http://slcapex.com/forums/browse/ARCHIVE en-us Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:21:08 -0700 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:21:08 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/ Kudang SQL2RSS admin@slcapex.com webmaster@slcapex.com 60 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2863
in topic payment that does not go on the web by Scott Nestler ]]> Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:35:09 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2863/20930 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2863 I paid in ATM (JT Financial ATM 7.1.5 - CapEx), the owner was CapExATM Aquila
Monti Burt. Thanks

in topic payment that does not go on the web by Monti Burt ]]> Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:08:46 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2863/20928 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829 BTX - FINAL SHAREHOLDER LIST - 01/31/2010

Pursuant to a majority shareholder resolution passed 01/31/2010, BTX has been MERGED into a NEW Exchange Traded Fund (ETF). All BTX shares are being converted to ETF shares at full market value with the merger exchange rate being factored as follows;

BTX @ L$3.00 per share, ETF @ L$1.20 per shares. Therefor BTX shareholders will be awarded (2.5) ETF shares for each (1) share held at merger closing 01/31/2010.

The FINAL BTX shareholder list has been reproduced below;

BTX - Shareholder List - 01/31/2010 (FINAL)
============================================
NAME - Shares
=============
Bogart Beck 1350002
Scott Nestler 257745
Kubi Beam 199296
CapExATM Aquila 50002
Enpeba Pera 50000
Chango Kanto 31149
Stroh Bing 14648
Dillian Novi 5095
Sparhawke Law 5001
Io Habilis 3498
Siafoo Harsley 2500
Positron Sands 2251
DFH Westland 2084
Basquiat Heartsdale 1688
Anna Kazyanenko 1675
Radioactive Rosca 1552
AWRestonez Vella 1352
Xenia Easterman 1303
LowerSaxon Jaxxon 1250
Atreyu Frequency 1000
Coral Ducatillon 1000
Hillbh Kira 1000
Latham Levenque 884
Tommie Frangible 797
TomKuschelmuetze McMillan 795
Ann Fizir 750
MariaGloria Menges 705
Brian Austin 650
Carrington Stepford 603
DIMM Flow 575
KhrysT Neox 500
Maxmillian Auer 500
ferre Howlett 450
Snotval Ling 396
Rasim Aeon 392
Robroy Becloud 375
robwag Soothsayer 356
Dweezle Zeami 334
Mateo Infinity 300
Pandora Philipp 275
AMX Vita 251
Tony Upshaw 250
FalconZip Zerbino 243
Maxiboom Boram 207
Alesandro Loon 195
Edduard Keng 170
Steyn DeCuir 169
Poco Roffo 151
Gravel Homewood 150
Jessica Holyoke 150
Rexx4814 Beck 150
Rhas Raymaker 150
Smeagol Greene 148
Wishful Merlin 145
Wolfee Fhang 120
Sven Loening 115
Aila Bluebird 112
Sly Saunders 112
Ayli Blessed 109
Boniman Mannonen 100
Monty Klossovsky 100
GS Woller 87
Angie Wolfzahn 85
Josf Kerns 77
Alyssya Vella 75
Augustine Innis 75
Myron Cerveau 75
Queenie Acronym 75
Wyck Watkins 75
Hugoj Arai 59
jdehlic Jie 54
Filipe Tatham 53
EmilyC Carnell 50
Nadia Korobase 50
Rage Newman 50
Steffan Savira 50
ZephyrLynn Werefox 50
Imperial Core 48
Rocko Blister 48
Leah Vultee 45
Lumpy Aeon 44
Horatio Revnik 43
Braden Wolfenhaut 38
Lei Kish 38
real2real Aabye 38
Diaconu Clip 37
Tyler Yiyuan 37
kimberlyjane Holmer 35
niGeL Edman 35
Benny Mikoyan 33
eriko Flores 30
Alain Michigan 25
lobisones Congrejo 23
AlCapone Demonia 22
Majix560 Jinx 21
Awaken Yoshikawa 19
bogatoiu McCallen 17
Come Bikergrrl 16
leeand00 Lednev 15
ProfessorSL String 15
Rico Warilla 15
Tammy Howley 15
adolfo Winkler 13
Nibs Underwood 13
Rockstar Merryman 12
Grant Ferraris 11
Henrik Little 11
Investor Nitely 11
Sandra01 Broek 10
Ancient1 Aeon 8
Cat Swift 6
DannyCZE Siemens 6
dj Moulliez 5
Francois Afarensis 5
HansJuergen Rau 5
Kella Aya 5
Luiggi Ferraris 5
Syle Devin 5
Horacio Foden 4
Slanier Kangjon 4
Acerx Veloce 3
mir11111 McMillan 3
Negami Tsarchon 3
Odon Beningborough 3
PiggyMikey Silvansky 3
shii Jacobus 3
Tata Poliatevska 3
Breeanne Canetti 2
Caleja Offcourse 2
Escortina Pfeffer 2
JennaJameson Jonson 2
Nicolo Luminos 2
Orage Lubitsch 2
burton Baily 1
Cosflame Budan 1
Dawg Ashton 1
Digitall Kidd 1
Jetfyr Harbinger 1
Johnny Norwood 1
Keith Islander 1
Muscle Slade 1
Nyazcawi Perway 1
Tom Prospero 1
unbonbom Aabye 1


in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:03:45 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20801 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823 JTIC - FINAL SHAREHOLDER LIST - 01/31/2010

Pursuant to a resolution passed 01/31/2010, JTIC has been DELISTED effective 01/31/2010. JTIC Certificate holders (excepting Arbitrage Wise) will be granted (1) share of a NEW Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) for each (2) shares of JTIC held at time of delisting. ETF will commence trading at the completion of merger processing with an effective commencement date of 02/01/2010.

PLEASE NOTE: There are (10) JTIC shareholders with LESS THAN the (2) share minimum required to complete the 2:1 JTIC- ETF conversion. Those shareholders will be made whole via an overallotment allocation grant by SL CapEX and will each receive (1) share of ETF.

The FINAL JTIC shareholder list has been reproduced below;

JTIC - Shareholder List - 01/31/2010 (FINAL)
============================================
NAME - Shares
=============
Arbitrage Wise 25,412,721
Enpeba Pera 2,000,000
Tari Merlin 645,996
CapExATM Aquila 592,279
Scott Nestler 280,000
robwag Soothsayer 218,733
Investor Snook 200,614
ferre Howlett 107,571
Doofus Amat 99,000
TomKuschelmuetze McMillan 96,466
Carrington Stepford 58,926
Anre Heron 45,684
Andreas Mill 33,568
lobisones Congrejo 28,897
Mafalda Beresford 20,000
Tiergan Cortes 14,150
Rob Fetid 12,000
Vinchenze Monentes 10,255
Cleverson Stonewall 9,445
Nyko Merlin 9,195
Revolvo Rotaru 6,290
Leveler Carver 6,250
Snotval Ling 6,243
Iris Gopheller 6,000
Tiberius Brouwer 6,000
AnnSophie Maertens 5,000
Dawood Maktoum 4,892
Jacopo Perenti 4,677
Ricardo Karlsbar 4,273
Tony Upshaw 4,000
unbonbom Aabye 3,001
Grant Ferraris 3,000
Weaver Renegade 2,750
luvnbeast Xue 2,500
Kevin Ballinger 2,445
DIMM Flow 2,241
Hornet Streeter 2,026
Hina Tachikawa 2,000
Latham Levenque 2,000
xigbar Beck 2,000
Rory Gordonstone 1,712
Maisha Slade 1,500
shii Jacobus 1,463
Kiki Lowey 1,400
Elect Enoch 1,399
Xenia Easterman 1,266
LowerSaxon Jaxxon 1,250
BloodyRain Rang 1,158
Linus Baxter 1,070
Masahideo Yoshikawa 1,065
Analog Planer 1,000
Atreyu Frequency 1,000
Equino Faulkland 1,000
XaviBcn Voom 1,000
Josf Kerns 933
Skorpi Vendetta 930
Mikael Pinazzo 550
Io Habilis 500
Sandra01 Broek 500
Summer Mayfair 500
Wishful Merlin 500
Blackfyr McBride 495
Bixyl Shuftan 400
Henrik Little 341
Alyssya Vella 303
Dick Emmons 300
Brian Austin 293
Cyondrim Lupindo 207
Enoch Wozniak 200
Gravel Homewood 200
Jaime Brody 200
Shamus Shan 200
xXx Kristan 197
dojydoj Dominquez 164
Nzut Igaly 157
Fraz Undertone 110
Orage Lubitsch 103
amalia Putzo 100
Crissty Heartsdale 100
Cutie314 Dumpling 100
Magi McBride 100
Pandora Philipp 100
Horatio Revnik 80
Anna Kazyanenko 75
Kahai Kubo 75
Rolpe Rodenberger 70
Mandolin Macchi 57
DAD Bingyi 50
Hero Roelofs 50
Lazzara Greene 50
Boris Fensen 47
real2real Aabye 35
eriko Flores 30
Eben Slade 26
Econet Ecksol 20
mir11111 McMillan 20
Sarine Alderson 20
Cuneyt Merryman 18
V9 Iwish 18
Sammi Qinan 11
Jacqueline Quinnell 10
Radioactive Rosca 10
RIC Dae 10
wombat Seriman 10
Ancient1 Aeon 8
Karissa Furse 8
Poco Roffo 5
Sasha Blumenthal 5
Givara Balnarring 4
Dawg Ashton 3
Jeff35 Beck 3
kimberlyjane Holmer 3
Malcolm Sholokhov 3
Sportsbets Writer 2
Digitall Kidd 1
DjBunny Edman 1
Johnny Norwood 1
Kaiyo Izutsu 1
Nicolo Luminos 1
nikita201 Magic 1
Plasma Burns 1
Stroh Bing 1
Trazum Beck 1
Wes Rabeni 1


in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:21:56 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20799 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823 ETF Formation Shareholder Votes APPROVED - 01/31/2010

To whom it may concern;

On behalf of the BOD's of SL CAPX and BTX, I am pleased to announce that the joint BTX and CAPX resolution to form an ETF has PASSED by an overwhelming majority,

As such, pursuant to such resolution, JTIC will be delisted today 01/31/2010 with JTIC certificate holders to receive ETF shares as a goodwill gesture compliments of SL CapEX management. Additionally, BTX will be HALTED at 6PM SLT today 01/31/2010 to begin the merger processing as proposed.

We anticipate that the launch of ETF will commence sometime after 12 midnight SLT with its first full day of trading to be effective 02/01/2010.

Congratulations and THANK YOU to the supporters of this resolution - onward and upward freinds!

Bogart Beck

===============================================================================

Jan 24th, 13:08 system announcement
by Bogart Beck

ETF Formation Shareholder Vote Announcement - 01/24/2009
ETF Formation Shareholder Vote Announcement - 01/24/2009

To whom it may concern;

As previously announced, SL CapEx Mgmt. has placed JTIC into receivership, and has proposed formation of an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) comprised of the Assets of BTX and certain additional assets of SLCX. It is appropriate for the BOD's of SLCX and BTX to solicit a shareholder vote of approval for such transaction.

To encourage wide participation we have elected to facilitate voting via write-in ballot using the existing SL CapEx Forums. Voting will remain open from noon pacific (SLT) today, Sunday January 24, 2010 through noon pacific (SLT) next Sunday January 31, 2010, at which time all votes will be tabulated
(1 share = 1 vote) and a definitive decision rendered.

A vote of YES shall be tabulated as IN FAVOR of the SLCX proposal.
A vote of NO shall be tabulated as NOT in favor of the SLCX proposal.
Please note; shares abstaining from voting will not be tabulated.

Ballots for BTX shall be posted at http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/BTX/2829
Ballots for SLCX shall be posted @ http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/CAPX/2830

A simple post defining the number of shares you own followed by a YES or NO will be sufficient, eg; BTX 300 shares NO

SL CapEx mgmt will review the authenticity of each ballot cast at tabulation.

We will allow both BTX and SLCX to trade freely during the ballotting period. The HALT for each will be lifted momentarily. JTIC shall remain halted.

Best wishes,

Bo




===============================================================================
SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010

BTX, CAPX and JTIC have been halted immediately prior to the posting of this proposal to allow for wide distribution of this material, previously non-public information. Each shall remain halted for an indeterminate period to allow for discussion and non-inflammatory debate regarding the merits of this proposal. We hope this proposal finds favor with all of the constituencies involved and look forward to some lively discussion regarding its viability.

Please post any comments or questions you have regarding this publication in the following SL CAPEX FORUM ONLY.

http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/JTIC/2823

=============================================

To whom it may concern;

Almost a year ago the SL CapEx BOD made the difficult decision to seize control of Arbitrage Wise's SLW and WPM enterprises. While certainly an unpopular action for some, in the end it would appear we made the right decision. At that time, Arbitrage made specific commitments regarding his obligations, including a pledge to buy back 100% of the outstanding JTIC shares by year-end 2009. Clearly, that has not occurred in any measurable manner, and, ongoing recent dialogue between Arbitrage and the SL CapEx BOD has lead us to believe that he is no closer to settling those obligations than we were a year ago. As such, the time has come, once again, for SL CapEx to intervene on behalf of the JTIC investors. While a case could perhaps be made to allow JTIC to continue to trade indefinitely, we have arrived at the conclusion that many have suggested is long overdue - it's time to close this chapter, turn the page and move on.

So... now what? As with most of the messes we've been left to clean up, this one will be no easier than any of the others. As of 01/15/2009, EXCLUDING Arbitrage's JTIC holdings, 123 persons held the remaining 4,587,279 JTIC shares. At $0.60 per share, (JTIC's closing price Average over the last 30 days), that represents just over L$2.75M in Market Capitalization secured by virtually ZERO tangible assets and no foreseeable positive outlook.

Dare I say that's more financial risk than even Scott and I are willing to digest independently.

Over the last week or so we've looked at a variety of options and possibilities - none would likely provide much satisfaction for JTIC investors. Coincidentally, during that same time frame Andy Grant has been socializing an IPO concept (RA) that he's developed over on ISE, (See http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewpoll.php?id=1409 ). While Andy and I sometimes disagree on policy issues and implementation, and technical trading strategies, in this case I think he may be on to something that could help fundamentally reshape the SL Investment landscape, and, may also help us provide a solution for the JTIC situation.

Andy's basic structure is a weighted, actively managed ETF with a corresponding inverse derivative as a stop-loss hedge. While Exchange Traded Funds are nothing new (it all comes down to the trading performance of the Fund Manager and the portfolio), what I do find compelling about Andy's concept is that the derivative product appears to be the very first in SL Finance that cannot be arbitrarily priced by the issuer or underwriter. If that's accurate then it's potentially a profoundly positive game changer.

I think Andy’s hypothesis assumes that the quantifiable risk of an Inverse derivative is directly proportional to the volatility and liquidity of the opposing asset portfolio. Thus broad diversity of the asset portfolio is fundamental to the risk mitigation strategy.

My concern for Andy's product at this point is the relatively small scale of the underlying ETF portfolio, which, while diverse, is at present somewhere in the neighborhood of just L$50K + cash, less the inverse derivative's liability. I think the small scale may be intentional - a "pilot" project to test the hypothesis – if that’s the case I wish Andy and the shareholders good fortune.

That brings us to the launch point for discussion regarding JTIC and the disposition of its investors. As I’ve mentioned, Scott and I are not prepared to independently bail out the JTIC investors – it is just far too expensive with no near term upside opportunity. We can, however, offer assistance by leveraging our existing pool of assets in a manner that builds a foundation for future growth and concurrently provides the potential to hedge against further losses. We’ll ultimately test Andy’s hypothesis on a larger scale.

In a nutshell, here’s what we’re proposing;

1. SL CapEx would form a NEW Exchange Traded Fund as a subsidiary of SL CapEx, however with its own tracking Stock.

2. SL CapEx then places its “Long Term Investment Portfolio” (current NAV of approx. L$1.9M) in an ETF Trust Account.

3. The ETF then acquires all remaining shares of JTIC (excepting Arbitrage Wise’ shares) at a predetermined Exchange Rate.

4. The ETF also acquires BTX to secure its asset portfolio (current NAV of approx.L$2.8M) w/ ETF as sole surviving entity.

5. SL CapEx would appoint Bogart Beck as the Fund’s Portfolio Manager and ETF Trust Administrator.

6. SL CapEx to allow a brief (indeterminate) timeframe to normalize ETF’s trading range and assess its portfolio volatility…

7. … ETF to launch an Inverse Derivative product using a methodology similar to that of RA and Andy Grant’s hypothesis.

Please find below a brief synopsis of the ETF Launch Capitalization structure required to account for the current Market Cap of JTIC and BTX which both historically trade at a substantial premium to their Net Asset Value.

1. Formation of ETF with 8M Authorized shares at L$1.20 per share for a total Market Cap of L$9.6M

2. Acquisition of JTIC with a merger Exchange Rate of 0.5:1 (0.5 ETF Shares for each 1 share of JTIC) Evaluates JTIC at L$0.60 per share - its 30 day closing average.

3. Acquisition of BTX with a merger Exchange Rate of 2.5:1 (2.5 ETF Shares for each 1 share of BTX) Evaluates BTX at L$3.00 per share - discounted but close to its 30 day closing average.

4. The initial NAV of ETF held securities would be approx. $4.8M ... not too bad (50% of its Market Capitalization).

BTX, CAPX and JTIC have been halted immediately prior to the posting of this proposal to allow for wide distribution of this material, previously non-public information. Each shall remain halted for an indeterminate period to allow for discussion and non-inflammatory debate regarding the merits of this proposal. We hope this proposal finds favor with all of the constituencies involved and look forward to some lively discussion regarding its viability

Please post any comments or questions you have regarding this publication in the following SL CAPEX FORUM ONLY.

http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/JTIC/2823

The management of SL Cap Ex will review and respond to each comment or question as appropriate and time permits.

Respectfully,

The SL Cap Ex BOD


in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:22:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20797 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829 ETF Formation Shareholder Votes APPROVED - 01/31/2010

To whom it may concern;

On behalf of the BOD's of SL CAPX and BTX, I am pleased to announce that the joint BTX and CAPX resolution to form an ETF has PASSED by an overwhelming majority,

As such, pursuant to such resolution, JTIC will be delisted today 01/31/2010 with JTIC certificate holders to receive ETF shares as a goodwill gesture compliments of SL CapEX management. Additionally, BTX will be HALTED at 6PM SLT today 01/31/2010 to begin the merger processing as proposed.

We anticipate that the launch of ETF will commence sometime after 12 midnight SLT with its first full day of trading to be effective 02/01/2010.

Congratulations and THANK YOU to the supporters of this resolution - onward and upward freinds!

Bogart Beck

===============================================================================

Jan 24th, 13:08 system announcement
by Bogart Beck

ETF Formation Shareholder Vote Announcement - 01/24/2009
ETF Formation Shareholder Vote Announcement - 01/24/2009

To whom it may concern;

As previously announced, SL CapEx Mgmt. has placed JTIC into receivership, and has proposed formation of an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) comprised of the Assets of BTX and certain additional assets of SLCX. It is appropriate for the BOD's of SLCX and BTX to solicit a shareholder vote of approval for such transaction.

To encourage wide participation we have elected to facilitate voting via write-in ballot using the existing SL CapEx Forums. Voting will remain open from noon pacific (SLT) today, Sunday January 24, 2010 through noon pacific (SLT) next Sunday January 31, 2010, at which time all votes will be tabulated
(1 share = 1 vote) and a definitive decision rendered.

A vote of YES shall be tabulated as IN FAVOR of the SLCX proposal.
A vote of NO shall be tabulated as NOT in favor of the SLCX proposal.
Please note; shares abstaining from voting will not be tabulated.

Ballots for BTX shall be posted at http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/BTX/2829
Ballots for SLCX shall be posted @ http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/CAPX/2830

A simple post defining the number of shares you own followed by a YES or NO will be sufficient, eg; BTX 300 shares NO

SL CapEx mgmt will review the authenticity of each ballot cast at tabulation.

We will allow both BTX and SLCX to trade freely during the ballotting period. The HALT for each will be lifted momentarily. JTIC shall remain halted.

Best wishes,

Bo




===============================================================================
SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010

BTX, CAPX and JTIC have been halted immediately prior to the posting of this proposal to allow for wide distribution of this material, previously non-public information. Each shall remain halted for an indeterminate period to allow for discussion and non-inflammatory debate regarding the merits of this proposal. We hope this proposal finds favor with all of the constituencies involved and look forward to some lively discussion regarding its viability.

Please post any comments or questions you have regarding this publication in the following SL CAPEX FORUM ONLY.

http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/JTIC/2823

=============================================

To whom it may concern;

Almost a year ago the SL CapEx BOD made the difficult decision to seize control of Arbitrage Wise's SLW and WPM enterprises. While certainly an unpopular action for some, in the end it would appear we made the right decision. At that time, Arbitrage made specific commitments regarding his obligations, including a pledge to buy back 100% of the outstanding JTIC shares by year-end 2009. Clearly, that has not occurred in any measurable manner, and, ongoing recent dialogue between Arbitrage and the SL CapEx BOD has lead us to believe that he is no closer to settling those obligations than we were a year ago. As such, the time has come, once again, for SL CapEx to intervene on behalf of the JTIC investors. While a case could perhaps be made to allow JTIC to continue to trade indefinitely, we have arrived at the conclusion that many have suggested is long overdue - it's time to close this chapter, turn the page and move on.

So... now what? As with most of the messes we've been left to clean up, this one will be no easier than any of the others. As of 01/15/2009, EXCLUDING Arbitrage's JTIC holdings, 123 persons held the remaining 4,587,279 JTIC shares. At $0.60 per share, (JTIC's closing price Average over the last 30 days), that represents just over L$2.75M in Market Capitalization secured by virtually ZERO tangible assets and no foreseeable positive outlook.

Dare I say that's more financial risk than even Scott and I are willing to digest independently.

Over the last week or so we've looked at a variety of options and possibilities - none would likely provide much satisfaction for JTIC investors. Coincidentally, during that same time frame Andy Grant has been socializing an IPO concept (RA) that he's developed over on ISE, (See http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewpoll.php?id=1409 ). While Andy and I sometimes disagree on policy issues and implementation, and technical trading strategies, in this case I think he may be on to something that could help fundamentally reshape the SL Investment landscape, and, may also help us provide a solution for the JTIC situation.

Andy's basic structure is a weighted, actively managed ETF with a corresponding inverse derivative as a stop-loss hedge. While Exchange Traded Funds are nothing new (it all comes down to the trading performance of the Fund Manager and the portfolio), what I do find compelling about Andy's concept is that the derivative product appears to be the very first in SL Finance that cannot be arbitrarily priced by the issuer or underwriter. If that's accurate then it's potentially a profoundly positive game changer.

I think Andy’s hypothesis assumes that the quantifiable risk of an Inverse derivative is directly proportional to the volatility and liquidity of the opposing asset portfolio. Thus broad diversity of the asset portfolio is fundamental to the risk mitigation strategy.

My concern for Andy's product at this point is the relatively small scale of the underlying ETF portfolio, which, while diverse, is at present somewhere in the neighborhood of just L$50K + cash, less the inverse derivative's liability. I think the small scale may be intentional - a "pilot" project to test the hypothesis – if that’s the case I wish Andy and the shareholders good fortune.

That brings us to the launch point for discussion regarding JTIC and the disposition of its investors. As I’ve mentioned, Scott and I are not prepared to independently bail out the JTIC investors – it is just far too expensive with no near term upside opportunity. We can, however, offer assistance by leveraging our existing pool of assets in a manner that builds a foundation for future growth and concurrently provides the potential to hedge against further losses. We’ll ultimately test Andy’s hypothesis on a larger scale.

In a nutshell, here’s what we’re proposing;

1. SL CapEx would form a NEW Exchange Traded Fund as a subsidiary of SL CapEx, however with its own tracking Stock.

2. SL CapEx then places its “Long Term Investment Portfolio” (current NAV of approx. L$1.9M) in an ETF Trust Account.

3. The ETF then acquires all remaining shares of JTIC (excepting Arbitrage Wise’ shares) at a predetermined Exchange Rate.

4. The ETF also acquires BTX to secure its asset portfolio (current NAV of approx.L$2.8M) w/ ETF as sole surviving entity.

5. SL CapEx would appoint Bogart Beck as the Fund’s Portfolio Manager and ETF Trust Administrator.

6. SL CapEx to allow a brief (indeterminate) timeframe to normalize ETF’s trading range and assess its portfolio volatility…

7. … ETF to launch an Inverse Derivative product using a methodology similar to that of RA and Andy Grant’s hypothesis.

Please find below a brief synopsis of the ETF Launch Capitalization structure required to account for the current Market Cap of JTIC and BTX which both historically trade at a substantial premium to their Net Asset Value.

1. Formation of ETF with 8M Authorized shares at L$1.20 per share for a total Market Cap of L$9.6M

2. Acquisition of JTIC with a merger Exchange Rate of 0.5:1 (0.5 ETF Shares for each 1 share of JTIC) Evaluates JTIC at L$0.60 per share - its 30 day closing average.

3. Acquisition of BTX with a merger Exchange Rate of 2.5:1 (2.5 ETF Shares for each 1 share of BTX) Evaluates BTX at L$3.00 per share - discounted but close to its 30 day closing average.

4. The initial NAV of ETF held securities would be approx. $4.8M ... not too bad (50% of its Market Capitalization).

BTX, CAPX and JTIC have been halted immediately prior to the posting of this proposal to allow for wide distribution of this material, previously non-public information. Each shall remain halted for an indeterminate period to allow for discussion and non-inflammatory debate regarding the merits of this proposal. We hope this proposal finds favor with all of the constituencies involved and look forward to some lively discussion regarding its viability

Please post any comments or questions you have regarding this publication in the following SL CAPEX FORUM ONLY.

http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/JTIC/2823

The management of SL Cap Ex will review and respond to each comment or question as appropriate and time permits.

Respectfully,

The SL Cap Ex BOD


in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:20:22 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20795 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829
in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:26:59 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20790 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829
in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by DFH Westland ]]> Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:38:14 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20759 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
I honestly believe that insiders interest is best served by serving outsiders interest.

In future voting in my own RA (where i btw hold 40% stake), i will almost entirely base my final decision on what outside shareholders want alone. In the end serving them will boost my RA's market value and that can become useful the day the company needs to ask shareholders for more capital. They will know they, the shareholders own the company, and i am there to serve them. Not the other way around.

But that's of course my approach. If you believe the other approach is better, go on with it, but i have to disagree.

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Andy Grant ]]> Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:27:25 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20756 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
So far there's been just (1) NAY vote cast (Eliale)... hard to call (1) a majority. While indeed Eli holds 201,000 shares I wouldn't call 2.5% a majority either.

I did read your post on VSTEX in re; CLH... you and I do disagree on shareholder rights - a proxy vote entitles ALL shareholders (including insiders) to a vote. Unfortunately for some that does mean that closely held companies (almost all SL-based co's ) are almost entirely controlled by insiders... no different than RW.

How many public companies have one class of shares for common shareholders and a completely different "superclass" for insiders? Lets look at Google for example (one of the largest co's these days by shear market cap)... almost 65% of the voting priviledges in GOOG are controlled by just (3) people.

ADDED: As to "dead" JTIC shareholders - I've never checked but surely there are some in every SL Co. Could be just a few or could be a bunch - not really relevant at this point. As soon as someone figures an equitable way to determine survivorship and distribution thereof we'll look at it. So far none of the ideas I've seen discussed over the last two years have made much sense.

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:20:24 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20755 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823 I think it's interesting, but i'm skeptical :)

What i would like to point out though is the best interest of the company when doing shareholder vote.

Without repeating too much of what i already stated about a different shareholder vote going on you can read it here: http://forums.vstex.net/index.php?topic=720.msg2130#new

I can see based on the vote so far that the outsiders of capx/btx have mixed opinion about this proposal. (i see one of the largest capx investors voting against, while one of largest btx investors for). If the majority of outsiders opinion remains against or very split, then propably the plan should be re-reviewed, to best serve all shareholders (incl insiders) by serving most of outsiders. Insiders don't make the market, outsiders do :)

On another topic, out of interest, how many of the JTIC investors are still alive ? In most other stocks of the age of JTIC there seems to be atleast 20% of shareholders gave up and quit, in such case the need for a 'bailout' could be a lot smaller, and propably not of such high importance.

That's IMHO

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Andy Grant ]]> Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:10:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20754 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829
in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by Scott Nestler ]]> Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:34:10 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20749 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
You are dead-on accurate that the JTIC debt is being borne on the backs of others (primarily Scott, Cash, Chan and myself)... JTIC is indeed TOXIC and has been for some time - hard to call it an asset by any measure.

Nonetheless, if we're to move forward and have any hope for a future in SL Finance we need to dispose of that legacy and provide an optimistic prospect for those that have remained faithful to the community.

Sure, our decisions may appear to be arbitrary at times - particularly when viewed in isolation or without full contextual information, but, we hope that folks in the end recognize that our efforts have generally been biased on behalf of the common investor (usually at our own expense).

BTW, we DO still ENCOURAGE healthy opinion and debate - we just reserve the right to truncate it when it ultimately degenerates into unhealthy diatribes or unsubstantiated, vile accusations and name-calling (and, YES, I've been as guilty as anyone else in that regard too).

As to the performance of ETF, yep, time will tell. It could be a fun new chapter or the beginning of a death spiral! LOL

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:23:03 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20747 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
Personally I'd like to see JTIC held up for what it is and was before burying it. A complete failure that was held up by promises of a better future. The fact is millions of L$ disappeared in this company one way or another and it is a toxic asset both as PR and on the balance sheet.

I am not personally involved in this but wanted to counsel a fellow investor who was attempting "negotiations" with you Bo. I have had some experience and thought I may have useful info for him. But you asked my opinion so here it is.

Honestly thanks for asking for my opinion in this matter, I didn't feel like I had much place sticking my nose in AGAIN into something that I wasn't invested in. I hope that if this proposal passes it performs as intended.

Pep

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:29:05 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20746 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829
in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by ferre Howlett ]]> Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:48:31 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20744 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829
in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by Kubi Beam ]]> Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:42:09 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20740 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829
in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by Atreyu Frequency ]]> Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:38:02 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20738 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829
in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by Carlos Alvarez ]]> Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:53:03 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20737 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823 ETF Formation Shareholder Vote Announcement - 01/24/2009

To whom it may concern;

As previously announced, SL CapEx Mgmt. has placed JTIC into receivership, and has proposed formation of an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) comprised of the Assets of BTX and certain additional assets of SLCX. It is appropriate for the BOD's of SLCX and BTX to solicit a shareholder vote of approval for such transaction.

To encourage wide participation we have elected to facilitate voting via write-in ballot using the existing SL CapEx Forums. Voting will remain open from noon pacific (SLT) today, Sunday January 24, 2010 through noon pacific (SLT) next Sunday January 31, 2010, at which time all votes will be tabulated (1 share = 1 vote) and a definitive decision rendered.

A vote of YES shall be tabulated as IN FAVOR of the SLCX proposal.
A vote of NO shall be tabulated as NOT in favor of the SLCX proposal.
Please note; shares abstaining from voting will not be tabulated.

Ballots for BTX shall be posted at http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/BTX/2829
Ballots for SLCX shall be posted @ http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/CAPX/2830

A simple post defining the number of shares you own followed by a YES or NO will be sufficient, eg; BTX 300 shares NO

SL CapEx mgmt will review the authenticity of each ballot cast at tabulation.

We will allow both BTX and SLCX to trade freely during the ballotting period. The HALT for each will be lifted momentarily. JTIC shall remain halted.

Best wishes,

Bo


in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:14:28 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20735 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829
To whom it may concern;

As previously announced, SL CapEx Mgmt. has placed JTIC into receivership, and has proposed formation of an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) comprised of the Assets of BTX and certain additional assets of SLCX. It is appropriate for the BOD's of SLCX and BTX to solicit a shareholder vote of approval for such transaction.

To encourage wide participation we have elected to facilitate voting via write-in ballot using the existing SL CapEx Forums. Voting will remain open from noon pacific (SLT) today, Sunday January 24, 2010 through noon pacific (SLT) next Sunday January 31, 2010, at which time all votes will be tabulated (1 share = 1 vote) and a definitive decision rendered.

A vote of YES shall be tabulated as IN FAVOR of the SLCX proposal.
A vote of NO shall be tabulated as NOT in favor of the SLCX proposal.
Please note; shares abstaining from voting will not be tabulated.

Ballots for BTX shall be posted at http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/BTX/2829
Ballots for SLCX shall be posted @ http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/CAPX/2830

A simple post defining the number of shares you own followed by a YES or NO will be sufficient, eg; BTX 300 shares NO

SL CapEx mgmt will review the authenticity of each ballot cast at tabulation.

We will allow both BTX and SLCX to trade freely during the ballotting period. The HALT for each will be lifted momentarily. JTIC shall remain halted.

Best wishes,

Bo

in topic BTX : ETF Formation BTX Shareholder Vote - 01/24/2009 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:01:28 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2829/20733 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
Can you better explain the "serious flaws" you mentioned. We certainly don't want to put forward something that is predisposed to failure. Maybe you've found something we don't see or haven't considered?

Thanks,

Bo

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:22:27 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20732 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
It does indeed appear that your proposal lacks qualitative substance - a necessity to do any comparative analysis. We previously have asked you to provide some basic detail so folks could evaluate fairly your proposal against what has been put forward by SL CapEx Mgmt. Again, please provide the following information;

---
(Reprint from previous post)

At what shareprice are you proposing to relist? Any Assets?

Also, can you provide some specificity on how you'd propose to structure the derivative products you've mentioned? How would you underwrite them? How and who would collateralize them?
---

Moving on to your post from yesterday, it seems you've missed the main point of our proposal entirely. Foremost, the "value" of a publicly traded security is based NOT on NAV but rather on what someone is willing to pay for it as determined by the share price. In the case of JTIC, at halt JTIC was trading in a range of L$0.53 - L$0.60 per share. The SL CapEx proposal offers each JTIC certificate holder FULL VALUE (L$0.60), yours offers them LESS THAN L$0.01 per share with very little post-acquisition strategy definition.

Second, our proposal recognizes that JTIC wasn't a company at all but rather an "INVESTMENT CERTTIFICATE" offered by a former Officer of SL CapEx (Arbitrage Wise). As such, we've intervened here as the defacto "Regulator" much like the US FDIC would intervene in the case of a failed bank.

The other alternative for JTIC would be to simply delist it - certificate holders would then receive nothing. In the time we've controlled CapEx, Scott and I have consistently sought to consider the needs of the community FIRST, often at our own expense - this situation is yet another perfect example of that goodwill, and quite contrary to what many have tried to portray of us.

I'll close with the same challenge we originally offered, if you (or anyone) has a BETTER idea than what we've put forward, BRING IT with sufficent detail to allow an ordinary person to compare it to the proposal we've offered.

BTW, it looks like Unbonbom still has those vacant shells available.

Cheers,

Bo


in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:59:33 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20731 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
I'd suggest continuing to debate if you want a chance to take over this company. (Un?)fortunately Bo seems to be consistently in control of big decisions like this. I'd suggest taking the middle road and more clearly state your business plan in a way that will be amenable.

While I may even agree with your ideas and plan so far I can't see how it is superior to the plan presented by SLCX management. I honestly believe that both plans have serious flaws and thank god am not involved in this decision either as investor or management.

Something else to consider...I don't know anywhere in the world that is a pure democracy (someone let me know if I'm wrong!) All "democracies" that I've heard of are actually representative democracies. We elect people who make most of our decisions for us.

In private organizations many times even the representative process goes without a public vote and lower level management is most often placed in office, not elected.

Blah blah blah...but anywho...you don't have the power to make decisions here but I'm pretty sure you know who does. There are very few decisions made by popular vote either here or in any exchange (again tell me if I'm wrong) and I'd be frightened if such a large decision was left to "the horde."

All in all I think you nailed your own coffin JayT...

"Well after this said, I do not wish to keep debating with you on this subject..."

Pep



in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:37:26 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20726 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
Maybe my proposal does not match the one of capex's management, I do not deny that my proposal is a risky one. However you do not have concrete arguments to refuse my proposal and force JTIC shareholders to accept your proposal without a democratic vote.

My point of view about the situation is as follows:

1) Writing off a company and reducing the number of listed companies on this exchange will bring less diversify. Reducing the number of lines in the capex's portfolio would increase the level of risks of this portfolio.

2) Merging all those companies into only one big company is the same thing than creating a big junk stock and other junk bonds that were at the origin of the sub-prime crisis. We cannot give any value to JTIC shares as there is no assets at all, which means an NAV of 0! There is no reason why shareholders should accept this proposal.

3) The application of a too conservative and protective politic as you are doing is not always the best thing. I agree that we should apply a strict business plan revision before allowing any company to be listed on the stock exchange, however, rejecting all innovative ideas from other people and letting arrogance affect our rationality is not good for business opportunities.

Well after this said, I do not wish to keep debating with you on this subject since you cannot put forward arguments to demonstrate how your proposal over pass mine.

Good luck with your projects.
JayT


in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by JayT Axel ]]> Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:30:08 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20725 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823 jayT,

It doesn't look like your proposal measures up to the one put forward by CapEx Mgmt. If you're looking for vacant shells I understand Unbonbom has several available - you can even pick the exchange.

Cheers,

Bo

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:16:46 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20723 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
I am not going to offer more =)
I am only curious to know what is your business plan proposal =)

Best regards.
JayT Axel

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by JayT Axel ]]> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:59:54 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20720 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by SmokedSalmon Canning ]]> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:55:34 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20717 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
you are right when you say that this proposal will decrease considerably the value of the stock. yo mentioned it,

"At present, JTIC has 30M shares outstanding with a Market Cap of +/- L$18M (at L$.60 /share)."

For me, a company which has no assets, has an NAV of L$ 0, in other words, no value at all.

It is not completely true when you say that this proposal will bring value to me, I would like to stress out that I will be the one spending time on this project, I will be the one working out to put this company back on track. You and I know how difficult it is to take over a company which is going bankrupt and put it back on track.... this is a lot of time consuming and everyone knows that we are not going to become rich out of SL stock market.

However, I did studies in economics and management and I know some business opportunities that we should consider. JTIC is an interesting case as there is around 85% of the stocks held by Arbitrage, meaning that there is around 25M shares which could be use to create another company out of it.

I do not believe that I will be the winner in this operation, the real winners would be existing shareholders as I propose to save their investment in JTIC. For sure they will not get back their initial investment in this company but at least they will not lose lose all.

I believe that it is completely impossible to save this company without injecting money in this company. Since the NAV of this company is 0 and that I am not willing to invest millions of L$ in SL anymore, injecting L$ 200 000 is the limit of my bringing in this company.

If my calculus are right, there is potentially another L$ 150 000 that we can raise from this proposal. So if you understand fully, this means that the other remaining share would be offered at a stock value around 0.02 L$.

Very few indeed, but I am pretty sure that the low price of this stock will be interesting for lot of people and this could also generate trade volume on the stock exchange.

Further more, what i have in mind is to create composite products, more exactly, little portfolios which would be classified according to their risk and return potential. One of the stock that I would surely include in is FED as Ashleigh is one of the most competent CEO according to my due diligent analysis. MLS would also be in this portfolio as Milos work is one of the most appreciable on the different exchanges. There are also some other companies like SLG and and ESN that i would like to include in, due to their current situation and past records.

In the end, I am not sure that this proposal will make me the winner as existing shareholders would benefit from this, SLcapex would also benefit from this as this proposal could lead to an increase in volume traded and some other companies would benefit from the fund that JTIC could use to invest in projects.

If this proposal is not an interesting one for you and that you do not consider me seriously, I have no issue with it. My L$ 200K will stay in my pocket and you would still be left with your issues =)

I hope that I answered all your questions.
Best regards.
JayT Axel

ps: any comments or question is welcome.



in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by JayT Axel ]]> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:14:02 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20716 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
Anyway, I want to make sure we fully understand what you're proposing. You stated,

"I am ready to inject L$ 200K in this company in time, in exchange 51% of total shares of the company...."

At present, JTIC has 30M shares outstanding with a Market Cap of +/- L$18M (at L$.60 /share). That effectively means you are offering approx. L$0.01333 /sh. and simultaneously diluting the remaining 123 shareholders at a 59:1 ratio?

Please forgive the obvious, but notwithstanding the fact that JTIC has ZERO Assets, I'm not quite understanding how this adds value to anyone other than yourself. I think we'd need to see a very detailed prospectus to really take your proposal seriously.

Further, you said "The other remaining shares would be offered to the public to increase the capital of the company..."

At what shareprice are you proposing to relist? Assets?

Also, can you provide some specificity on how you'd propose to structure the derivative products you've mentioned? How would you underwrite them? How and who would collateralize them?


in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:45:33 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20714 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
I have a proposal for this company.

I think that a lot of people know me. For those who do not know who I am, let me say a quick word.

RL: ex junior trader/ junior broker. Manager of a company.
SL: Previous CEO of Express Shopping Network (ACE)

When I was CEO of Express Shopping Network (listed on ACE) , I used derivative products to bring back value to the company, which was completely bankrupt. I turned 63K treasury shares (L$ 6,3K), which was the only assets transfered to me, into 200K treasury shares (L$ 50K) and also transfered assets valued over L$ 60K.

Since this company is owned at a level of nearly 85% by Arbitrage Wise, who I think will not come back as promised, I think that there is something interesting which can be done here as there is a possibility turning those shares into treasury shares and use them as an SPO.

I propose to transform this company into an investment firm. More exactely a company which would issue derivative products on the market.

What I mean by derivative products are: CALL/PUT options, structured products and other new derivative products.

I am ready to inject L$ 200K in this company in time, in exchange 51% of total shares of the company. The other remaining shares would be offered to the public to increase the capital of the company.

My strategy is simple:
1/ Create a diversified portfolio for the company with the fund raised.
2/ Use the stocks purchased to issue options and also create structured products.
3/ Use derivative products to hedge against risks.
4/ Invest part of the fund raised in some innovative SL projects.
5/ create derivative products to hedge against risks of investment.

All derivatives products created by the company will go through the BOD of the SLcapex management for review before allowing the IPO on the market.

I could make a more detailed prospectus of the company in time. For now I believe that there is a need to propose simple and realistic projects to save this company.

Please let me know if this proposal is interesting.
Best regards
JayT Axel

PS: JTIC could potentially be renamed JT Investment Company.




in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by JayT Axel ]]> Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:21:57 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20713 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
i do speak a number of languages but unfortunately french is not one of them. I am by birth of estonian heritage and speak the according language (estonian) as mothertongue. I could translate this thing into german. But it would take a lot of time and personally that is something that i can not find right now.

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Alain Delpiaz ]]> Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:44:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20712 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823 I think many people are listening, but for the uninitiated to the complex mechanisms of the finance some post remain a little fuzzy.
Even more abstract to those who use a translator inefficient, which sometimes increases the difficulty of understanding.
this new strategy, it is a success or failure can only bring benefits to slcapex who needs new ambitions.
I think alain delpiaz speak the French language, he could make a summary of the strategy of bo / andy? and if other people able to make the information in German, Spanish etc. ... This would help at my humble opinion of other users of the platform slcapex.
thanks,
kikok

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by kikokenpyr Beaumont ]]> Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:24:12 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20710 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Cash Yiyuan ]]> Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:28:09 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20709 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
Regardless, I thought it'd be valuable to post a message showing the assets that would comprise the initial ETF Portfolio. Clearly it will need to be better weighted but it's a good jumping off point with considerable value, relative stability and enough scale to potentially make a difference.

(rough approximation based on 01/15/2010 holdings & 30 day closing Avg.;

ETF PORTFOLIO AT LAUNCH (BTX and SLCX Portfolio) (L$)
================================================
ETF - (Treasury) 1,323,710 shares @ $1.20 = $1,588,451.40
CAPX - SL CapEx 1,336,043 shares @ $0.73 = $975,311.39
MLS - MiLOS... 10,001 shares @ $1.28 = $12,801.28
NIC - Nestler... 1,151,003 shares @ $0.97 = $1,116,472.91
PHX - Phoenix... 154,001 shares @ $0.03 = $4,620.03
SLR - SL Reports 3,254,502 shares @ $0.23 = $748,535.46
VPAY - Virtual... 721,394 shares @ $0.26 = $187,562.44
ZEN - Zhenya... 25,001 shares @ $1.00 = $25,001.00

ETF Portfolio Valuation = $4,658,755.91
ADD Treasury CASH... = $ 141,244.09
===============================
ETF NAV = $4,800,000.00 or L$0.60 /sh

ETF Total Authorized Shares 8,000,000 @ L$1.20 /sh

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:48:00 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20708 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
Other than the plan Bogart has outlined, do we just delist JTIC and not try and do what is better for the shareholders?



in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Cash Yiyuan ]]> Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:36:03 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20707 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
As you probably know, Scott and I have been looking for a way to support derivative products for some time. From my viewpoint, the challenge has always been centered on the fact that most Options Pricing Models ASSUME the ability to take a "Short" position on an underlying security. For a variety of reasons we still don't support that capability (which given the state of the community has probably been a good thing, but, is something we'd LIKE to change if we can).

Many Investors have abandoned the SL Financial markets due in large part because of a perceived imbalance between the Investor and the Corporate Officers, and a belief that the Exchange(s) somehow have the ability to hold those Officers accountable (which has proven to be nearly impossible).

In reality, character and integrity are a personal choice. For some reason the anonymity of SL far too often allows that choice to be one of pure self-interest... says alot about our human condition, doesn't it? THAT dilemna brings us full-circle to what our proposal is really all about.

Specific to your questions; what we're trying to do (perhaps not very well - time will tell) is spread the risk of failure across the ENTIRE SL CapEx community by virtue of ETF holding substantial positions in each of the securities of its indexed portfolio. It will take some time however to balance the initial portfolio - at formation, IMO, the portfolio will be poorly weighted. (And part of the reason that launch of the RA product will lag the ETF launch by an indeterminate timeframe).

BTX shareholders are actually receiving relatively full value for their shares (as are the JTIC Shareholders).

CAPX shareholders are inheriting the full value of the ETF portfolio Assets and a considerable position in the ETF itself.

My own hypothesis for the SL CapEx ETF assumes that the ETF tracking stock will have greater volume (liquidity) than either JTIC or BTX had independently, and, some percentage of the converted BTX and JTIC shareholders will choose to immediately liquidate their positions in ETF. That SHOULD allow ETF to establish a normative trading range that has LESS volatility than the individual Bid/Ask spreads of the underlying portfolio. (I'm fairly certain that's the same assumption you made in selecting the stocks for your index).

SO... where's the risk? As I've disclosed, there is a wide gap between the NAV of the initial portfolio and the market cap of the ETF - I've tried to peg it at exactly 50%. That is where the RA arbitrage concept (and your AND MY trading principles come into play - that's ultimately what people are banking on, right?) Alot more FUN than bitching about yet another failed SL Enterprise.

If people find VALUE in the proposal we will certainly take it to a shareholder vote (which is ultimately an academic exercise - Scott and I do control more than 50% of both BTX and CAPX), BUT, the whole purpose of socializing this idea BEFORE pulling the trigger was to seek comment and input from folks like you. If it's a BAD IDEA then we'll likely move on to another concept - we'll probably do something similar but without the goodwill gesture to JTIC bagholders.

As mentioned in the proposal, if ANYONE has a BETTER idea PLEASE BRING IT.

Cheers!

Bo

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:56:08 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20706 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
Your observation of RA is quiet accurate, as for the market cap it is partly true the size is due to the fact the idea is new, but another reason, propably a more important one to the small market cap is due to my investment style and my analysis. The size of this market as a whole is very small and at the level of leverage i desire to navigate this and reach my investment goals we have to start small and build up as we progress.

I'm glad that steps are taken to end Arbitrages ashes, but i have to agree 100% with Alain.


Are you suggesting CAPX/BTX shareholdres should bailout JTIC investors (who were asleep) ?

If so, are you seriously attemting to merge assets of CAPX/BTX shareholders without it passing through a proper shareholder vote ?

In my opinion JTIC was an obvious failure already a year ago. So whats new ? Arbitrage faled now, later than some of us (me including) predicted, ok excellent get rid of it then, and reopen trading in capx.

That's my only few cent's on this issue, i believe it's a non-brainer, a ceo broke his many promises, goodbye. We shouldn't waste time on failures, theres so little time and so many better things to spend time on.

Let me end my few cents by 2 most excellent quotes by one of the best if not the very best businessmen of all times, Henry Ford:

"It has been my observation that most people get ahead during the time that others waste time."

"Failure is the opportunity to begin again, more intelligently."

No i lied, let me add one final one:

"If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own."

And my 3rd cent... :)

I do see why there is a desire to save JTIC, it's a lot of money. But i simply don't believe failures should be saved, investors failed to sell, it's part of the game to realize a loss.

I'm sure whatever will be done will be "right", either way we'll learn something from it, if we don't learn anything then we have to fail again, and if we never are allowed to fail then we never learn.

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:52:18 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20705 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
Most of the time we do simply delist a failed company and leave the shareholders with the responsibility of dealing with the consequences directly with the Co. Officers.

Arbitrage Wise is a bit of a unique case because of his former relationship with the exchange, the peculiarity of the JTIC product and our willingness to allow it to trade long after most people discounted Arb's trustworthiness.

For those folks that have felt "trapped" by Arb's folly we're simply providing them an exit strategy as a goodwill gesture. That's something Scott and I both think we have a history of doing here when it has the potential to benefit the community as a whole.

Yes, we could form the ETF as a mutually exclusive event (and may ultimately do that if the community at large doesn't find value in our proposal).



in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:02:40 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20704 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
Now creating an ETF is a whole different topic, which could and should be handled separately.

My two pennies.

in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Alain Delpiaz ]]> Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:54:06 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20703 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2824 SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010

To whom it may concern;

Almost a year ago the SL CapEx BOD made the difficult decision to seize control of Arbitrage Wise's SLW and WPM enterprises. While certainly an unpopular action for some, in the end it would appear we made the right decision. At that time, Arbitrage made specific commitments regarding his obligations, including a pledge to buy back 100% of the outstanding JTIC shares by year-end 2009. Clearly, that has not occurred in any measurable manner, and, ongoing recent dialogue between Arbitrage and the SL CapEx BOD has lead us to believe that he is no closer to settling those obligations than we were a year ago. As such, the time has come, once again, for SL CapEx to intervene on behalf of the JTIC investors. While a case could perhaps be made to allow JTIC to continue to trade indefinitely, we have arrived at the conclusion that many have suggested is long overdue - it's time to close this chapter, turn the page and move on.

So... now what? As with most of the messes we've been left to clean up, this one will be no easier than any of the others. As of 01/15/2009, EXCLUDING Arbitrage's JTIC holdings, 123 persons held the remaining 4,587,279 JTIC shares. At $0.60 per share, (JTIC's closing price Average over the last 30 days), that represents just over L$2.75M in Market Capitalization secured by virtually ZERO tangible assets and no foreseeable positive outlook.

Dare I say that's more financial risk than even Scott and I are willing to digest independently.

Over the last week or so we've looked at a variety of options and possibilities - none would likely provide much satisfaction for JTIC investors. Coincidentally, during that same time frame Andy Grant has been socializing an IPO concept (RA) that he's developed over on ISE, (See http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewpoll.php?id=1409 ). While Andy and I sometimes disagree on policy issues and implementation, and technical trading strategies, in this case I think he may be on to something that could help fundamentally reshape the SL Investment landscape, and, may also help us provide a solution for the JTIC situation.

Andy's basic structure is a weighted, actively managed ETF with a corresponding inverse derivative as a stop-loss hedge. While Exchange Traded Funds are nothing new (it all comes down to the trading performance of the Fund Manager and the portfolio), what I do find compelling about Andy's concept is that the derivative product appears to be the very first in SL Finance that cannot be arbitrarily priced by the issuer or underwriter. If that's accurate then it's potentially a profoundly positive game changer.

I think Andy’s hypothesis assumes that the quantifiable risk of an Inverse derivative is directly proportional to the volatility and liquidity of the opposing asset portfolio. Thus broad diversity of the asset portfolio is fundamental to the risk mitigation strategy.

My concern for Andy's product at this point is the relatively small scale of the underlying ETF portfolio, which, while diverse, is at present somewhere in the neighborhood of just L$50K + cash, less the inverse derivative's liability. I think the small scale may be intentional - a "pilot" project to test the hypothesis – if that’s the case I wish Andy and the shareholders good fortune.

That brings us to the launch point for discussion regarding JTIC and the disposition of its investors. As I’ve mentioned, Scott and I are not prepared to independently bail out the JTIC investors – it is just far too expensive with no near term upside opportunity. We can, however, offer assistance by leveraging our existing pool of assets in a manner that builds a foundation for future growth and concurrently provides the potential to hedge against further losses. We’ll ultimately test Andy’s hypothesis on a larger scale.

In a nutshell, here’s what we’re proposing;

1. SL CapEx would form a NEW Exchange Traded Fund as a subsidiary of SL CapEx, however with its own tracking Stock.

2. SL CapEx then places its “Long Term Investment Portfolio” (current NAV of approx. L$1.9M) in an ETF Trust Account.

3. The ETF then acquires all remaining shares of JTIC (excepting Arbitrage Wise’ shares) at a predetermined Exchange Rate.

4. The ETF also acquires BTX to secure its asset portfolio (current NAV of approx.L$2.8M) w/ ETF as sole surviving entity.

5. SL CapEx would appoint Bogart Beck as the Fund’s Portfolio Manager and ETF Trust Administrator.

6. SL CapEx to allow a brief (indeterminate) timeframe to normalize ETF’s trading range and assess its portfolio volatility…

7. … ETF to launch an Inverse Derivative product using a methodology similar to that of RA and Andy Grant’s hypothesis.

Please find below a brief synopsis of the ETF Launch Capitalization structure required to account for the current Market Cap of JTIC and BTX which both historically trade at a substantial premium to their Net Asset Value.

1. Formation of ETF with 8M Authorized shares at L$1.20 per share for a total Market Cap of L$9.6M

2. Acquisition of JTIC with a merger Exchange Rate of 0.5:1 (0.5 ETF Shares for each 1 share of JTIC) Evaluates JTIC at L$0.60 per share - its 30 day closing average.

3. Acquisition of BTX with a merger Exchange Rate of 2.5:1 (2.5 ETF Shares for each 1 share of BTX) Evaluates BTX at L$3.00 per share - discounted but close to its 30 day closing average.

4. The initial NAV of ETF held securities would be approx. $4.8M ... not too bad (50% of its Market Capitalization).

BTX, CAPX and JTIC have been halted immediately prior to the posting of this proposal to allow for wide distribution of this material, previously non-public information. Each shall remain halted for an indeterminate period to allow for discussion and non-inflammatory debate regarding the merits of this proposal. We hope this proposal finds favor with all of the constituencies involved and look forward to some lively discussion regarding its viability

Please post any comments or questions you have regarding this publication in the following SL CAPEX FORUM ONLY.

http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/JTIC/2823

The management of SL Cap Ex will review and respond to each comment or question as appropriate and time permits.

Respectfully,

The SL Cap Ex BOD

in topic BTX : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:14:24 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2824/20700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823
To whom it may concern;

Almost a year ago the SL CapEx BOD made the difficult decision to seize control of Arbitrage Wise's SLW and WPM enterprises. While certainly an unpopular action for some, in the end it would appear we made the right decision. At that time, Arbitrage made specific commitments regarding his obligations, including a pledge to buy back 100% of the outstanding JTIC shares by year-end 2009. Clearly, that has not occurred in any measurable manner, and, ongoing recent dialogue between Arbitrage and the SL CapEx BOD has lead us to believe that he is no closer to settling those obligations than we were a year ago. As such, the time has come, once again, for SL CapEx to intervene on behalf of the JTIC investors. While a case could perhaps be made to allow JTIC to continue to trade indefinitely, we have arrived at the conclusion that many have suggested is long overdue - it's time to close this chapter, turn the page and move on.

So... now what? As with most of the messes we've been left to clean up, this one will be no easier than any of the others. As of 01/15/2009, EXCLUDING Arbitrage's JTIC holdings, 123 persons held the remaining 4,587,279 JTIC shares. At $0.60 per share, (JTIC's closing price Average over the last 30 days), that represents just over L$2.75M in Market Capitalization secured by virtually ZERO tangible assets and no foreseeable positive outlook.

Dare I say that's more financial risk than even Scott and I are willing to digest independently.

Over the last week or so we've looked at a variety of options and possibilities - none would likely provide much satisfaction for JTIC investors. Coincidentally, during that same time frame Andy Grant has been socializing an IPO concept (RA) that he's developed over on ISE, (See http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewpoll.php?id=1409 ). While Andy and I sometimes disagree on policy issues and implementation, and technical trading strategies, in this case I think he may be on to something that could help fundamentally reshape the SL Investment landscape, and, may also help us provide a solution for the JTIC situation.

Andy's basic structure is a weighted, actively managed ETF with a corresponding inverse derivative as a stop-loss hedge. While Exchange Traded Funds are nothing new (it all comes down to the trading performance of the Fund Manager and the portfolio), what I do find compelling about Andy's concept is that the derivative product appears to be the very first in SL Finance that cannot be arbitrarily priced by the issuer or underwriter. If that's accurate then it's potentially a profoundly positive game changer.

I think Andy’s hypothesis assumes that the quantifiable risk of an Inverse derivative is directly proportional to the volatility and liquidity of the opposing asset portfolio. Thus broad diversity of the asset portfolio is fundamental to the risk mitigation strategy.

My concern for Andy's product at this point is the relatively small scale of the underlying ETF portfolio, which, while diverse, is at present somewhere in the neighborhood of just L$50K + cash, less the inverse derivative's liability. I think the small scale may be intentional - a "pilot" project to test the hypothesis – if that’s the case I wish Andy and the shareholders good fortune.

That brings us to the launch point for discussion regarding JTIC and the disposition of its investors. As I’ve mentioned, Scott and I are not prepared to independently bail out the JTIC investors – it is just far too expensive with no near term upside opportunity. We can, however, offer assistance by leveraging our existing pool of assets in a manner that builds a foundation for future growth and concurrently provides the potential to hedge against further losses. We’ll ultimately test Andy’s hypothesis on a larger scale.

In a nutshell, here’s what we’re proposing;

1. SL CapEx would form a NEW Exchange Traded Fund as a subsidiary of SL CapEx, however with its own tracking Stock.

2. SL CapEx then places its “Long Term Investment Portfolio” (current NAV of approx. L$1.9M) in an ETF Trust Account.

3. The ETF then acquires all remaining shares of JTIC (excepting Arbitrage Wise’ shares) at a predetermined Exchange Rate.

4. The ETF also acquires BTX to secure its asset portfolio (current NAV of approx.L$2.8M) w/ ETF as sole surviving entity.

5. SL CapEx would appoint Bogart Beck as the Fund’s Portfolio Manager and ETF Trust Administrator.

6. SL CapEx to allow a brief (indeterminate) timeframe to normalize ETF’s trading range and assess its portfolio volatility…

7. … ETF to launch an Inverse Derivative product using a methodology similar to that of RA and Andy Grant’s hypothesis.

Please find below a brief synopsis of the ETF Launch Capitalization structure required to account for the current Market Cap of JTIC and BTX which both historically trade at a substantial premium to their Net Asset Value.

1. Formation of ETF with 8M Authorized shares at L$1.20 per share for a total Market Cap of L$9.6M

2. Acquisition of JTIC with a merger Exchange Rate of 0.5:1 (0.5 ETF Shares for each 1 share of JTIC) Values JTIC at L$0.60 per share - its 30 day closing average.

3. Acquisition of BTX with a merger Exchange Rate of 2.5:1 (2.5 ETF Shares for each 1 share of BTX) Values BTX at L$3.00 per share - discounted but close to its 30 day closing average.

4. The initial NAV of ETF held securities would be approx. $4.8M ... not too bad (50% of its Market Capitalization).

BTX, CAPX and JTIC have been halted immediately prior to the posting of this proposal to allow for wide distribution of this material, previously non-public information. Each shall remain halted for an indeterminate period to allow for discussion and non-inflammatory debate regarding the merits of this proposal. We hope this proposal finds favor with all of the constituencies involved and look forward to some lively discussion regarding its viability

Please post any comments or questions you have regarding this publication in the following SL CAPEX FORUM ONLY.

http://www.slcapex.com/forums/topic/JTIC/2823

The management of SL Cap Ex will review and respond to each comment or question as appropriate and time permits.

Respectfully,

The SL Cap Ex BOD


in topic JTIC : SL CapEx places JTIC into Receivership – 01/15/2010 by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:10:29 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2823/20699 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2131 BTX Annual Shareholder Meeting Scheduled for 01/10/2010

BTX Shareholders,

It is that time once again. Our Annual Shareholders Meeting has been set for Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 5:00PM (SLT) Location: BIG Estate Amphitheater.

Agenda as follows;

5:00-5:15PM - Discussion of 2009 Performance Results
5:15-5:30PM - 2010 Business Plan and Strategy
5:30-5:45PM - Election of 2010 Officers and Board of Directors
5:45-6:00PM - Open Questions & Answers

Nominations for 2010 Board seats are currently being solicited. If you believe this is a role you're prepared to fulfill for the upcoming year please drop me an Email (bogart.beck@Gmail.com).

Kindest regards,

Bogart Beck


in topic BTX : WEEKLY UPDATE - For CEO Posting ONLY! by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:13:46 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2131/20666 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2131 Year-End Holdings and Disclosure Statement - Bogart Beck - 12/31/2009

Cash Equivalents (L$)
======================
2009 - BTX - Beck Tech. Research - $2,827.04
2009 - SLR - SL Reports.Net - $0.00
Bogart Beck Main - $22.37

2009 - BTX - Beck Tech. Research
=================================
BTX - Beck Technical Research II - 360,601 shares (TREASURY)
CAPX - SL Capital Exchange - 605,001 shares @ $344,850.57 NPV
NIC - Nestler Investment Corp - 701,001 shares @ $665,950.95 NPV
SLR - SL Reports.Network - 1,813,501 shares @ $435,240.24 NPV
VPAY - Virtual Payment Systems - 700,501 shares @ $182,130.26 NPV

2009 - SLR - SL Reports.Net
===========================
SLR - SL Reports.Network - 1,500,001 shares (TREASURY)

Bogart Beck Main (Personal)
===========================
BTX - Beck Technical Research II - 1,000,006 shares @ $3,200,019.20 NPV
CAPX - SL Capital Exchange - 1,000,001 shares @ $570,000.57 NPV
SLR - SL Reports.Network - 1,000,001 shares @ $240,000.24 NPV


in topic BTX : WEEKLY UPDATE - For CEO Posting ONLY! by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:13:29 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2131/20660 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Perhaps he is using now a third avatar...

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Radioactive Rosca ]]> Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:44:07 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20626 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 Another thing you can do is contacting the owners of clubs he works for and ask them when he is around and explain to them what REALLY happened.

Yet again, the whole discussion in here about anything not related to Hi-Five is senseless in my eyes, because THIS HERE is the fraud and someone should take legal actions against it. Otherwise Mik/Tue will continue to scam people with his crap.

Just some thoughts,
Angi

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Angi Fargis ]]> Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:03:01 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20623 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
I own zero shares of JTIC as I try to stay away from stocks that are obviously fraudulent.

Why I keep pointing to JTIC was pretty much pointed out by Andy, it is a blatant double standard that monthly financials are not required for this stock. What is the point of having rules if they are not applied evenly and fairly?

Whatever rule there is that enables JTIC to exist was created simply because Arbitrage is a member of the SLCAPEX "old boys club".

What do I want done?
I want rules to be applied evenly and fairly, in which case I'm sure JTIC would have been long delisted by now.
Either that or ditch your rules completely, they obviously don't work anyway.
I'm under the impression that the rules are meant to help protect the investor but if you really cared about protecting the investor JTIC would at least be halted to stop people from buying shares they will never see a return on.

Your last paragraph points out one of the main reasons it is probably still listed, it is the source of a lot of commissions for SLCAPEX.

Sure someone may be making money from the stock but there has be a loser on the other side of every trade, because there are no assets and no growth so essentially your trading virtual paper.

At least the HIFI virtual paper was a bit more convincing. The shareholders would still have IP if we could just get Tue to come to the party. I have sent him IM's and a notecard in an attempt to retrieve the IP but there's not much else I can do if he doesn't respond.


in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Itchy Gamba ]]> Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:29:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20621 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 Which part of it is it that is complicated for you to understand ?

As for your false claims i'm not even gonna comment on them, i can only wonder where you get this stuff from.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:45:36 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20620 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
At the moment you don't own ANY stock here... and YOUR selling strategies are usually of the type that depresses stock values for others - essentially a shameless predator that brings nothing to the community beyond vile and greed.

Don't kid yourself - the valuable part of this thread was over the instant you appeared and launched an attack on CapEx... until that time there was quite a civil if not spirited dialogue amongst HIFI shareholders - many of whom rightfully feel quite slighted at this point with regard to their HIFI holdings... I didn't hijack the thread Andy - you did. I am a HIFI shareholder and a representative of CapEx - you are neither.

What ARE you other than a loud-mouthed malcontent? Apparently NOTHING.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:51:27 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20618 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Your behaviour has a negative effect on my stocks.

Additionally you hijack this thread from it's important topic, and launch a personal attack against me and others.

This conversation is over.





in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:13:09 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20616 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
I seriously doubt that others will have the same difficulty deciphering my extremely cryptic and ambiguous language.

Frankly Andy, this thread started quite civilized - it was persons just like yourself that then chose to use it as a platform to launch an attack on SL CapEx and its operators including specifically myself.

If you are going to piss in my garden you can be damn sure that I will defacate in yours in return. Seems fair to me.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:40:31 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20615 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
You make up quiet a lot of claims.

Make one civilized post, and please don't put words in my mouth.

Thanks.


in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:47:48 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20614 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 Another Andy Grant gem - dump the shares on yet an even greater fool than yourself... indeed that's good advice.

(PRECISELY why SL CapEx HALT's and ultimately delists defunct/noncompliant co's).

The way I'm looking at things buddy NOTHING has changed with you.

http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?pid=12126#p12126

#12 Today 20:42:04AndyGrant
Certified Investor
Registered: 2008-02-28
Posts: 1005 Re: Sorry, i don´t understandI'm not sure what kind of news you expect.

As you can see from my post above, Lif management has been selling Lif shares (propably to you), i think this is the only thing you need to know to DECIDE what to do with your shares.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." - Wayne Dyer

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:28:23 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20613 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
So what you're really objecting to is our halting a Stock MANUALLY pending News, non-compliance or delisting... in effect us halting a stock to prevent people from dumping shares on uninformed victims... Yep, big difference - NOT!

Who do you really think would be SELLING on news of non-compliance - the passive retail shareholder that "checks-in" once or twice per month, or the hyper-active insiders and trading professionals that spend a good part of their day trolling the forums, socializing with Executives and generally staying well-informed? Who's fleecing who Andy?

I must say, given the alternatives, our system functions as it should. If shareholders actually took active responsibility for their investments and engaged Co Executives and consistently and continually held them accountable then perhaps we'd have less failures (and less people that feel victimized, and less people that think somehow it's the Exchanges fault that Executives AND Investors have failed to hold up their end of the bargain. Again, an Exchange is an intermediary not a regulator.

The fact remains that, unfortunately, in SL that's not the case. Too may people have bought into the hype that people like yourself have spread that SL is a magic money tree - just drop your $Lindens in the well and riches will fall out the other end... sorry pal, that's not how it works.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:14:57 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20612 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Do you see anywhere me advocating the exchange to MANUALLY halt comapnes, NO.

Do you see me advocating AUTOMATED TRADING HALTS, YES.

There's a huge difference.

BTW: my post was directed towards Scott not you.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:43:20 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20611 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Let me get this straight; on one exchange you're advocating Trading Halts to prevent insider trading and on this Exchange you're questioning why we've implemented Trading Halts? So tell us, dear sir, who has the double standard?

SL CapEx has repeatedly and clearly stated our position regarding the unique JTIC situation yet here you are again trumpeting your infinite wisdom yet adding nothing to the community beyond vile, vindictive commentary... nice job.

ISE Post reprinted below;

http://www.intlstockexchange.com/punbb/viewtopic.php?pid=11422#p11422

AndyGrant Certified Investor
Registered: 2008-02-28
Posts: 1004 Re: Sorry, i don´t understandNice...

SportsbetsWriter wrote:
stetsonrail 5,046,531
JedediahMcDunnough 4,412,205
noahwoori 1,471,543
caesarjanus 789,999
FayandriaFoley 230,418
tomacsewell 58,000
JuroKothari 50,100
elizabethantonelli 37,088
albertomcgettigan 35,972
NullrouteAllen 34,90

stetsonrail wrote:
as a major stock holder in LIf i can assure you I haven't and don't intend to sell any of this stock i have not been in world as much as i use to or would like to be I have also contacted Jed and as soon as I get a response I will be happy to share it with all of you,

Shareholders list today:

Top Shareholders
stetsonrail 4,916,531

I guess the LIF "BOD" and acquisition manager changed his mind.

UPDATE I:

Top Shareholders
stetsonrail 4,565,531

Seems Mr "i can assure you i havent and don't intend to sell any of this stock" really have changed his mind.

(ps: a good reason why automated trading halts should be implemented so insiders can't defraud investors like this anymore)

Last edited by AndyGrant (2009-11-01 01:26:55)
----------------------------------------------
"If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." - Wayne Dyer

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:18:19 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20610 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
For a little topical twist on the current situation here...

"Calm down, just take a deep breath for one second....This happens with my son he does the same thing."

Pep :)

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:00:03 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20609 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
i think Itchy's (and many others concern) is the fact that Arbitrage is a fulltime poker addict, and has a listing called JTIC, for atleast past 6 months he has not posted any financials and you have not taken any action on that.

The explination has been that poker or jtic is different in so many ways. But from an investors perspective they feel they deserve to see financials.

Now, with that being said, i don't think Itchy has any JTIC investments, but, during same period of time (when JTIC was failing to report to investors) you threatened to fine and attempted to fine HIFI (without success), and ultimately halted it (so investors can't dump their shares).

I don't have any stake in this but i don't think it's a good idea to have double-standard policy. Nor do i believe there's any good in having the exchange holding investors shares hostage (halting a stock, disables investors ability to determine what they want to do with their shares before a company delists).

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:30:04 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20608 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:32:46 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20607 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 That`s i asked myself when HIFI IPO´ed.

I just smiled when i went to the store and had a look at the website and saw teh CEO dancing in the streets of SL with that cash.

For what he needed 1 Million L$? FOR WHAT???

Come on please even little Sportsbets Writer smelled that bacon from the very first beginning even at IPO stage.

Why others not?

Well Sports, think about why he needed 1Million L$, you'll get the point very quick :) But I won't explain it again. Ya know, he (Tue/Mik) is a Reallife DJ and a manager of a store with an awesome amount in sales. His intention wasn't fraud (rofl), his intention was to create something unique (rofl again)...

Finally we agree in something, WOOT !

Regards,
Angi

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Angi Fargis ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:42:15 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20606 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 Hey everyone, Sportsbet is going to be joining Andy and Itchy on the God committee.

You know, with the three of these fella's being so able to accurately predict every future event why don't we all just give our L$'s to them no questions asked - I'm sure the returns from them will be juicy!

Sports, I hear Luke has an awesome exchange - why not list your co's there - or better yet on Jasper's. Pfffft!

Next?



in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:09:19 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20605 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
That`s i asked myself when HIFI IPO´ed.

I just smiled when i went to the store and had a look at the website and saw teh CEO dancing in the streets of SL with that cash.

For what he needed 1 Million L$? FOR WHAT???

Come on please even little Sportsbets Writer smelled that bacon from the very first beginning even at IPO stage.

Why others not?

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Sportsbets Writer ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:47:55 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20604 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
What is your real issue with JTIC?

If you have such a issue with the shares you own why don't you just sell them?

If you don't have shares why keep pointing to it?

I don't see your name on the top 10 share holders list, I have 278,000 shares of JTIC

What do you want done?

JTIC has 30mil shares, 25.5mil are owned by Arb leaving approximatly 4.5mil for the rest of us.

Since the first of this year over 7.3mil shares have changed hands, well above the 4.5mil number

Somebody is making money off the stock daytrading it, and it's not me.

Thank you,

Scott Nestler

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Scott Nestler ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:23:01 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20603 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
If I have to forfeit my HIFI shares then everyone in JTIC should have to forfeit theirs.







in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Itchy Gamba ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:27 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20602 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:54:10 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20601 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
When a CEO still has cash on deposit at slcapex you 100% believe it is your duty to act like both a police officer and god at same time (only to collect fees from uninformed customers of yours, fees ultimately come from IPO money which comes from the uninformed investors whcih you refer to as GAME PLAYERS).

But when a CEO has withdrawn their cash, then you'll do anything you can to protect them.

Quiet a plan you have there bogart, really, really amazing.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:51:54 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20600 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
You are encouraged to pursue whatever remedies you desire of your own accord and are entitled to believe what you will.

I have a different opinion about what's transpired with HIFI - like everyone else I'm entitled to that opinion.

Good luck with your recovery effort.

Bo

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:13:19 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20599 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
If anyone of the leaders of this exchange just had the gutts to give advice on how to deal with that fraud and if ya wouldn't protect his stupid ass by deleting PUBLIC information... but that ain't gonna happen, will it ? It ain't about playing mother, officer or judge or whatever, it's about dealing with a crime, defined by law ! And protecting a person who commited a crime makes you just being involved in it.

So, HELP the guys who got their money stolen from, then protect a fraud and stop living in a dream world, telling yourself that it was missmanagement or whatever, IT WAS NOT !

Regards,
Angi

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Angi Fargis ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:02:01 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20598 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
It's not the Exchanges job to do that tho - shareholders need to protect their own interests versus looking for someone else to do their Due Diligence, vetting and enforcement, and, to accept blame when things go south.

Sorrry folks, we're no longer accepting the role of Police Officer, mother, Judge and Jury any longer... apparently Andy and Itchy are gonna do that cuz' they're all knowing omnipotent virtual Godz now... good luck fella's - let us know of your progress.





in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:05:50 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20597 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
But he didn't, so it is FRAUD and Tue is in fact just another SCAMMER.

Why didn't SLCAPEX protect shareholders by asking for a full perms copy of the IP be given to them before the IPO even started? At least then we'd still have something of value.

When you look at this whole episode, it seems he quit because he couldn't be bothered paying a fine. I hope SLCAPEX reconsiders their stupid policies regarding fines, especially considering JTIC still exists.

In fact what pisses me off most about this fiasco, is that JTIC can do whatever it pleases without being halted or fined when it is the biggest joke on this exchange. But everyone else is treated completely different which results in this situation we have now.

Don't even bother trying to claim that JTIC is an investment cert and not a stock, that is complete load of hogwash. Either apply your rules evenly or not at all.

Bogart, if SLCAPEX really is just a GAME, there was no need to delist HIFI, just let it trade forever, after all the people buying the stock when it gets dumped by everyone else aren't losing anything except PLAYMONEY.







in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Itchy Gamba ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:33:02 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20596 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 Whatever you say Andy... NEXT topic please.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:20:05 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20595 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
There are many cases where it has been proven that L$ has a value, do some serious googling on Eros LLC, you'll find some quiet illuminating stuff. Thats aside from the fact that LL had to ban gambling aswell as banking, if those werent real then whats the deal.

As for the part about L$ exchange rate, yeah LL isn't regulated they can issue as much money as they like or buyback all of it or eliminate it, but they have a financial interest in keeping the exchange rate "stable" or else people would lose confidence in the L$ and LL would lose business.

PS: you can't put L$ on game of chance because of UIGEA

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:59:49 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20594 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
There is nothing wrong with charging people a fee (Real $) for the use and benefit such game token begets - whether that token begets 5 minutes of time on a pinball machine, a game of chance, a STOCK MARKET SIMULATION or what-have-you.

It has NO CASH VALUE ($$$)(NONE, ZERO ZILCH NADA) other than whatever the purveyor is willing to honor AT REDEMPTION - the terms are subject to change at any time at the purveyors SOLE DISCRETION. It is NOT a CURRENCY - it is NOT SOVEREIGN - it is simply a non-fiduciary UNIT OF MEASURE.

If tomorrow LL decided to change the $USD Exchange rate of $Lindens from approximately 1:265 to 1:1 or 1:1000 you would have NO ECONOMIC RECOURSE - GET IT? (NONE, ZERO...)

If you choose to tender your unit of measure in exchange for something that YOU consider to have VALUE (Asset or otherwise) then that is your CHOICE. That does NOT however confer an obligation on the issuer OR ANY OTHER HOLDER of the Game Token to honor the value you have declared.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:43:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20593 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
The claim is: "It's not real money it's fictional."

Grow up.

L$ is a REAL FINANCIAL ASSET.

In SL TOS, pay special attention to:

L$ is not exchangable to any RW currency *FROM Linden Lab*. Then they go on to say that there is an exchange where this REAL FINANCIAL ASSET is exchanged and that determines it's value.

Likewise with the USD (i hope you're not gonna claim this one is worthless TOKEN).

The USD is not exchangable from *The US government*. (read the papers from the FED, it's right there)

In both cases, the market maker determines the value of those REAL ASSETS (in RL those are commercial banks, and other investors who through interest rate requirements determine the value of the new issued money by the FED). In SL LL uses a standard currency model (pretty similar to the former US Colony money, which has no interest but its value is determined by supply/demand).

You can claim all you want that it's impossible to run a serious exchange in sl, and the only 100% guaranteed effect it will have is that slcapex is not gonna become one. It's your choice.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:29:16 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20592 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
An Exchange is a non-fiduciary transactional intermidiary - not a bank.

It is neither borrower or lender but simply earns a fee for facilitating private transactions between parties.

The risks and obligations are borne by the individual transactors - quit trying to lay blame at the feet of the Exchange.

Assets worth L$ ... read the LL TOS, think it through Andy - if you don't want to risk your lunch money to PLAY with tokens issued by a software company then DON'T BUY THE DAMN TOKENS and CERTAINLY DON'T SPEND THE TOKENS BUYING SHARES IN FICTITIOUS COMPANIES ON FICTITIOUS STOCK MARKET SIMULATIONS - Simple as that.

If however, you want to have some fun helping your freinds make something of potential "value" in a virtual world as paret of an effort to earn more game tokens then have at it... we do and enjoy it immensely most of the time.

Again, quit trying to make SL Finance something it is NOT and NEVER WAS... a place to invest real $ for real return!





in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:58:26 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20591 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
<< it does not accept payment >>

Really ? Well then why do all these ppl keep talking about Tuo and the 1mill L$ ?

That one million L$ wasn't supposed to enter nor leave this exchange, now was it ?

If you can't manage a simple thing as an exchange then shut it down. People are having REAL FINANCIAL assets invested here and you treat it like shit. When people ask you what your Slcapex stocks are worth you tell them it's financial assets worth xxx L$, but when a company goes down under you claim its a game and that there's no actual assets here.





in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:39:20 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20589 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Our SIMULATION and POLICIES hav been reviewed and approved by legal counsel and have been shared with LL (including dialogue with Phillip and at least one member of the LL BOD).

If you don't like our RULES go play in another sandbox.

It is people like YOU, Intlibber and Luke that continue to claim that the SL Finance Market was, is and should/could be something that it is not that mistakenly has innocents here under the false impression that this is a place to make real-world quality investments and earn real-world profits. * IT IS NOT * (and won't ever be until and unless there is an appropriate RW regulatory framework in place that can be equally adjudicated on a world-wide basis). Until such time this environment remains a GAME and nothing more.

SL CapEx is not a bank, it does not accept payment nor does it pay interest... get your facts straight.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:35:09 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20588 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Anybody with the slightest form of intelligence saw the HUGE business expense shortly after the IPO, you are one of the few who naively wishes to believe that this socalled "business expense" wasn't (at best) HEAVILY inflated, at worst theft.

The fact that you were on the shareholders list doesn't mean you didn't get paid off-the record. (i'm not saying i believe you did, but it has absolutely no effect on the suspition you raise through your continous defence of Tuo, it might indeed have happened).

And you claim that i make ignorant arguments, look yourself in the mirror...

You say:
<<
You can make ignorant arguments all you want, SL CapEx *is* a GAME, a SIMULATION involving FICTITIOUS Companies and Currencies - Read the Terms and Conditions of our and LL's Policies - our position and caveats are QUITE CLEAR.
>>

Your policies are not only a joke, they're completely false, intransparent, and incompatible with SL's policies.

Here's what the banking policy says, about FICTITIOUS or Educational "financial" activities...

"We will not apply this policy to companies who submit a registration statement, charter, or other applicable license from a governing regulatory authority, OR WHO ARE MERELY CONDUCTING MARKETING OR EDUCATION, BUT NOT ACCEPTING PAYMENTS."

https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/tags/banking

If your intent is to run a GAME, a SIMULATION involving FICTITIOUS Companies and Currencies, then you have to STOP ACCEPTING PAYMENTS. Which part of this is it that you fail to understand ?

Personally i would much rather that you run a serious exchange like for example ISE, and stand for the service you provide "A securities exchange for sl businesses dealing with financial assets", rather than "claiming to run a game, but at same time dealing with financial assets".


in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:59:49 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20587 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
do YOU really believe in any crap that Tue wrote ? For example, he also wrote he's a manager of a shop with rollover of 20 Million / year (if I'm not mistaken). Then he wrote he's a Reallife DJ (you ain't have time for that if you're such a good manager). Then he wrote he doesn't have the time for Secondlife and no joy, but spending his time inworld. So far, everything stated is a lie and you can't say it is NOT!

To defend him, even if the loss for you might be inconsiderably low (dunno if L$ or the shares is no money for you at all, even now considering the financial crisis, but that's for everyone himself) doesn't matter, because as long as you are able to exchange L$ -> $ and someone intentionally fools people to get their REAL money, it IS fraud !

And actually a TOS isn't worth anything, or well, parts of a TOS Agreement are worthless, if something happens that is violating RL law. For example, in germany as well as the us there are so called "AGB" or "TOS" where stuff is written in them, that people are forbidden to do this and that which goes contrary to given laws and that makes those parts obsolete.

Another thing is, if everything you've stated is needed to launch an IPO, it would be pretty simple to fake one. Given the example, everyone could easiely crawl the web for some business ideas, put something ficticious together which seems to fit the SL economy, run to SLCAPEX, present that Business Plan if it has hand and foot, maybe have 2 or 3 products in a beta-state avaliable (funded out of the own pocket), get an IPO out, sell 1.000.000 shares (which equals 2.500€) go to several currency exchanges, pay the money out to paypal, moneybookers or whatever and just state you don't have the mood anymore and then you won't get punished.

Seems to be the perfect way to make some bucks in a hard time, huh ? Maybe it's worth thinking about the way stuff is handled here and maybe it's also worth to think about WHOM to trust. If you only lick asses, play mister niceguy, tell everyone that your intentions are fine and that you have great ambitions to create a company with a broad range of products that are well worth it but in the end some people prove you're a fraud but still get defended because these people don't look any further, what do you have to fear ?

What stops Tue from creating another alt, contacting SLCAPEX again, to launch another IPO ? Giving out realworld information can be faked too. And nope, I am not believing in conspiracy theories, I'm just critical towards peoples behaviour and tell my own opinion on things, try to give examples to make everyone think about what happened.

So Long,
Angi

PS: I'll never forget one sentence that Tue Torok wrote to me in the past which was "Keep on moaning while I take the money to the bank!"
Seems like this statement is making his intentions very clear, doesn't it ?

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Angi Fargis ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:42:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20586 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 Andy,

I'm not specifically defending Tue - my comment spoke to the fact that HIFI as a BUSINESS CONCEPT was viable (the IPO was approved based on the IP demonstrated and Business Plan). In SL as in RL 9 of 10 businesses FAIL (most often as the direct result of POOR EXECUTION on the part of its Management).

Personally, having spent several hours conferring with Tue I *HIGHLY* doubt this venture started out with any intent to defraud, nonetheless the business failed.

If you review the Shareholder list you'll see that Cash, Scott and myself were 3 of the 7 largest shareholders - you'd be hard pressed to claim that any of us have profitted on Tue's folly - quite the opposite in the extreme!

You can make ignorant arguments all you want, SL CapEx *is* a GAME, a SIMULATION involving FICTITIOUS Companies and Currencies - Read the Terms and Conditions of our and LL's Policies - our position and caveats are QUITE CLEAR.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:25:38 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20585 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
At this point your behaviour is starting to become so strange that one should have reasons to suspect that you had in one way or the other gotten benefit out of Tuo's adventure.

I'm not suspecting you of fraud, but i'm just saying your behaviour is exceptionally illogical, if you're not a fraud.

First you claimed that theres no reason to call HIFI a scam, because it had products <- INVALID ARGUMENT, REASON: wse aswell as mnm, and Hbk also had products.

You falsely claimed that PRIVATE info which Tuo did not accept to make public was posted. <- INVALID ARGUMENT, REASON: Tuo already agreed, by posting his own info on the net. Whois database is not private, its public.

And last but not least, you claim that SLCAPEX is a "game" and does not involve investment of financial assets. Completely false. If you want to run a securities exchange for educational purposes the LL Anti-Banking policy is crystal clear: you then have to NOT accept payment AT ALL. If you do accept payment (and last time i checked you do have an ATM) you operate with financial assets, and this is a securities exchange.

It should be in slcapex interest to try to help investors in the case of fraud, and not work against them, but i might have misunderstood the mission statement of slcapex.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:15:58 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20584 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Yes I understand that. I'm not on a witch hunt here...I am simply suggesting that we might consider making "knowledge and willing consent" a requirement for accepting office.

People would be a lot less willing to pull the crap they do if they knew that thier address would be published to investors after a cut and run. It's just a thought for consideration. I'm not sure of the legalities involved and I'm sure you guys have had put much more effort into understanding this type of situation.






in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Ashleigh Wade ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:34:33 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20583 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Exactly that's the point Bo. The information are posted with their knowledge, coz as far as I'm concerned, they made the stuff public at places where everyone has access to and where everyone was supposed to look actually (at least those who had interest in HIFive at all and potential Sponsors etc.). So we're (in my point of view and interpretation) not violating any part of the SLCAPEX Policy. I for myself think that it's important, if information are avaliable for everyone, to give others the information who don't have time to do some research.

And actually, I think that maybe this part of the policy might be worth debating.

Kind Regards,
Angi

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Angi Fargis ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:34:25 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20582 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Our policy is quite simple to understand. The important phrase here is "...without their knowledge and willing consent".

If you want to conduct a witchhunt do it with your own resources - not ours. Much appreciated.


in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:27:36 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20581 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
We (Andy as well as me) used sources _EVERYONE_ can use to get those information being posted. In this case, they aren't private at all anymore. As soon as you make something about your privacy avaliable for everyone, that piece of privacy is gone. In this case, we collected this information with the knowledge of a (at least in my juristic understanding of the given law) fraud because the information are avaliable in public, even made avaliable by that person himself. If I would have hacked a server or if I would have taken any other non public source of gathering information, that would be against the rules (rules usually give you a variety in terms of how to interpret them). With that in mind, re-releasing information that can be gathered by using a service like whois.net or the actual avaliable information made public on hi-five.biz, I don't know where the problem is.

And as far as the law goes... Denmark is part of the European Union, that means, that laws regarding fraud are basically the same in each country that is part of the union. With that in mind, the german and danish law regarding fraud are based on the fundamental EU law, where fraud actually is a crime and everyone (okay, i wouldn't file a lawsuit if i lost 1 share) is allowed to file a lawsuit (maybe a class action lawsuit would be an appropriate way of how to deal with that).

Anyway, this is MY PERSONAL understanding of given law in the european union and I can be wrong, because I didn't study law at university, I only took part at some lectures regarding internet fraud and creating a self-owned business and I only had to deal with law stuff in germany. But from my understanding, the given law in the EU regarding things that are a crime in every country are basically the same and you (if you were betrayed) have the right to fight against that.

IF anyone can give more detailed information, maybe someone who is able to translate parts of https://www.retsinformation.dk (all in danish and my danish sucks) hand them forward, because it isn't only about HIFive actually, it's about much more "business" activities that the person in question performing.

And yet again, I am NO LAWYER and all the info above are written with my best knowledge of things !

Regards,
Angi

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Angi Fargis ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:30:59 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20580 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Is any of the shareholders from Denmark?

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by AndrewMD Oh ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:17:05 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20579 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
The other question is if, by way of accepting a position as an officer of a public company, shouldn't principals be asked to agree to a release of RL address information for thier shareholders in the event of default? It might curtail some of the cut and runs.

What good does it do for SL Capex to collect RL name and address information if they are not going to use it to help protect the investing public? Wasn't that the motivation to start collecting the information in the first place?

What changed to create the need for 1.g?

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Ashleigh Wade ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:49:59 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20578 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Whois database is public knownledge, here's a copy paste from http://www.whois.net/whois/Hi-Five.biz :

WHOIS information for Hi-Five.biz :

[Querying whois.neulevel.biz]
[whois.neulevel.biz]
Domain Name: HI-FIVE.BIZ
Domain ID: D27599056-BIZ
Sponsoring Registrar: ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES INC.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 106
Domain Status: ok
Registrant ID: AT21657862-052
Registrant Name: Tue Agerbak
Registrant Address1: Marskensgade 5A 2 5
Registrant City: Koebenhavn OE
Registrant Postal Code: 2100
Registrant Country: Denmark
Registrant Country Code: DK
Registrant Phone Number: +45.22120006
Registrant Email: tue@agerbak.dk
Administrative Contact ID: AT15841104-053
Administrative Contact Name: Host Master
Administrative Contact Organization: One.com
Administrative Contact Address1: Kalvebod Brygge 45
Administrative Contact City: Copenhagen V
Administrative Contact Postal Code: 1560
Administrative Contact Country: Denmark
Administrative Contact Country Code: DK
Administrative Contact Phone Number: +45.46907100
Administrative Contact Facsimile Number: +45.70205872
Administrative Contact Email: hostmaster@one.com
Billing Contact ID: AT15841104-053
Billing Contact Name: Host Master
Billing Contact Organization: One.com
Billing Contact Address1: Kalvebod Brygge 45
Billing Contact City: Copenhagen V
Billing Contact Postal Code: 1560
Billing Contact Country: Denmark
Billing Contact Country Code: DK
Billing Contact Phone Number: +45.46907100
Billing Contact Facsimile Number: +45.70205872
Billing Contact Email: hostmaster@one.com
Technical Contact ID: AT15841104-053
Technical Contact Name: Host Master
Technical Contact Organization: One.com
Technical Contact Address1: Kalvebod Brygge 45
Technical Contact City: Copenhagen V
Technical Contact Postal Code: 1560
Technical Contact Country: Denmark
Technical Contact Country Code: DK
Technical Contact Phone Number: +45.46907100
Technical Contact Facsimile Number: +45.70205872
Technical Contact Email: hostmaster@one.com
Name Server: NS1.ONE.COM
Name Server: NS2.ONE.COM
Name Server: NS3.ONE.COM
Created by Registrar: ASCIO TECHNOLOGIES INC.
Last Updated by Registrar: BATCHCSR
Domain Registration Date: Sun Oct 12 22:34:33 GMT 2008
Domain Expiration Date: Mon Oct 11 23:59:59 GMT 2010
Domain Last Updated Date: Thu Nov 26 01:49:37 GMT 2009

<<<


in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:12:33 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20577 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
and we have a phone-number : xxxx (also Truncated)

(taken from the site Hi-Five.biz)

Have Fun with it.

CapEx explanation added 12/03/2009 - 1:40AM: Angi, the content you've posted is prohibitted pursuant to the SL CapEx Code of Conduct, specifically section (1.g) as posted at http://www.slcapex.com/content/conduct

If you have private information to share with interested parties please arrange to do so using resources other than the SL CapEx website and Forums.

Thx.

Edit by Angi:

If you would have looked at the site http://www.hi-five.biz/ or would have done a WHOIS on the registrar of the site, you would have found the details e.g.

Phone Number to be seen here : http://www.hi-five.biz/index.php?option=com_contact&view=category&catid=12&Itemid=58

Reallife Name to be seen here : http://www.hi-five.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=60

Please do some research before altering posts with information that are avaliable for everyone ! ;)

Have a Great Day,
Angi

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Angi Fargis ]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:30:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20576 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
It is very likely that the European Anti-Fraud Office will be interested on this individual.

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/faqs/en.html

Who from the share holders would be interested in seeking justice? Please reply to this message.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by AndrewMD Oh ]]> Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:51:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20573 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Andy Grant ]]> Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:00:41 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20570 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 300,000 plus shares down the drain. Thanks again.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Cash Yiyuan ]]> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:35:23 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20568 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2803 Hi-Five(tm) (HIFI) Delisted effective 12/01/2009

Hi-Five(tm) (SL CapEx: HIFI) Delisted effective 12/01/2009

The BOD of SL Capital Exchange has conferred and determined that Hi-Five(tm) and its CEO, Tue Torok, have remained non-compliant with SL CapEx continued listing policies for a period of at least 90 days and during that time have failed to make any measurable good faith effort to remedy such non-compliance.

As such SL CapEx has no reasonable alternative but delist HIFI effective immediately, 12/01/2009.

Shareholders of HIFI are counseled to seek any redress directly with Tue Torok regarding their investment and ownership of Hi-Five(tm), its assets and any related intellectual property.

A FINAL Shareholder list has been reproduced below for those wishing to pursue remedies.

Shareholder Name - Shares
Tue Torok 2104997
Radioactive Rosca 354146
Cash Yiyuan 312439
AndrewMD Oh 274003
CapExATM Aquila 172501
skidz Tweak 100000
Bogart Beck 75001
Monmacer Vaher 50000
Hanzoh Vacano 45000
Itchy Gamba 43504
Mateo Infinity 28000
Kay Noble 26560
Art Cazenove 23000
robwag Soothsayer 14541
Latham Levenque 14266
Maki Guyot 13739
Delish Demina 10000
Io Habilis 9755
Korto Laszlo 9019
DanielSaraiva Parkin 8885
Mallory Marialla 6272
Stroh Bing 5500
Charizma Miles 5005
Maisha Slade 5000
Rdlovely Pera 4500
Kasey Repine 4286
firstdesigns Milos 4000
Nyko Merlin 3207
HansJuergen Rau 3000
Floofy Vixen 2238
Kiki Lowey 2182
ferre Howlett 2120
Kasla Amat 1345
Rage Newman 1100
Tom Prospero 1077
Kat2 Kit 1028
Kubi Beam 1001
Atreyu Frequency 1000
DIMM Flow 1000
logan Yootz 500
Kanin Karu 497
Santinhos Noel 485
Kerian Twine 453
Billy Schroeder 425
Nzut Igaly 400
Dick Emmons 300
Herold Shepherd 300
jdehlic Jie 265
Zebular Garmes 250
Xenia Easterman 212
Pandora Philipp 200
elsy Schoonhoven 150
Matt Opel 148
qudex Coronet 145
Brian Austin 134
Lumpy Aeon 112
Josf Kerns 105
Gravel Homewood 100
Wishful Merlin 100
Zonek Wopat 100
Awaken Yoshikawa 50
eriko Flores 50
zadios Jigsaw 50
Kevin Ballinger 48
Seth Belar 30
Henrik Little 21
Afton Gabardini 20
David Gardenvale 20
Shira Lykin 20
Quinn Finesmith 15
BurnA Greenwood 14
Ancient1 Aeon 11
Asmaa Footman 10
Deema Clowes 10
Wyck Watkins 10
Poco Roffo 5
Kyle Brongniart 4
Jinny Jonesford 3
Tomac Sewell 2
DFH Westland 1
Johnny Norwood 1
Malin Arizona 1
Nicolo Luminos 1
Orage Lubitsch 1
RafaelNew Beck 1
Ryan Arun 1
Wessen Nemeth 1
Zarathustra8589 Diesel 1


in topic HIFI : Hi-Five(tm) (HIFI) Delisted effective 12/01/2009 by Bogart Beck ]]> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:25:33 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2803/20567 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
I'm sure there are lots of ppl who would like to put their name in the hat for getting HIFI back up and running. I think the main concern isn't IF we can find someone to run this dying entity, but if we can find someone who will do a better job than the current management.

I was fortunate enough to move my HIFI at a time that wasn't too much of a loss to me, but that does not help my fellow traders who are still involved in this business.

All things considered...if HIFI was actually selling TV's at the rate that other competitors are then I believe that we would all be quite happy with the performance of this entity.

I think what bugs the sh*t out of investors is that HIFI isn't selling TV's at all and doesn't look to be attempting to either.

So yeah Bo, let's find someone who is interested in doing business (maybe even good business if we are lucky) and I think that investor's concerns will be satisfied.

I think most of us understand the inherant risk involved with getting involved in these companies. We understand that real risks are inherant in any business model and that we are participating in that risk to be able to have a potential reward.

But I myself am not willing to see IPO money just disappear into management's pockets and call that a risk element.

So Tue...what's ur decision? Do you want to run your business, or do you want to give up your intellectual property to the ppl that funded its development? If neither of these decisions sound good to you, then I'd say you came into this with the wrong mindset.

Pep

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Peperi Franizzi ]]> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:08:35 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20564 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Seriously, I don't believe, from seeing the stuff inworld and from hear-saying, that this stuff is even worth what they wanted to sell it for (and sold it to a few who were blind and didn't think).

I think, many of you thought I only had personal beef with that guy coz he always seemed to be straight forward with you guys, but since that guy is actually badmouthing a lot of people, behaving totally arrogant towards those who just reject his offers, towards those who actually have accomplished something and towards those that were actually doing good in their businesses (I'm a RL and SL DJ and besides paying royalty rates, it was always fun and yep, sometimes the earnings were way above average, but that's when you try to deliver some real quality) and yeah, I know that guy said I'm bad at it and that he's worth much more as a DJ (we see the outcome of that now), I already had a bad feeling when he said he's going to launch another company.

Hell, there's companies in SL like 3FX or Sinewave who deliver extremely high quality products and they payed it ALL from their own money and it's a big success. Now there's one who thinks he needs to screw people around by claiming he's going to do that as well, with just the intention to get YOUR money and even now (he already has your money) he just shows up, tells people he feels bad and blabla, just making up hilarious stories and doesn't have the guts for a single update which explains the truth.

If that isn't fraudulent behavior, then I don't really know how to call it. This hasn't something to do with "missmanagement", this was planned from the very start, trust me. I met a lot of those people in SL and RL, even in the DJ businnes in the real world there's people behaving like him and they usually lose bigtime. The only thing i can see where lot of the money went into are the 2 webpages where he probably hired a very well payed webdesigner/coder because people who never dealt with a CMS before and have no deep insight into GiMP/PS (well, there's a lot tutorials for Aero/Glossy Designs) couldn't have done that. On the other hand, after he traced me and another person (which he claims is my own alt but that ain't true coz i don't need that crap anyway) it seems he has some more knowledge about the web then the average person, but noone knows for real what and who he is... and there'll be a wall of silence, I'm sure of that, because making public what really happened will never come to his mind.

I feel sad for the guys and gals who fell for him and wish everyone better luck next time. I still hope this will have consequences and I hope that guy's gotta pay bigtime !

Regards,
Angi

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Angi Fargis ]]> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:03:23 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20563 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 SL CapEx does not maintain an Insurance Fund for companies that are delisted. There are private companies in SL that have offered Insurance for SL Finance gameplay - talk to Eliale Morigi if you want further information there.

HIFI had/has products and sales... that's not fraud in my mind - just extremely poor management. I suppose if someone were to takeover HIFI in an administrative capacity then Tue Torok would be obliged to relenquish the intellectual property (the products and scripts) that HIFI shareholders paid for - not sure how to actually compel him to oblige.

I'm cerainly not volunteering for that role - anyone else?

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:01:45 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20557 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
because I know in RW we'd @ least have a means through SPIC or other means of getting our money back.

does this also mean that there is no insurance fund in cases of this that when there is blanent fraud the exchange says oh well we are SOL.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Atreyu Frequency ]]> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:29:53 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20556 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
Didn't I say some stuff, which did put him into a bad light but which was the truth ? To put it simple : He ran away with your money because that's what he does all the time. Promises, promises and promises again, putting up hilarious stories (if you read in the archive, the stories he came up with regarding his RL wellbeing aren't really working with his appearances in secondlife as someone else), false claims, wrong statements and much more.

Now someone can understand why this guy is pissing me off ? Seriously, people actually should spread the word about that guy, being absolutely not credible. He should get fired from everywhere ASAP and pay EVERYONE the money back he owes them. I have come across a lot of assholes in this virtual world, sometimes I'm one as well, no doubt ;P

But this is the top of it all. I hope this will have severe consequences !

Regards,
Angi

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Angi Fargis ]]> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:05:10 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20555 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 Technically you'll still own them (and a piece of HIFI)... a company being delisted simply means the Exchange will no longer make a market in the stock. You can arguable still trade them via private party transaction or seek redress directly with the co. CEO - in this case Tue Torok.

I'm not really sure where Tue lost his way - this is the second time SL CapEx stepped up to help him underwrite a company IPO - and it was most certainly the last time.

We;ll post a final shareholders list when HIFI is delisted - after that it's between the shareholders and CEO directly.

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:41:19 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20550 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791
in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Atreyu Frequency ]]> Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:21:58 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20549 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791 Heya Monmacer,

HIFI *WILL* be delisted at end-of-month assuming Tue Torok doesn't do something dramatio to change the sentiment of shareholders. Less than 72 hours... I'm personally not too optimistic at this point.

Another good idea squandered in SL. Really a shame.

Bo

in topic HIFI : Open Letter - Final Request for information Tue Torok by Bogart Beck ]]> Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:27:07 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/ARCHIVE/2791/20546