http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252 In forum Brautigan & Tuck Holdings Public Forum en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:41:08 -0800 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:41:08 -0800 http://slcapex.com/forums/ Kudang SQL2RSS admin@slcapex.com webmaster@slcapex.com 60 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
There were a lot of lies told here and I will leave it at that.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Lindsay Druart ]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:43:27 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1177 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Dezmond Martinek ]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:39:32 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1176 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Isegrim Nikolaidis ]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:21:16 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1175 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Microsoft, Google, and many other companies that built large company value BEFORE IPO, retained majority of their shares in the hands of their founders after IPO. Bill Gates and Paul Allen, for instance, to this day, control 70% of the company, they IPOd 25% of the stock to the public and have sold little since then. Googles founders all became instant billionaires when Google IPOd. So your arguments here are not based on fact. Ergo, the bull is coming from you, Lindsay.

Before SLCC, I had negotiated the purchase of Global with Kitila Cortes. While at SLCC, his scripter sold you a credit card system, without his knowledge, which you then decided made you a 20% partner in Global, which Kitila did not agree to, and since Global is still in the IPO application process, to be considered insider trading for you to appropriate the IPO shares for yourself before the IPO even hits the market. This is rather corrupt behavior for the president of the exchange to be engaging in. You did all this AFTER I mentioned my deal at SLCC, and your announcement to that effect was on monday, AFTER SLCC, showing that you took advantage of inside information, you corrupted the IPO process, for personal gain.

Also, you seem to be grossly unaware of other market facts. You claim Anshe doesn't have 300 sims? She had 550 sims in January when she proclaimed herself the first SL millionaire. Her own press release said so.

As for dumping shares? WTF are you talking about? I've never once sold a single share of BNT on the market, so this is pure slander and libel.

As for LL's business model to put estate owners at a disadvantage? Don't expect that to last long when any avatar can see any Linden online at any time... Help Request is coming back whether LL likes it or not....

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by IntLibber Brautigan ]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:46:05 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1171 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Isegrim Nikolaidis ]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:07:09 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1169 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252 http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Wal-Mart-Waltons-Richest15nov04.htm
They only control about 39% among the surviving members of the family as of 2004. Not bad considering all together they have about $90 Billion.

Interesting points brought up. In my researching I am finding that a lot of the large holdings are rolled into family trusts and/or still being held by surviving family members, but scattered out. I am also running across many mentions of smaller holdings of super voting shares which give the controlling interest. I will continue to look at it when I have time.

Turning back to BNT, I don't mind that Int holds 85% of the shares, but I do feel the total count is too high and have said that from day one. Par valuing the total shares @ .50 means that the market cap approaches US $236,363 or so. However, this figure might be supported by some recent high profile sales:
http://secondlife.reuters.com/stories/2007/03/27/amsterdam-sold-for-us50000/

The only logical conclusion for the large share count and 85% holding I came up with was by examining his past transactions. Each company acquired has been paid for out of his personal holdings with no new issue. Therefore I would conclude that he is holding those shares to acquire future companies....an interesting way to go about acquisitions though.

I was aware of the holding structure (85/15) and large share amount during the IPO phase. I can't remember if that was published or I discovered that in conversations. In all honesty I didn't dive in at IPO because I didn't like the behemoth amount of shares. It wasn't until I actually went to Anticapistan (BNT's Sims), saw the physical properties (and bought one myself) and met with management that I started buying blocks of shares. I am in it for the long haul, be it 39 sims or 300 sims. They manage well and I feel that the company could produce some great long term results but may need to grow into its current share amount.


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Ashleigh Wade ]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:17:03 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1161 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Ashleigh Wade ]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:11:02 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1155 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Eliale Morigi ]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:34:56 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1152 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
I do get what you are saying about assumptions. However when one builds a company from stratch one would assume they own the entire company before selling it, or a fraction of it, to the public.

My point is that in many cases the founders and founding families do keep a majority interest in the shares of a public company either through majority holding or supervoting stock. I guess, unless that is, they want to sell that majority stake to the public.

It's hard to find an example of a single controlling founder in the big boys because most of the founders of these companies have died. One would think though that Sam Walton held a majority of Wal-Mart before passing. Now it's fragmented because it's split through out the family. And what about Parmalat - Founder Calisto Tanzi and family own 98%.


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Ashleigh Wade ]]> Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:52:57 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1146 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Wal-Mart Stores Ford Motor Co. Samsung Carrefour Group
Martha Stewart Omnimedia Fiat Group Ito-Yokado
Ifi Istituto Finanziario Industriale S.p.A. Motorola etc. etc."

Source?

The issue here is not whether the founder gets stock options at the IPO - there is a clear precedent for that. The issue is whether a founder keeps 100 million shares, releasing only 30 million (less than that, actually, since they didn't all sell) to the public, and without making it clear that such is the case. Again, it's the <i>assumption</i> that all non-IPO shares belong to the founder that I take issue with. Also, I have yet to find a publicly traded company where one founder owns a controlling interest.

And one more thing - some of the companies in your list above (Koch Industries, Robert Bosch GMBH, ALDI Group, Auchan, and many others) are not publicly traded. They are privately held. http://familybusinessmagazine.com/topglobal.html

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Gxeremio Dimsum ]]> Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:59:14 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1139 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Lindsay Druart ]]> Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:31:48 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1138 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Lindsay Druart ]]> Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:29:26 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1137 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
The SEC doesn't regulate banks, they wouldn't care.

Banks are subject to regulation by 3 separate Federal agencies and/or state bank regulators.

Federal Agencies:

The Comptroller of the Currency charters "national banks"

The Federal Reserve Board, and

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

State Regulators:

In each state there is a department of State Government – frequently called the Banking Commission or Department of Banking and Finance -- managed by an official called the Commissioner or Director or Superintendent of Banks that regulates "state chartered" banks.

------------------------
“Name one RL company that is publicly traded but which has assumed all non-IPO shares belong to the founder.”

Wal-Mart Stores Ford Motor Co. Samsung Carrefour Group
Martha Stewart Omnimedia Fiat Group Ito-Yokado
Ifi Istituto Finanziario Industriale S.p.A. Motorola
PSA Peugeot Citroën S.A. J Sainsbury
BMW (Bayerische Motoren Werke AG) Hyundai Motor
Koch Industries Robert Bosch GmbH
SCH (Banco Santander Central Hispano S.A.) ALDI Group
Auchan Group Pinault-Printemps Redoute
Tengelmann Group Viacom Novartis Group Tyson Foods
Bouygues Roche Group Bertelsmann Weyerhaeuser Co.
Loew’s News Corp. Karstadt Quelle Michelin Publix Super Markets Bombardier Mars L’Oréal Lagardère Gap
LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton Groupe Danone
General Dynamics Anheuser-Busch Cos. Cathay Life Insurance
Magna International Comcast Sodexho Alliance
Winn-Dixie Stores Comp. Brasileira de Distribuic
Heineken Henkel Group Investor AB Hutchison Whampoa
Reliance Industries Illinois Tool Works Masco
Marriott International Clear Channel Communications
Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. Dillard’s
SAP Thomson Corp. Grupo Financiero BBVA-Bancomer
Interbrew Associated British Foods Cemex
Dollar General Corp. Mercadona Nordstrom
Haci Ömer Sabanci Holding Grupo Carso
ERG S.p.A. Estée Lauder Cos.
Fomento Económico Mexicano (FEMSA)
Pernod Ricard H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB
Bolloré Koç Group McGraw-Hill
Porsche Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas
Danaher Corp. Italmobiliare S.p.A.
Carnival Corp. Kumagai Gumi Co. Ltd.
Kelly Services Inditex Jerónimo Martins Cablevision Systems
Murphy Oil Richemont



in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Ashleigh Wade ]]> Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:19:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1134 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Isegrim Nikolaidis ]]> Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:08:47 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1128 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Lindsay Druart ]]> Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:05:04 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1125 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Isegrim Nikolaidis ]]> Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:49:19 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1119 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
You boast about all these aquisitions but what profit have you made from them? You stood there at SLCC telling me that you bought a company that you had not even started negotiations with that had been working for me for months....What a liar! I could have blasted you right there in front of TraderJohn but I decided to text message Kit while I stood there talking to you as he and I had talked about his conversation with you prior to SLCC. And the offer you made him to buy the company yesterday was nuts. You know you can't afford that so you are low balling him with empty promises of a payment plan and devalued shares. If he takes the deal and backs out on me over you, he would be the biggest idiot in SL because you would boot him quicker than a shoe store boasting about your stinking IQ.

Come off the self hype and think about the market. You will not get to 300 sims in a year. Ansche Chung doesn't have 300 sims and has been here for going on 4 years. What makes you think you can corner a market so saturated as it is? 300 sims? I mean really.....LL is dumping mainland daily and will continue to do so per Philip Rosedale so don't think the land business will get easier. The plan for LL is to dump mainland into the market until people stop buying the auctions. They want a steady rotation on the auctions so private island owners are going to be at a slight disadvantage. How will you combat that? Promising 300 sims by 2015? That sounds more viable.

Then I also see you are dumping shares....Nice. Thanks for the sentiment. I am sure this is because you are mad at me over this whole GCC thing. Also realize that if M2B runs as a RL bank, you will have the SEC and some other companies knocking on your door pretty soon so watch how you boast about the RL side of your business. Very grey area....

I hope one day you will realize that there is such a thing called reality and another thing called bull.

Lindsay Druart

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Lindsay Druart ]]> Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:25:52 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1118 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Whoa. This should not be a publicly traded company, then. It's a privately held company. You abused the IPO process to present yourself as a publicly traded company when in fact you were just selling your own shares. "Stockholders," who in your view were offered a paltry 20-25% of the company, are really just loaning you money and can never have a substantive say in how the company is run. In fact, technically anything that was purchased with company stock doesn't belong to the non-Int shareholders in any substantive sense, right?

It is absolutely NOT presumptuous to think that non-IPO shares belong to the IPO shareholders, unless that is clarified otherwise. Name one RL company that is publicly traded but which has assumed all non-IPO shares belong to the founder.

If this is in fact a privately held company, you need to get it off the publicly traded markets. This would never ever ever be considered acceptable by SEC laws.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Gxeremio Dimsum ]]> Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:29:01 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1116 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252 you said: "I was not aware that you personally held 110 million of the 130 million outstanding shares. When there is an acquisition deal, do those stocks for swapping come out of your personal portfolio? It might be a good idea to distinguish more clearly between what YOU own and what the COMPANY owns. As CEO, of course it makes sense you would be the proxy voter for the company's shares, but I'd like to know which are yours, and which are "ours." Otherwise we're not really shareholders; we're just loaning your our money and hoping you pay it back."

BNT was not a startup when it IPOd. It already held 12 sims, a number of subsidiary businesses. It was, by far, the biggest pre-existing business to IPO on the exchange. That company was built by myself, with investments from M2B and other pre-IPO investors. I started BNT last October with 200 US of Google Adsense money, and I built it with nonstop work, 16-20 hour days, 7 days a week, until we IPOd in April.... You know this Red, you interviewed me back in November when we just had a half sim in Magritte.

As such, BNT was not invented out of nothing by the IPO investors. It had preexisting value. The shares put up for sale at IPO were my shares in my company, built by me, that had a pre-IPO auction value of over 65k USD. It is therefore presumptuous to presume that the non-IPO shares belong to the IPO shareholders.

That said, our acquisitions since then have all been paid for out of my personal shares. I have never diluted shareholder value with secondary issues, unlike some others on the markets have done. For this reason, BNTs shareholders have gained free NAV at my expense. I transferred some of my shares to pre-IPO investors after our IPO completed. We transfered some more of my shares for the MTB and M2B mergers.

For some reason, investors don't seem to recognise this conservative approach which has resulted in them realizing greater NAV at my expense. Go figure, one more mystery of the irrational SL markets.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by IntLibber Brautigan ]]> Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:45:20 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1107 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252 My question is that at some point you have to switch to a value model, where earnings are stable with little growth, look for example Microsoft that in the last years paid dividends with not so much growth after an impressive '90 decade with a great top in 2000.
So, am i right if i say that at 300 sims (in the worst case by the end of 2008) you will start to pay some dividends to shareholders?"

This depends on what our plans are at that time. Ideally I'd prefer to keep building shareholder value by finding new markets and models to continue to maximize growth.

For instance, our existing plans to open our own independent grid, will get us to 300 sims faster, but will also allow us to attain much higher growth rates for longer, especially as we will be in tax free New Hampshire and other grids will most likely be in much higher taxed jurisdictions like CA, MA, and the european nations. Our grid will become the Switzerland of the metaverse, attracting businesses there to avoid confiscatory policies of governments that have done nothing to make the metaverse possible.

This obviously transitions us from a strictly inworld company into one akin to Linden Lab only a few years ago. Our purchase of M2B LLC enables us to assume a RL corporate presence easily, so we should be opening our RL facility here in NH next month to start our gridding research.

I agree that business opportunities follow S curves, which is why we seek to jump from curve to curve at opportune moments to turn our growth curve into one of asymptotic exponential growth, much as Ray Kurzwiel recommends.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by IntLibber Brautigan ]]> Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:27:05 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1105 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Dezmond Martinek ]]> Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:30:36 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/1000 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Cayman Beaumont ]]> Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:03:08 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/984 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
I thank you all for your input on the matter.

May lady Fortune smile upon us all again soon.

Isegrim


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Isegrim Nikolaidis ]]> Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:29:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/977 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
As far as liquidating shares shouldnt be necesary, at some point once the company has become profitble (enough to pay any serious dividents) it is infact an advantage to hold enough ceo shares to avoid hitting below 50% when a secondary is beeing done. If you look at RDX, she's paying about 2mill a month in dividents, the dividents are a joke only 50k goes to public but much of the ceo dividents go back to RDX for reinvestments something that maintains growth in the company. Similar could be done with BNT, if we take an example divident of 0.02 a share: 2,6m would be total but only 386k would land in investor hands, so the 2,2m could be either reinvested directly into the business or spent to buyback float&liquidate it to protect the price.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Andy Grant ]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:05:58 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/971 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
How would SLCX maintain investor interest/volume if limit trading, prices and circuit breakers were implemented and if so, would the trading fees increased?

Perhaps the provision of a dividend section within the prospectus or shareholder discounts for services/products could be introducted.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by 7736237 Paine ]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:58:54 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/967 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Lindsay Druart ]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:34:38 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/963 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Limit trading?, Limit prices?, cirquit breakers?, What would be the point of the exchange then. Would it not loose al its charm. Anyway I would still like to have a response
on the fact that if people do not get regular rendement on the investment what else is there to do then to become a day trader.


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Isegrim Nikolaidis ]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:07:49 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/962 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252 IF we limit the number of trades then it isn't a free market!

Another idea could be to limit the price of limit orders, for example if the last price is 1 linden, maybe the next order you can place is +/- 50% or whatever from that value, maybe in this way you can smooth the price oscillations with a better and compact book of orders.

Keep in mind that in the history of real life stock market any attempt to control it to avoid long term bearish campaigns, failed miserably. So for the long term is not an easy task to control the market.

Just thoughts:)

Enky

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Enky Nakamura ]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:09:02 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/960 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Valerian


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Valerian Dryke ]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:33:22 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/958 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
As far as day traders, they can dictate the market price just as much as someone dumping hundreds of shares. I see value in day trading but I also see the harm in it. My suggestion would be to limit day trading to a certain amount per account per day so they are not able to affect the market as bad.....

Linds

P.S. See you in Chicago, Int!

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Lindsay Druart ]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:53:15 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/954 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252 a dividend every 100 sims?

Thank You

>As a number of daytraders with no BNT stock have frequently >commented loudly to me on, BNT offers no monthly dividend. >We do have a dividend policy, that we will pay out a dividend at >each 100 sim milestone in our growth.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Enky Nakamura ]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:27:02 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/951 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Any firm whose business generates significant positive cash flows or earnings, which increase at significantly faster rates than the overall economy. A growth company tends to have very profitable reinvestment opportunities for its own retained earnings. Thus, it typically pays little to no dividends to stockholders, opting instead to plow most or all of its profits back into its expanding business.
Growth companies are most often seen in the technology industries. The quintessential example of a growth company is Google, which has grown revenues, cash flows and earnings by leaps and bounds since its initial public offering. Growth companies such as Google are expected to increase profits markedly in the future, and thus the market bids up their share prices to high valuations.

THIS CONTRASTS with mature companies, such as diversified utility companies, which see very stable earnings with little to no growth.

After that definition taken from investopedia.com i have a question Intlibber.
My question is that at some point you have to switch to a value model, where earnings are stable with little growth, look for example Microsoft that in the last years paid dividends with not so much growth after an impressive '90 decade with a great top in 2000.
So, am i right if i say that at 300 sims (in the worst case by the end of 2008) you will start to pay some dividends to shareholders?

Thank you very much

Enky



in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Enky Nakamura ]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:18:29 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/950 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Thank you for the comment, I will inform the economist to include this in the report, however, would companies be willing to divulge specific information for reporting purposes?

I mean this is to be no plug, but the SL Institute of Economists will be implemented to provide overall economic/business etc reporting based on the LL metrics report and various sourced information to the SL Institute of Company Directors (FOC) and public subscribers.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by 7736237 Paine ]]> Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:41:19 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/944 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
I was not aware that you personally held 110 million of the 130 million outstanding shares. When there is an acquisition deal, do those stocks for swapping come out of your personal portfolio? It might be a good idea to distinguish more clearly between what YOU own and what the COMPANY owns. As CEO, of course it makes sense you would be the proxy voter for the company's shares, but I'd like to know which are yours, and which are "ours." Otherwise we're not really shareholders; we're just loaning your our money and hoping you pay it back.

Defining P/E (price/earnings ratio, for those of you just joining us) WOULD be a valuable exercise if we had more metrics to make such a calculation, and even more valuable yet if we had metrics from multiple companies to compare stocks. To my knowledge, those do not exist in any easy-to-calculate form. Calculating PEG (price/earnings divided by growth over a period of time) is impossible for BNT since the company is less than one year old. If you had to take a stab at it, what would you say the P/E ratio is of BNT stock if valued at L$.5? How about L$1?

Also, when I've wandered around BNT's mini-continent, I see a lot more "for rent" signs than I used to - what percentage of BNT land is lying fallow?

Guardian, you raise good points about the "S-curve" as well as your point about former casinos (such as Myth) entering the land business. It would be wonderful to put them out of their misery by buying up those companies as fast as possible, but I wonder if BNT would have any more luck filling them with renters than the former casinos are having. It seems to me from casual observation that we have slightly lower concurrency rates in SL, combined with a glut of casino land being repurposed for rentals and a pullback of the RL money that flowed in during the first half of 2007. Oh, and don't forget about the giant bank collapse and stock market crashes that have made investors poor and scared. :-)

All in all, it makes me feel just a little better to have the chance to talk about it.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Gxeremio Dimsum ]]> Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:27:37 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/920 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
That being stated, I admire Int's position in the SL markets. although he's a little brutal with investors, trying to get them to see long-term profits over short-run dividends is a noble cause.

However, IntLibber, many questions still remain. For example, a basic income sheet report would be a nice reassurance of your claims. How much do you take in from your sims? Pay out in tier? What is the occupancy rate? Also, perusing the announcements, two other questions jump out at me: What happened to getting the share price to L$0.78? (You don't have to actually get it there to answer this question - just tell us what happened to that idea.) How is the acquisition of WSE:MTB going? Have they generated profits as expected?

One final comment: With the collapse of the casino market, I would expect that many casino owners are trying to get into other land-based markets right now. Soon, some will fail (because they probably know more about running a casino than land management), and I suspect you will be able to pick up some sims very cheap. Something to look for.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Guardian Market ]]> Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:57:11 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/916 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Don't get me wrong, day trading is an okay strategy for building ones stock holdings in a company, but as a means of just extracting profits, it does nothing for either the company or the shareholders.

The people who bug about dividends in SL tend to want to buy the stock in expectation of dividends, then sell the stock at a higher price as soon as dividends are paid. They have no interest in the long term growth of the company.

As we have repeatedly stated, since our IPO, we are focused on growth. Our stock value is based on our NAV. Our share value is entirely dependent upon how rational the market is on reflecting NAV in the stock price. Price does not equal share value in an irrational market. If you consider yourself a rational investor interested in long term growth, then BNT is a wise investment choice. SL needs more investors like that.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by IntLibber Brautigan ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:09:06 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/909 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252 so having an influence on company desiscions is non existent. and futher more if daytrading does not add to the
company value it does not deminish it either because they only buy and sell the shares they own amoung them selfs and not those of the long term investors that hold on to them. also I have been told that to make a long term investment grow is to buy more shares with the dividends earned from the shares you already own. One can not expect that people keep pouring in more and more money without getting compensated for the risk they take.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Isegrim Nikolaidis ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:20:47 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/908 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
We are going to break this cycle, we are starting a campaign of RL advertising, registration for SL through our website, and delivering investors to our estate via our own orientation island. By bringing investors into our sims specifically, we will guarantee a loyal investor base that will raise BNT stock prices for the long term, fill our sims, and feed our company growth into the future.

Rational investors would look at this strategy as proof that we are being responsible, forward looking, and growth oriented.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by IntLibber Brautigan ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:28:58 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/905 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Every time someone has IM'd me about dividends, I've checked whether they are BNT shareholders or not. With possibly one exception, not a single one of them were, indicating they were a day trader only interested in generating hype and volatility in the stock in order to allow them to profit without benefitting BNT or its actual shareholders, they themselves had no actual interest or investment in our company itself.

A day trader is distinguished from a share-holder by the fact that a day trader trades the stock but does not hold it, the share holder holds the stock. I don't mind stockholders who want to day trade as well, its often a smart strategy to build up stock holdings out of day trading profits. The day traders I have heard from have not held even 1 share of BNT.

As for buying back more stock: we are at present more concerned about keeping our assets current, paying tier, through the difficult summer recession. We see lindex currency activity increasing markedly, so we expect the economy to improve markedly in september. Its more important to get BNT through August and into the recovery. As I said previously, we've bought back more than 400k shares of BNT on the 13th. Thats the limit of what we are prepared to do at this time. We may do another buyback in September depending on economic conditions, but we'd prefer to focus on growth of company NAV to benefit ALL shareholders, not just those who want to sell.

Also, Gx, there are not even close to 30 million shares publicly held. I hold 110 million shares at present, as previously stated.

As for company growth: yes we have not bought any new sims this month. Economic conditions did not warrant it, obviously. We expect conditions to improve in September and will be putting together plans for the next sim buy. As previously stated, we do not buy sims every month. I was describing the company's long term growth pattern, from 1/2 sim last October, to 39 sims today. Our growth has not been linear, its been exponential, and it will remain exponential. The previous commenters post was mired in linear thinking, which is why I explained our exponential growth history.

As for increased share value, our share value has increased constantly. What has not increased is share PRICE, because of several reasons:

a) this is an irrational market with irrational investors
b) the markets do not provide sufficient data on companys for investors to evaluate them and compare them against each other by common metrics like P/E and PEG as well as other metrics.
c) one market in particular has diluted the whole capital market of SL by irresponsibly shotgunning dozens of frivolous IPOs from companies that poofed at a high rate run by CEOs without any RL ID verification.
d) investors persist in foolishly investing in these frivolous IPOs as if they are promising investments. Investors also foolishly and repeatedly sell their older investments at prices below their buy price, causing them losses, thinking they will make up their losses in IPOs for other companies.

Share PRICES rise to meet share VALUE when investors act rationally and choose to buy shares up until share price meets current value, and often to exceed share value depending on what investors feel is the future share value. This, of course, depends on investors to act rationally. Until investors stop investing in frivolous IPOs run by anonymous avatars on exchanges that refuse to pursue fraudulent CEOs, prices will continue to remain irrationally low.

One thing you folks in the press can do is to publish estimated P/E and PEG data based on company announcements about profitability, until the exchanges start providing more verified forms of this data.


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by IntLibber Brautigan ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:16:39 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/903 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252 :)


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Dalia Ahn ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:40:01 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/843 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Not directly, but in the long run a stock with growing value DOES bring more investors eager to support BNT. I'm having a hard time understanding your obsessive phobia of "day traders", who seem to be by your definition people who hold stock for less than 2 years. Do you basically think a stock should have an IPO, then no one should buy or sell for years and years? Wouldn't that, you know, stall the stock price?

"BNT stock has dropped for one reason: Ginko held 11 million shares of it, and now holds 10 million shares. They have had bills to pay, and the way the GPB is being rigged by the management at WSE, Ginko is in for a rough ride."

This is actually a golden opportunity for the company to buy back stocks at less than half the price it sold them for. Putting these stocks out of circulation would be a HUGE boost to your shareholders. And that's what your job is: to deliver value to your shareholders. So c'mon, help out GPB and your shareholders by buying back as much stock as you can below, say, .60 a share. If we could get the number of outstanding shares down from 130 million to, say, 100 million, you'd really be doing something great.

"As for our growth rate: this shows another lack of perception. We started at 1/2 sim in October, we grew to 10 sims in December, 12 in January, 27 in June, and 39 in July. Thus we exhibit a growth rate that varies between 270%-6000% every six months, or between 45% - 1000% per month."

Hang on. It's almost the end of August, and there are still 39 sims. So that's a monthly growth rate of 0%. If you want to maintain a 45% growth rate, you'd better buy another 18 sims this week.

"As previously stated in our prospectus, we understand the economics of exponential growth, and we know how to achieve it. Dividends do not achieve exponential growth."

Perhaps. But the current system is creating not only a loss of share value, but untold opportunity cost for your shareholders who are NOT selling. Unless you're an employee of BNT, the growth rate of the company is no boon UNLESS IT RESULTS IN INCREASED SHARE VALUE. Please focus on increasing the value of BNT stock by issuing dividends and reducing the outstanding shares.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Gxeremio Dimsum ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:48:33 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/842 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252


in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Isegrim Nikolaidis ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:09:10 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/836 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
I disagree slightly in that day-traders are leaches. Rather, they are vultures, not itself a flattering remark. They simply await for someone to buy from them or sell to them, especially if someone is buying or selling with caution thrown to the wind. Day traders just take advantage of investors buying and selling at market (for the most part). I speculate that if it weren't profitable, no one would be doing it.

Another point is that day-trading can be an actual investment strategy. One can buy stock and sell the same value of the stock when the individual price is higher, keeping the excess for investment. It doesn't withdraw the stock from the market quite as fast, but it does work to minimise people's risk as the shares they own come at no overall cost, and not everyone has the funds to buy up everything at once. Just a thought there.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Kailen Juran ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:48:01 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/829 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252
Firstly, your day trading doesn't put capital in the hands of BNT. You buy some shares on the market, you sell some shares on the market, in the daily cycle of market activity. That doesn't put any capital in the hands of BNT to grow its NAV. Day trading also does not, generally, increase long term share price, beyond possibly increasing public awareness of the stock if day traders are able to hype the stock to their marks. It is those investors who buy and hold a stock, and buy more repeatedly, in a long term stock investment plan, that increase stock prices over time.

This is evinced by the fact that there were essentially two people who kept HCL stock up at the WSE, myself and Shaun Altman. We did some limit trades on both sides of the market, but share price was elevated because we mostly bought and held the stock, by the millions. When HCL management betrayed the two of us, we became disinterested in the stock, and sold off our holdings. HCL is now in the tank, and its staying in the tank, even as the day traders wrestle over the pickings of the corpse of that once great company.

BNT stock has dropped for one reason: Ginko held 11 million shares of it, and now holds 10 million shares. They have had bills to pay, and the way the GPB is being rigged by the management at WSE, Ginko is in for a rough ride. There is hope, there are groups forming to raise funds to buy GPB stock off the market in order to raise its price to the point where Ginko can start buying those bonds off the market at 1 L$ as WSE demands, though whether those groups are truly interested in this, or are merely trying to get the public to build interest in the bonds so they can unload theirs at a profit remains to be seen. In the mean time, the only people profiting off GPB is the day traders and WSE itself.

As for our growth rate: this shows another lack of perception. We started at 1/2 sim in October, we grew to 10 sims in December, 12 in January, 27 in June, and 39 in July. Thus we exhibit a growth rate that varies between 270%-6000% every six months, or between 45% - 1000% per month. Because this is a growth RATE, this implies that we have a doubling rate that ranges from 3 weeks to two months. Projecting most conservatively based on past performance, this implies that we will reach 100 sims in 3-4 months (i.e. December), and 300 sims 3-4 months after that, assuming the growth rate does not retard over time. Even if we further conservatively assume the growth rate drops by half with each cycle, this still means we reach 300 sims by the end of 2008.

As previously stated in our prospectus, we understand the economics of exponential growth, and we know how to achieve it. Dividends do not achieve exponential growth.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by IntLibber Brautigan ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:11:32 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/827 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252 as planned. Currently there are 39 or 40 sim's if I understood correctly, please do correct me if I am wrong about this but it would be unpossible to even reach a 100 before the end of 2007 without the speculations of these moronic leaches. I have no doubt about the fact that the long term investors also speculate on the sentiment of the day.

in topic Totally Flabbergasted by Isegrim Nikolaidis ]]> Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:24:55 -0700 http://slcapex.com/forums/topic/BNT/252/826