SL Capital Exchange Forums

Subscribe to this topic

Forums > SL CapEx Public Forum > Topic: 'Fines.'

Aug 7th 2007, 04:47 Tumult Ivanova	'Fines.'
	Fines... An interesting idea. It raises a couple concerns though. The most immediate one is what happens to the collected fines from late postings, or any future fine-able offense? Then I have to wonder a bit about the nature of the fund... It starts at 20k, then goes down. There's no real indication as to why it has to be -that- high? At a fine rate of 200L per day, that gives them 100 days with a frozen account to waste... Is this meant to be a 'deposit' that gives them 100 days worth of total offense? If that's the case, you'll need to specify that, and make note about any rules as to weather the CEO is allowed/required to replenish the account to 20k again.
log in to reply
Aug 7th 2007, 07:11 Xavier Mohr	Re: Fines
	Tumult, You have some good questions. First and foremost, what happens to the fines: there have been several discussions, one of which would be to give the fines to charity. Most people know that Arbitrage Wise is involved with several RL/SL charities, so that is always an option and it has been discussed... I am just not sure if we confirmed it or not. I suggest you attend the Q&A Session on Friday and ask there. The "Administrative Fees" fund used to pay the fines will come in handy down the road as we implement more procedures, and possibly more fines for 'lazy' CEOs. However, we're not here to fine people to death and have not even talked about any other fines at this time. I think the fund more than anything is a show of confidence, of support, and trust. It is a showing to shareholders that you have at least some money. It is a showing to shareholders that you are dedicated to doing right by them. As a CEO myself, I wouldn't even mind if CapEx posted a list of companies in compliance with the policy. The only other things are on benefit and replenishment. Bear in mind that any money kept in the "Administrative Fees" sub-account, at least for the time being, will collect interest. So it is not even a bad investment for CEOs to put some extra cash into this sub-account, which will be locked to prevent access, then if a rainy ray comes along they can contact the management and reap the benefit of what they have been saving through an approved transfer or withdrawal. For replenishment, yes... at this time if the sub-account balance drops below L$20,000, the CEO will need to replenish it until it is beyond the 20k mark again. I'm sure all of this will be posted under a policies section at some point, but on towards later in the week I will work with Lindsay and Arbitrage to see if we can't get some more details posted for you. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Xavier Mohr, Public Relations Director SL Capital Exchange
log in to reply
Aug 7th 2007, 07:23 Tumult Ivanova	Re: &#39;Fines.&#39;
	Alright, thank you for the swift reply. I don't think I'll be able to make it to the Q&A, but I do look forward to hunting down the full details. I'm tempted to suggest putting any fines into the fraud protection fund.. Seems almost appropriate.
log in to reply
Aug 7th 2007, 08:34 Lindsay Druart	Re: Fines
	I believe the last testiment was a fraud protection fund and I am 99% sure of that. That is very appropriate because actions that turn out to be fineable damages investor trust and may be the road to an issue. Thanks for the suggestion Tumult. Linds.
log in to reply
Aug 7th 2007, 10:33 Arbitrage Wise	Re: &#39;Fines.&#39;
	I believe that we discussed possibly fining the CEO on their own personal assets. One of our officers suggested that making a CEO place funds into an account for fines is in a way punishing the overall company. The possible solution we discussed was to fine the CEO by reducing his personal shares equivalent the fine. Fines accessed will most likely be used to possibly help distribute to forum mods and admins that are responsible for making sure CEOs do their duties.
log in to reply
Aug 7th 2007, 13:45 Lindsay Druart	Re: Fines
	That's a good idea as well. Either way, the attempt is to make CEO's liable for violations of policies. A company that cannot follow policies may not be the best investment and we are looking out for the investor.
log in to reply
Aug 7th 2007, 19:00 Tumult Ivanova	Re: &#39;Fines.&#39;
	I don't agree with reducing shares, that feels way too much like theft. Not to mention, it would be a lot harder to deal with in case of accidental deductions.. You could deduct 400 shares valued at .50, realize there was a mistake and... If the shares have been given away, how do you return them? Money also isn't volatile.
log in to reply
Aug 8th 2007, 22:32 Arbitrage Wise	Re: &#39;Fines.&#39;
	Tumult: You may be right in liquidating the shares. As we start implementing these processes, we will probably discuss the best approach to this. Fines will not be a part of the company's profits. It will either to go pay administrators responsible for making sure CEOs post, or will be placed into the fraud funds. As for why the 20,000L set value, it was just a set number in principle. Again, when we begin to implement this, we will most likely get a survey of what the appropriate amount is.
log in to reply

Results: 8 Page

Sort by: Latest First
items per page: 2 5 10