newbie who lost the money he bought with his creditcard ón bad investments, will talk with his friends and advice them to not invest on SLCAPEX.
We can also have constructive discussions, nice talks, about improvements (it doesnt have to cost more than effort), what should be changed for more transparancy for example. But we shouldn avoid to bring up issues wich have to be solved.

Personally i prefer to ask questions about things which should be brought up on the table. A str5aight answer could be enough. Or a good discussion whether something should be changed or not. All of us understand and accept good arguments.
For the record,there is 24 companies on SLCAPEX. There is 2 companies i have been spoken negative about.
Over and out

Sean

in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Sean4you Shepherd ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:07:06 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12103 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788 Hey guys (and gal),

I don't WANT anyone to STOP POSTING. What we NEED is people to be posting in a manner that is constructive and positive and HELPS move the market and the Exchange in the right direction - all of us at SL CapEx are all about that (as evidenced by the time we spend here).

It gets VERY discouraging when all we see are negativism and conspiracy theories and general discontent. Honestly, if you aren't happy playing here and can't seem to make headway in getting the things changed that you'd like to see changed (we have very limited funds to modify the software and very limited resources otherwise <time> to do MANY of the things We'd ALL like to see improve here. ALL of those things take both time & money and a quiet resolve by those of us that do WANT to trade here to persevere until those things that can change do change.

HOWEVER, I ask this question, if you were a NOOB here and all you ever read was negative bashing, infighting, claims of fraud or abuse, et al, would you invest one red cent here? I wouldn't.

So, AS A COMMUNITY, either we ALL AGREE to make lemonade of the admitted lemons we have here in SL (it is NOT A PERFECT WORLD and mirrors RL in SO MANY WAYS) and AGREE to SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER or we simply WON'T EXIST...

I'm the FIRST to admit that I often get VERY IRRITATED with FOLKS here on occassion and have a tendency to wear my heart on my sleeve - I call a spade a spade and my choice of words would NOT likely pass the muster of a PR watchdog - honestly, that's NOT my purpose here, nor is it really Arb or Cash's. Unlike some other's we're NOT all about issuing positive Spin at every turn and hiring pretty maidens to tout all the wonderful things we're doing for you. In REALITY we're a very small virtual game trying to SURVIVE in a very difficult environment - as players you either HELP us with that or HURT us - BUT something WILL CHANGE - THAT is the ONLY CONSTANT in SL - I think we've ALL learned that over the last year.

Bo out.

in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:32:50 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12096 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
Wow I just discovered this thread now – I didn’t realize I was being banned. In any case I will stop posting if that’s what is wanted but before I do that I just want to make a couple points.

There are only 2 major things I have objected strongly to here on SLCAPEX – one being the way JTF was handled and two the way MNM was valued and managed. Yes I have been vocal about both things and yes I have probably been a pain in your guys butts but you hit on a good point this is just a game. Yes I do come across with some wild posts talking about ‘the old boys club’ etc etc – quite frankly I thought it added a little bit of color and a bit of humor to an otherwise dry forum. Have talked to several different people in world who have enjoyed my posts and I feel I actually do make some good points now and then. More importantly they understand many of my posts are made ‘toung and cheek’ and not intended to be taken dead seriously.

I feel Gen, Sean and myself add some balance to many issues around here – in a free society ideas are what makes the world go around. To you our posts seem negative but to a lot of others though they make sense – no we are not all going to always agree and sometimes things get a little heated but in the end you are right………. Its your game, your rules.

You and Arbitrage own this place and in the end the final decision is yours – if for some reason I am making your guys life miserable well then it would be just as well to get rid of me I suppose.

If it means anything though I do apologize to you (Or any of the other OBC Sully, Nestler, Cash) that have taken my posts personally. For the record I don’t think you guys really sit around eating t-bone steaks and drinking wine with SLCAPEX profits and I doubt anyone else does. From what I understand you’re a successful banker and probably make more in a week from your RL job then you would be able to earn in a lifetime of SL.

In fact in SL I’m actually working with Sully to help a friend get a little land company going, and was going to buy a few shares of Nestlers IPO to give him a bit of support. Also for the record I DONT think you guys are a bunch of A#$%es – although I have to say you and Cash can be petty grumpy :P

The one person I do really question is your boss ARB and that is just because I have never received a straight answer to what happened to the JTF deposits. All that would take is an e-mail from him listing where the deposits went and that would be cleared up. The only reason I even care about that is the sheer size of the deposits………

In any case Gen is right its sad to see it has come to this. I do have have one small request to make though – please wait atleast until I get home from work before you delete my account so I cant withdraw my few Lindens. I’m a poor wrestling promoter I need them :P hehe

Regards,

Ivan


in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Ivan Halfpint ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:54:51 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12088 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788 In what way didnt this tread meant to improve the policy ?
A plain propose to review the policy. I even asked th BoD to consider if it was necessary to make some rephrasing of the policy.

And what were your comments ? Did you ever consider if there was anything substantial behind ?

If you respond in a more "customized" attitude and assume there is some good thoughts behind my questions or proposals you certainly will contribute to a more friendly environment. I for sure have never before used , such words to describe you personally as you have in your replies to me and about me.
If i am wrong , show me.

You shouldnt assume everone are after you or your friends. If you do, you will automaticly take a stand in defence and your reply will perhaps be slightly different than you intend to.
You should assume that everone want a slcapex to be the best and when someone have opinions they should considered valuable. And ppl should be treaten equally. If not there will always be criticism whether i, Ivan or Gen have an account on SLCAPEX or not.

ps Constructive ? What about this Bogart
http://www.slwallet.com/forums/topic/general/1566?direction=ASC
Didnt that contribute to anything ? And now there is several companies forced to use accounting firm...
There is different ways to reach a target.





in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Sean4you Shepherd ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:12:06 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12084 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
All i have to say is, i've never ever claimed that you cash and arb are taking enorumous profits out of this, gee it's like 500k (i used to make 1,5m myself when there was a market for scripters in sl, so you can't be swimming in cash when it's just 500k/3), i'm just concerned that you may have to liquidate. But when i say something you don't seem to care so i raise my tone to make it more crystal.

I guess i'll just let the market forces work this out. You don't need any feedback, that's fine.
That's all Bogart, and slcapex, you'll never ever hear from me again, now i'll just find a way to effectively sell off the stocks i hold with my accounts. It was a fun ride, sadly it had to end this way.

I wish you best of luck.


in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Gen Ferraris ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:00:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12080 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
That goes BOTH WAYS. I for one am quite sick and tired of reading day in and day out nothing but negative comments about what the Exchange is or isn't doing to make this GAME better for all who play. Constructive criticism MUST be JUST THAT - CONSTRUCTIVE.

MOST of what I've read are nothing more than two-bit pot shots at either myself, Cash or Abitrage who each BTW spend countless hours each week trying to make this site a more valuable learning tool for all only to have the efforts criticized, condemned or ridiculed by a few A**HOLES who do NOTHING THEMSELVES to improve the experience but rather invest in HUNDREDS of posts bashing others - FRANKLY, THAT's NOT WELCOME HERE.

The FEW Lindens Arb, Cash and I EARN each month here are NOT worth the effort honestly. It's to the point where Arb and I have even discussed just shutting down SL CpaEx if this BS continues.

Just so you know, I have personally NEVER withdrawn a dime from this game - not one red cent, so the conspiracy theorists that want to continue to claim that the OBC is profiting from this adventure had better check their facts.

As to your claim Gen, that suspending your priviledges is not within our right I'd suggest you either read and understand our TOS or find some counsel who can explain it to you in language that you will understand.

So, once again, you have been WARNED, EITHER CONTRIBUTE TO THIS EXPERIENCE IN A POSTIVE AND ENCOURAGING MANNER OR YOUR PRIVILEDGE FOR PLAYING HERE WILL BE REMOVED - PERMANENTLY IF NECESSARY. That's the way it is - OUR GAME, OUR RULES.

Bo



in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:50:57 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12079 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788 I suggest you start a thread to discuss what the forums are for. And for this thread it was an propose of improvement of the SLCAPEX policy. Nothing else.
I dont know why you got so annoyed with that.

If you dont want ppl to propose improvements, let us know.
I also want to know on what objektive reason you will suspend our account ?

Treat ppl like you want to be treated, could be usefuls sometimes.

And all my orders on my account were cancelled before this post. For now i cant buy or sell anything.
THAT, my friends , are good leadership.

in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Sean4you Shepherd ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 05:36:36 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12041 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
Yer so full of **IT it now spews out of your mouth at every breath - get a life!

Keep this crap up and I will PERSONALLY suspend your account - participation here is a PRIVILEDGE NOT A RIGHT and I'm DAMN NEAR FED UP WITH YER BS!

Yer NEXT Sean and Ivan too... BE FOREWARNED - our sense of humor and tolerance of free speech only goes so far...

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.



in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:35:21 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12033 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
Any comments about SLCAPEX policy ?

in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Sean4you Shepherd ]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:32:55 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12026 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
Can I then honestly sue someone over lost L$ then?
Because if that were the case then SLCapEx should be shut down no?

Honest questions by the way.



in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Legolas Delgado ]]> Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:36:06 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12019 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
nothing more than a card game held at home for matches which represent RW value. I can go to jail for that in Australia. Im sure its the same in the states."

Gumby, I can play any other MMO, Example: World Of Warcraft. Gather up a bunch of gold and then sell the gold to someone for a real world profit. The currecny is still fictitious.

When you deposit your money into this game, all it does is give you the opertunity to take part in the game. If you read the ToS you do not actualy own the L$, you are just able to play with them by LL's will.

The same holds true for WoW, if I played that game I would have to pay $15 a month to have access to my characters so that I could play the game and make gold. The only diffrence here is instead of paying for access, you just buy the fake currency out right. So that you can play the game.

All currencies not issued by a real country, are fake.

But then you can get into what a currency really represents... and that is more of a philosophy topic




in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Legolas Delgado ]]> Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:23:34 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/12004 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
I would like to know where I can purchase my fictitiuos matchsticks so I can continue to play this educational experience of a lifetime.

Apparently I have to use RW money to play , which means its not a fitisitous currency or transaction. gratus the RW money value is watered down by transfering through a 3rd party ( the matchstick sellers) but I can still exchange those matchsticks for RW USD so they do have a value.

nothing more than a card game held at home for matches which represent RW value. I can go to jail for that in Australia. Im sure its the same in the states.


in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Gumby Roffo ]]> Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:47:01 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/11989 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788 TO BIG EGO MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO READ, LISTEN AND UNDERSTAND OTHERS IF THEY DONT BELONG TO OBC OR SOMEONELSE YOU LIKE OR RESPECT. AN OLD GRUMPY MAN LIKE ME IS NOTHING TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

I BELIEVE ITS TIME FOR YOU TO BE HUMBLE AND LISTEN LESS TO YOUR OWN FANCY WORDS AND MORE TO OTHERS. EVEN IF IT MAKES YOU FEEL SICK.


in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Sean4you Shepherd ]]> Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:34:21 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/11977 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788 LOVE the CAPS Sophia... ;-)

Actually, as was known by many, I was out of town this past week on RL business, however, as a general rule I answer a question ONE TIME. On rare occassions if I notice an instance where someone has innocently asked a repeat question I MAY repost or rephrase a previous post, however, often what I find is people here continually spreading misinformation, disinformation, half-truths and OUTRIGHT LIES in an effort to push their own agenda (whether that is to create fear and uncertainty or to trick people into buying or selling at the wrong price). In those cases both Arbitrage and I have chosen to just IGNORE those posts.

So, going forward, if you see a post by someone that is just rephrased and reposted over and over (often making some claim about Arbitrage stealing from them or the OBC - Old Boys Club - pushing their own agendas - and you see NO REPLY from either myself or Arbitrage (or occassionally Chango or Cash) then you can probably bet that the story being told is either TOTAL BULL or has been answered in an appropriate forum elsewhere and doesn't justify additional comment from SL CapEx. We are indeed doing everything that we can to create a fair and balanced game in spite of what some may want you to think.

If, you have a very urgent or confidential question that has not been answered appropriately in the forums, you can either open a Support Ticket on the Website (we try to clear those individually within a day or so) or you can send an email to any/or all of us directly

CapEx CEO (Strategy and Finance) - bogart.beck@gmail.com,
Chairman of the Board - arbitrage.wise@gmail.com,
Investor Relations & Compliance - cash.yiyuan@gmail.com
Technology - kudige@gmail.com

We'll get back to you as quickly as we can.

Best wishes,

Bogart Beck


in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:40:17 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/11972 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
I HOPE ITS NOT BAD NEWS BUT..I WILL WAIT. I WONT BE SURPRISED.

PROTECT YOURSELF AND THE GAME WILL GO ON....HEARING YOUR VOICE WHICH I HAVE ...YOU SOUND LIKE A REASONABLE MAN AND MATURE BUT THEN AGAIN CONS COME IN MANY FORMS AND AGES. NOT DIRECTING THIS TO YOU. BUT MY OBSERVATIONS ARE WHAT THEY R AND I MAY HAVE NOT EXPRESSED THEM ALL HERE ON THE FORUM.

ITS BEEN VERY CLEAR TO ME AS TO PLAY IT SAFE IN ANY VIRTUAL GAME HERE NOT TO INVEST TO DEEP BECAUSE THIER R PLAYERS WHO R JUST LOOKING TO DIP INTO THE DEEP POT AND FLEE.

IT ISNT A NEW GAME ..IVE SEEN IT MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER IM NOT SO DISGUSTED ANYMORE BECAUSE IT IS SO PREDICTABLE. BUT THEN AGAIN..ITS AN EDUCATION IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND WELL I GUESS SOME BECOME SO DESPARATE THEY FEEL IT IS A SURVIVAL THING THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE FROM ANOTHER AT ANY COST.

WHAT PEOPLE FORGET IS NO ONE IS UNDER THE RADAR. SOME MAY THINK THAT AND THAT WHATEVER THEY DO HERE THAT MAY CAUSE HARM TO OTHERS FINACIALLY, EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE SAY WELL IF THEY INVESTED THEY ARE UNEDUCATED, MISINFORMED OR JUST PLAIN IGNORANT ITS THIER OWN STUPIDITY TO BE VITIMS, BUT IT DOESNT EXCUSE OR EXCEMPT THE ACTIONS OF THE PLAYERS WHO HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE IGNORANT PLAYERS SO IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE RESPONSIBLITY OR LEGAL ACTION UPON THE PLAYER WHO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THOSE WHO WERE IGNORANT TO THIER VUNURABILITY OF SUCH GREAT OR SMALL LOSSES.

TO GET TO THE POINT. ANYONE WHO WILLINGLY CONJURS UP A SCHEME TO EXTORT MONEY FROM AN INTERNET SITE EITHER IT BE A GAME OR AUCTION HOUSE MAY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THEY RISK THE LIKLEYHOOD OF LOOSING THIER CREDIT THEIR HOME THIER OWN FINANCES AND CREDIBILITY AND POSSIBLY THIER FAMILY TRUST.

UNLESS THEIR FAMILY HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE WRONG DOING WHICH PLACES THEM IN JEPORDY THEMSELVES. NICE PEOPLE WHO PLACE FAMILY IN THOSE POSITIONS. BUT THEN ALSO IF FOUND GUILTY OF INTERNET FRAUD THEY FACE PRISON TIME. THIS IS NOT TAKEN TO LIGHTLY ANYMORE. IM SURE YOUR A MATURE BUSINESS MAN AND UNDERSTAND THAT THESE LAW CROSS THE BOARD IN MOST COUNTRIES. HOW EVER THEY MAY BE WRITTEN.

CURRENCY LAWS ARE STRICT AND NO ONE IS UNTRACABLE. SO ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY R BEHIND THIS SILK CURTAIN THEY THINK IS AN IRON CURTAIN BETTER PAY ATTENTION. WHAT EVER COUNTRY YOUR FROM. THEFT IS THEFT. IT COULD FALL UNDER MANY CATAGORIES AND A SHARP ATTORNEY WILL FIGURE IT OUT AND THATS WHATS COMING. THIS IS SO COMMON ON THE INTERNET THE LAW OR AUTHORITIES R LOOKING FOR IT JUST TO CREATE NEW LAWS AND ALSO TO FURTHER THIER OWN CARREERS WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE BUT A REALITY.. PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW THIS DONT COME IN FOR A WEEK OR A MONTH..THEY COME IN FOR YEARS AND FOLLOW YOU ..SO THOSE OF YOU..YOU SILLY LITTLE YOUNG SHITS OR DESPARITE OLD FARTS WHO THINK THEY WILL GET AWAY WITH OHH ITS A GAME AND A LITTLE LOSS TO SO MANY BUT REMEMBER ITS A BIG GAIN FOR THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY SO THEY THINK.

YOU HAVENT GOTTON AWAY. THEY KNOW WHO U R AND YOUR TAGGED AND ITS A MATTER OF TIME. WAS IT WORTH IT? WHO KNOWS. YOUR THE ONE WHO WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. AGAIN BO I DONT KNOW IF YOUR INVOLVED IN ANY OF THIS. I WILL SAY BO EXCUSE ME I'LL REFRASE THAT ..IF YUOU HAD KNOWLEGDE OR WERE THAT NIAVE. I HAVE NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE I GUESS OF WRONG DOING HERE BUT IVE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH. IM TIRED OF IT.

ITS TO BAD THAT SOME OPERATIONS HAVE HAD TO END LIKE THEY HAVE. THIS DOESNT MEAN THAT THIS KIND OF OPERATION HAS TO BE OBSOLETE EITHER. MOST FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IF NOT ALL OPERATE ON THE INTERNET ..BUT THIS IS STILL A VIRGIN TERRITORY AND THERE R NO SERIOUS REGULALATORIES...SO I WOULD SAY BECAUSE OF THAT ALONE IT FALLS UNDER PREDATORY TERRITOORY AND NOT UNDER YOUR TYPICAL SECURITIES REGULATIONS. BASICALLY INTERNET FRAUD. SO BEWARE AND WHO EVER THINKS THEY R GOING TO GO OUT THERE AND CREATE A BUSSINES OFF OF ll'S BE VERY CAUSIOUS IN YOUR STEPS AND COVER YOUR ASSETS. MAY SOUND GREAT ON A FORUM / BLOG BUT IN ALL REALITY IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN YOU THINK. JUST LIKE MNM HAS TRIED...SO WE THINK. I HAVENT ANY IDEA WHAT THEY REALLY HAVE BEEN UP TO WITH THE FUNDS THEY SERCURED THRU SL AND TRANSFERED INTO RL FOR THIER BUSINESS VENTURE IN RL..IF I WERE IN THEIR POSITION I WOULD HAVE PAID CLOSE ATTNETION AFTER THEY CASHED OUT ANY FUNDS..I WOULD HAVE HAD A REPRESENTATIVE BEING A REF ON A DAILY BASIS TO PROTECT THIER INTERST. BUT THEY DIDNT. THEY WERE ELUSIVE AND SECRETIVE. I DONT GO FOR THAT. COMING FROM A FAMILY WHO HAS HAD MANY VERY SUCESSFULL BUSINESS VENTURES..AND IN LAW AND HONEST THIS TYPE OF BULL DOESNT CUT IT. THEY ONLY LAST SO LONG AND THEY ARE R OUT. THEY MAY GET AWAY WITH A PITENCE BUT IN THE LONG RUN...THIER FAILURES


SOPHIA

in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Sophia Yates ]]> Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:13:12 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/11971 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
The phrasing of the SL CapEx position is very specific for several very specific reasons related to both banking and securities regulation in the United States. It is indeed an accurate portrayal of our intent as a service provider.

Lindens ($L) are a LIMITED USE LICENSE OFFERED BY A PRIVATE CONCERN AND ARE NOT A CURRENCY RECOGNIZED AS LEGAL TENDER FOR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE DEBTS.

As such, our trading platform which solely provides an entertainment and educational mechanism for exchange of individual UNITS OF MEASURE of such LIMITED USE LICENSE does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT OFFER ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR REAL WORLD PROFIT.

As is stated elsewhere in ou policy, persons who convert the Linden Unit of Measure ($L) to some other unit of measure via a currency Exchange, private barter or any other mechanism are SOLELY and INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE for ANY CONSEQUENCE THEREOF.

SO, let me be VERY specific yet AGAIN;

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!

ANY CONVERSION OF LINDENS (L$) INTO ANY OTHER UNIT OF MEASURE INCLUDING US DOLLARS IS SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING SUCH CONVERSION, AND, ANY CONSEQUENCE THEREOF IS SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES SO!

FURTHER, PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK! THE "COMPANIES” WITHIN THE GAME MAY BE FICTITIOUS. ANY "PROFITS", "EARNINGS", OR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR REPRESENTATION OF MONETARY VALUE MADE BY ANY INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THE GAME IS SOLELY THEIR OWN LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY.

FINALLY, YOUR USE OF THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE LOADED AT HTTP://WWW.SLCAPEX.COM IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER SHALL CONSTITUTE AN UNDERSTANDING AND ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY. THE INDIVIDUALS WHO OPERATE THE SOFTWARE MAKE NO WARRANTY, AND OFFER NO REMEDIES WHATSOEVER FOR ITS USE OR CONSEQUENCE.

YOUR USE THEREOF IS SOLELY YOUR OWN PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:01:48 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/11966 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788 Have you read what i wrote. I mean READ AND UNDERSTAND. CLEARLY YOU HAVE SOME PROBLEMS TO RECON WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

To REITERATE, "this is NOT criticism, its a suggestion for improvements".

THIS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MY REJEKTED IPO application, nor Netslers post,so please dont get off topic.
All of the readers on the forum is to smart to get fooled by such a foolish strategy.

You should consider to rephrase this part "does NOT offer ANY opportunity for REAL WORLD PROFITS or INVESTMENT " especially since SLCAPEX offer opportunity for real world profits and investments.

I suggest you use a phrase which make clear to all what is allowed for listed company in RW and what is not.
If real world profit is allowed THEN HAVE IT IN YOUR POLICY.
If trading in RW isnt allowed, THEN HAVE IT IN YOUR POLICY.

It says that a message must be repeated 3 times before some ppl understand and remember.

To REITERATE, "this is NOT criticism, its a suggestion for improvements".
THIS has nothing to do with my rejekted IPO application, nor Netslers post,so please dont get off topic.


in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Sean4you Shepherd ]]> Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:09:00 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/11963 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788 Sean,

The policy Statement of SL CapEx is explicit in its intent and says EXACTLY what it SHOULD SAY. I recognize you have previously submitted an IPO which specifically described trading of REAL LIFE REGISTERED SECURITIES that trade on RL Stock Exchanges - that type of activity would specifically be an unacceptable business practice on our Simulation.

To reiterate - 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 but rather uses a limited use license of a unit of measure ($L) that is NOT LEGAL TENDER in our view.

Nestlers post has zero to do with the policy of how SLCX is operated but rather discusses the operating principles of one of the companies trading here, to wit MNM. MNM does NOT trade in RL registered securities but rather is attempting to build a multimedia company that markets its services to both SL and other metaverses - THAT is perfectly acceptable in my view.



in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:59:54 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/11959 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788
For example should this part be discussed.
"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."

According to Nestlers post about meeting with MNM, they seems to give priority to establish a RL media company and also bring it to SL. That is against SLCAPEX policy.
There are of course other examples but this is the most recent.
http://www.slcapex.com/home/story/NIC/1618

This is NOT criticism, its a suggestion for improvements which wouldnt prevent MNM to relize their businessplan.

Hmm, maybe its SLCAPEX that doesnt comply with the policy since it offer opportunity for real world profits and investments.....


in topic Review of SLCAPEX policy by Sean4you Shepherd ]]> Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:53:26 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1788/11945 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1781
in topic STOP by Shag Lane ]]> Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:33:02 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1781/11837 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1510
in topic Order book by Revolvo Rotaru ]]> Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:02:47 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1510/10968 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/suggest/1712 Today, 02:45 system announcement
by Bogart Beck

SL CapEx clarifies certain Reporting Requirements effective 04/01/2008

As many of you are aware there has been an ongoing debate recently regarding SL CapEx's REQUIREMENTS for member company Reporting. After talking at length with Arbitrage this evening, and having conferred with numerous parties over the last several months we feel it appropriate and important to provide this clarifying message for benefit of all member company Executives and their public shareholders.

Foremost, as a cautionary advisory; we are once again entering our Monthly Reporting period wherein ALL MEMBER COMPANIES are REQUIRED to submit Financial Statements on or before the tenth day of the month following every month-end.

Such Financial Statements MUST INCLUDE BOTH an INCOME STATEMENT and a BALANCE SHEET in a pro forma format that materially conforms to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). We have previously provided a TEMPLATE that listed companies can adopt for purposes of complying with our policy, however, listed companies are NOT required to use such template and may adopt ANY pro forma format that conforms with two fundamental axioms of GAAP as follows;

INCOME STATEMENT
================
ALL Itemized Revenue - ALL Itemized Expenses + Adjustments = Retained Earnings

BALANCE SHEET
=============
ALL Assets = ALL Liabilities + Shareholders Equity (fully qualified).

Our EXPECTATION is that Member companies ITEMIZE such entries with sufficient detail that a REASONABLE PERSON with NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR COMPANY could make a REASONABLE ASSESSMENT regarding your business strategy, its earning capacity and it's capitalization plan. Each relatively simple to provide.

WARNING: Failure to comply will result in Sanctions and Fines up to and including delistment and suspension of trading priviledges for Executives as described here http://www.slcapex.com/content/listing

Why, you ask?...

Well, let's go back to our fundamental premise for even existing and the overall general purpose of the collective cooperative of persons here.

We are a Virtual Stock Market Simulation. Our SOLE PURPOSE is to provide an ENTERTAINING and EDUCATIONAL platform upon which individuals wanting to learn how to successfully trade stocks, and, individuals wanting to learn how to successfully run companies can cooperatively come together to form a symbiotic inter-dependant relationship. Clearly, NEITHER party can exist very well without the other. The Exchanges role in this symbiotic relationship is as a fiduciary intermediary - for a fee (our commission) we simply provide a fair market for willing buyers and wlling sellers.

To do that effectively and fairly for all parties, we all must live by some very basic RULES.

As a SELF REGULATING Exchange (barely!), and as part of our continuing effort to provide a fair market for both experienced traders, company insiders as well as potential retail investors, we ALL have an OBLIGATION to provide TRANSPARENCY - that is a CLEAR VIEW of the Financial condition of the companies listed here. YES, we periodically scrutinize the submissions of member companies, and will, on occassion, require that member companies MODIFY their reporting methodologies to better inform the investment community.

Thats our JOB!

We have admittedly been VERY LAX in the past, however, as we've promised for many months we are beginning to tighten down on some of those requirements. This is primarily due to the extreme abuse many of us have witnessed over the last year or so. If we collectively don't substantially improve the public perception of the SL Capital Markets we all can bet that at some point our freinds at Linden Lab or some governmental agency will simply just make it impossible for us to continue.

So, yes, we need to improve - ALL OF US!

The decorum in the Forums must improve - Yes Sando, ME TOO!, reporting must be better - Yes Arb, EVEN YOURS! ;-)... if we're to be a COMMUNITY let's start acting like neighbors - yes IVAN EVEN YOU ;-).

SO... recognizing that we're requiring more diligence and effort on the part of our member company executives, and recognizing that for many of us SL is simply a PART-TIME adventure there must be some give and take and compromise... so here's what we've come up with so that all can benefit in some manner.

(1) - EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY (04/01/2008) LISTED COMPANIES WILL NO LONGER BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT WEEKLY REPORTS IF THEY SO CHOSE. (Although we RECOMMEND that most of you should still provide some manner of communication with your constiuency on a weekly basis, FORMAL Weekly Exchange Reporting shall be OPTIONAL)

(2) - INSTEAD, we will require that member companies provide some manner of FORWARD GUIDANCE in the form of a written narrative to be submitted with their monthly reports that provides shareholders and potential investors with a view of your companies strategy and earnings projection for the coming month.

(3) EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY SL CAPEX will no longer facilitate private transfers of shares between parties. Such transfer can readily be handled on the public market with any unique settlement discounts or consideration handled privately between parties. We simply do not have the bandwith or resources to manually transfer shares on behalf of third parties.

We believe that these three reasonable compromises will provide both company, Exchange and investor with sufficient tools to inform and be better informed.

At the same time, CEOs need to be accountable TO BOTH THEIR INVESTORS AND THE EXCHANGE with respect to the QUALITY of materials (Financials, et al) they provide to the community.

Honestly, without the threat of sanction, penalties, and up to and including delstment our enforcement efforts would have no teeth. The harsh reality is that there are MANY companies here that have either ignored or refused to abide by the rules we've established. We therefor have no choice but to become extremely vigilant and somewhat rigid in our enforcement efforts. If, as a company, you are unwilling to play by such rules then, please, take your company private or move it elsewhere. It's not fair to the rest of us.




in topic SL CapEx clarifies