http://slcapex.com/forums/browse/mforward en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:57:49 -0800 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:57:49 -0800 http://slcapex.com/forums/ Kudang SQL2RSS admin@slcapex.com webmaster@slcapex.com 60 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206 I find the scale based one to be alright, maybe even necessary. I learned while playing with the GPBA stock that it becomes incredibly hard to sell off - at a profit - when individual share prices start to hit the double digits, and it would be monstrous if anything should actually hit the triple digits.

You could always cut out the donation to charity and lower the rate to 2.25% too. Let people greedy people keep their share, and the charitable give theirs away if they feel like it.

in topic Moving Backward slightly by Tumult Ivanova ]]> Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:29:47 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206/669 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206
in topic Moving Backward slightly by Rexx4814 Beck ]]> Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:53:04 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206/668 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206
Thank you Rexx for the input!

in topic Moving Backward slightly by Arbitrage Wise ]]> Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:32:53 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206/666 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206 The alternative of having commision on both sides, in my opinion i don't see the point, it only gives ppl a larger math headake before placing an order and the result is thesame.
Alternative is commissionfree trading with "small" monthly fees based on portfolio size/trading limits, but that solution would be unfavourable to investors that just buy and hold, it would only be benefetical to stockflippers.
For now i would keep the fees as they are at 2,5%, it's simple and it's fair.

in topic Moving Backward slightly by Andy Grant ]]> Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:32:27 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206/665 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206
i strongly oppose a split commission, this would kill the exchange as it automatically puts buyers at a loss, then leaves them hoping the market will make up for it. this is NOT something capex should be considering given its growth goals in attracting new traders.

i like the scaling fees. 2.5% up to a limit, would be awesome. you still get your comission, and larger traders dont sting as much.

in topic Moving Backward slightly by Dimitri Gasser ]]> Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:14:32 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206/664 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206
Flat fee, but this will hurt the small investors.

A scale-based: something like 2.5% up to 100L, whichever is the smaller amount.

Maelstrom has also suggested 1.25% both ways.

We are open to suggestions, so feel free to post what you think is fair.

in topic Moving Backward slightly by Arbitrage Wise ]]> Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:52:29 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206/663 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206
in topic Moving Backward slightly by Rexx4814 Beck ]]> Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:40:48 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/206/662 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/154
The need for regulation is there. The way to do it effectively is still in the process of discovery.

The SLEC was too entangled in bureaucracy. Instead AVIX is making unilateral moves to improve reporting. I was encouraged by the requirement to fax in an ID. So long as the transition remains smooth as it has so far, I have optimistic views for the future.

I'm still on the fence about these changes, but what I've seen so far is encouraging. I for one am much less stressed than I was prior to the move indicating that workloads are being handled much better. I am waiting, and watching, for progress.



in topic Moving forward, the sale, and you. by Maelstrom Baphomet ]]> Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:29:38 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/154/552 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/166
in topic Physical (OK Virtual) Location of the Exchange by 7736237 Paine ]]> Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:03:21 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/166/519 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/166
in topic Physical (OK Virtual) Location of the Exchange by Wellington Philbin ]]> Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:25:24 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/166/504 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/166
There are currently offices available for rent in the building.

in topic Physical (OK Virtual) Location of the Exchange by Arbitrage Wise ]]> Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:46:43 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/166/501 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/166
Perhaps a response by Investor Allen and CapEx management could address this.

in topic Physical (OK Virtual) Location of the Exchange by Wellington Philbin ]]> Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:43:49 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/166/493 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/154 It would seem for one, that management hasn't been shifted onto the SLEC after all.
What about the other proposed policies, such as auditing and being voted off the island?

I'd just like a little update, saying what will and won't be kept from that change. I'm sorry if it was posted in an announcement somewhere and was missed.

in topic Moving forward, the sale, and you. by Tumult Ivanova ]]> Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:55:38 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/154/461 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/63
I tend to see the entire world of SL as something of a libertarian experiment, at least until the new policy of wagering was implemented which diminished that concept some. This pretty much means a laissez-faire form of economics, and in a capitalist sense, caveat emptor is the main principle. This is similar to the situation of the 19th century with the robber barons of the railway industry. I'm not saying that the CEOs on AVIX are actually that, just noting that the same level of power is present.

I suppose that this, like much of life, relies on trust. It's sort of a large-scale prisioner's dilemma game theory model in which does one trust or not. Perhaps the risks of the SL economy can be reduced with the implementation of some system either from LL or on the exchanges, but as it has been demonstrated with the likes of Enron, no system that is functional will ever be without risk.

in topic So what happens if a CEO is voted off the island? by Kailen Juran ]]> Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:51:32 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/63/212 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/63
That being the case, it's impossible to vote them out of their own company. They aren't employees, they're owners. You can't take their land, money, and responsibilities and just push them onto someone else.

The other change that worries me is auditing. Typically the only way you can really pull off a full audit, is to get the password to someones account, log in their avatar and peek around at their assets. Dig through their transactions history and make sure that the money they have on hand and tied up in assets is real, and not just borrowed to look like they have more then they do come audit time.

This might seem like a brilliant idea to some of you, but... Unless I'm mistaken, giving away your password is against the linden labs terms of service. Not to mention just how ethically gray it is.

Pictures are ineffective, because it's easy for many people to edit them. At best, you might stop skill-less opportunists, but no one who's genuinely out to scam the share holders.

I suppose you could demand actual video footage of the av going to check their bank accounts, and whatever else you might demand. That would be a lot harder to edit for most people.

in topic So what happens if a CEO is voted off the island? by Tumult Ivanova ]]> Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:23:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/63/211 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/61
We further believe and hope this is the first step to further regulations in the financial arena, stretching out through SL. Making a more vital and sound foundation to the economy. The SL economy that has not reached it limits and that has so much further to expand.

We support the open elections, of the executive boards that will have further fiduciary responsibilities and accountability to the shareholders. That will have real life circumstances, for those that will not support the agreements, understands and fiduciary responsibilities. We support the large investor limitations of trading of the individual equities, volumes and reporting.

We support Shareholders list, within restrictions in a way to open up communications between all investor, small and large.

We support regulation and stand behind a fair and honest market, public information and statements. We support accountability and the limitation of trading with unfair non-public information. We support limitation of those who are close to or have the means to have knowledge of insider information, the reporting of the shares trading and a delayed release of insider purchases and sales, of equities they hold. We further support regulation on the timeliness of the releasing of information.

Our hats are off to you Investor Allen for a great direction you are leading us.


in topic "Moving Forward" Support For by Monmakr Allen ]]> Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:39:46 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/61/204 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/58
The following is a direct statement from Investor Allen.

It is time that a step forward needs to be taken. The SL economy has grown leaps in bounds in the first half of 2007, and I would like to see that continue. In order for the SL economy to continue to grow and be seen as a legitimate market worldwide, it is time that third party regulation be seen throughout the exchanges.

Allenvest International Exchange has taken the Initiative to submit a document to the SLEC proposing that the SLEC assume the responsibility of full regulation on the Allenvest International Exchange. We have asked the SLEC to work with us on creating policies to regulate the companies listed including real life disclosure, audited financial reporting, and stricter listing requirements. Most importantly we have asked that this information be verified and released to the public in all cases.

We have also begun discussing a number of policies regarding majority ownership in companies listed publicly. It is time that the CEO's of the companies listed on the exchange take responsibility for their position and that the shareholders have the ability to vote them out should the CEO not perform to the expectations of their shareholders. We also strongly feel that terms need to be met prior to a company being listed that lay down the procedures should the shareholders elect for a new board of directors.

These are just brief details of the changes that need to be made here. I would like to you to discuss these further in the forum "Moving Forward" listed under the forums link above. It is time that the SL Economy be made more secure, legitimate, and fair for all who choose to use it. Join me in moving the SL economy forward.

Investor Allen

in topic Moving Forward, Official Announcements by Investor Allen ]]> Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:48:46 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/mforward/58/195