What are Ginko Bonds worth? - 2

I doubt you and Cristalle would have any patience to listen to any details of my perspective. You wanted me to accept your perspective and that is it.

In reference to this post: /327/f4/210175/1.html#post1674526

Yes, do back up every effort you do make to call me obstinate, "just wrong," or other negative bits. Otherwise, they are just hit and runs, or better yet, argumentum ad hominems.

So he was only a screw-up and a f'n liar at the time he was using the term "face Value" for his bond. Hes reformed since then?



Since the yields only ammount to the equivilent of 3% of the money he is supposedly holding, its entirely possible he could pay the dividents and still be a crook.

I am willing to accept that I made a mistake. I am also willing to step back and actually understand where the break in communication is. I'm sick of repeating myself with you. What have I or anyone else not answered? Do your part and let us know. If it is just that you don't like the answer, tough cookies, but all your tangents have been answered.

Do you need this information verified? Is it going to change anything you think about me?

Funny, that the ban-ners will become the ban-nees, when this case hits the courts.
They won't be awarding recompense to the 'victims," for involvement in a ponzi scheme, but I'd say they will blame two parties, slap their wrists with big fines a probati9onary period of some kind, and lots of court expenses.

In the meantime I'm buying Bonds just for fun, so I can be a victim.


After all its' not real.

For obstinate -
I submit this thread as proof. Where you steadfastly battled me back and forth on "Face Value" even though I provided direct quotes from Nick P. That he used the term.


-------------------------------------
For being wrong -
Ive already provided direct quotes by Nick P. that what his definition was at the time he issued the bonds was of face value as they applied to the bonds.

Furthermore you made statements that once the Interest dividend payments equaled the amount of debt on the bond, all the rest was gravy. Which is blatanly ignoring the fact that his holding the debt for that length of time carries an opportunity cost.

------------------------------------------
SO yeah I think you were obstinate and wrong.

Back on freaking topic.

Nick owns 6093 shares of HCB, 9,125,143 shares of HCL. I cannot find the valuation of BNT. BNT does not apparently trade on WSE. Anyone know to find that?

Anyway, doing the math, HCB's last is 100L/sh, HCL is at .73L/sh. Multiplying that by NP's holdings, that is 609300L for HCB and 6,661,354.39L. Using an exchange rate of 267L/USD, that is $2,282.02 USD in HCB and $24,948.89 USD in HCL.

BNT is unknown....

How many depositors got the shaft? Anyone know?

I dont think the Ginko thing will ever really go to court. For a number of reasons:

1) Big Juristiction problem with Nick being in Brazil, and customers being from all over the world. It really ups the amount of money needed before the authorities will get involved. He also becomes more difficult to sue. Or at least to sue and get money from.

2) The courts wont be up to speed on the mechinism of the Ponzi Scheme. Becuase it takes places in a Virtual World with Virtual money, etc. Heck there is the whole all payments are gifts problem to get around. Therefore it will take a HUGE effort to get the Judge and jury to understand what really happened. Especially since Nck's records are a big Question Mark.

3) Its highly probable that the big Ginko investors never declared their interest income from ginko on their taxes. There have been posts to this effect. This is a big nono, And many investors will shy away from trying to bring a case to court where its obvious they are guilty of neglecting their tax responsibility.

We will see I guess. But I think those three are not small issues complicating things.

Here is an example:

/327/d6/209550/2.html#post1672468

Two totally different perspective but we said the exact same thing, but you got upset for me saying it.


That was obviously "a break in communication."

I also asked the simple question:

/327/d6/209550/3.html#post1672564

You could not just simply give me an answer. I go look it up, and I get pounded show what I find. Then others come back and say "why don't you listen? they are giving you facts?" What facts? I had to go find the facts. When I came back here and posted what I found, the response was simply "you are wrong." Then fine, I go research it more because this information being said that i'm repeating my arguments from are completely wrong. Please go prove them wrong.

If the whole negative comments where left out and just reply directly to the conversation, this would have been much less of a mess.

I'll trade you some GPBs for marshmellows.

Okay, I want to understand this example. Here's what I see:
@#66, Dzonatas says: "There is no maturity date. That is why they are called "perpetual.""
@#71, Dzonatas asks: "What is the maturity date of the "bond with a face value of 1L"?????"
@#73, Cristalle responds: "Who's arguing just to argue now?"
So what *was* the question in #71? Was it a "simple question" or a rhetorical one?

(If it was rhetorical, was the point supposed to be that there was no such "bond with a face value of 1L"? Or that, to have a face value, a bond has to have a maturity date? Or... what?)

I provided sources of what face value means in perpetual bonds, or what it actually doesn't mean as compared to regular bonds. You didn't accept any of those sources.

I even provided what the prospectus says and how it doesn't even use the term "face value" at all. You completely ignored that.

You are being obstinate.



If I'm wrong, than provide the maturity date. There is none, as you said so yourself. So.. we both wrong or both right?



I didn't ignore that fact. I said "deflation." If it take 20 years to repay the bonds, it won't be worth the shit you wiped on it.

Therefore, you saying I blatantly ignored that fact is completely false. In fact, you blantantly ignored that I did point out deflation.

I don't agree with you on pts 1 and 2, I dont think either of those would pose much of a problem-------------but Point 3 is a good one. There will be more then one cat out of the bag about this 'fictional" currency if it does end up there.

Ah yes, this is the part where where you could not divide by 100. I made the point that the quarter chart was useless to the forced bondholder because it was - For the last time: to the depositor forced to own the bonds, they were handed a bond that was trading at a far lower value than what the bond was worth to the issuer. It was irrelevant what the bond historically traded at, because this bond was never going to be worth the value of the debt - the face value of each bond, as Nick put it (and which you continually quibble over). The forced depositor would have to take a loss regardless of who bought the bond, EXCEPT if the bond was called by Nick (the $1L Liquidation Value as you quoted in the prospectus), at which point, the bond would actually be worth 1L - the only problem was WHEN it would be worth 1L. You refused to accept this nuance and continued to argue that the face value of the bond was something other than 1L and even said at one point that face value was practically synonymous with market value. and So when I wrote You said:

So based on what we've seen, **I** somehow misconstrued what you said?? Who's gone in circles? From what I see above, it wasn't ME! You refuse to accept the fact that this is not a true mirror of RL perpetual bonds, and that as far as Nick is concerned, he owes 1L per bond. He cannot set a call value/cancellation value for anything less. Face value really IS 1L ***in this case*** because the bondholder, be it a victim or some Joe Blow shark who bought it off one, is going to get 1L if Nick actually honors the published terms as they currently stand. The only unknowns are IF he will honor it, and WHEN that is going to occur. Those unknowns diminish the trading value of the bond, but not the face value of the bond when surrendered to the issuer.

If face value is the denomination upon which the bond is based, according to classic definitions and as quoted by Uvas in this thread somewhere around post 50, your definition of face value would be incorrect.

This was a stupid question and I wasn't going to quote myself when I had already acknowledged that the bond was perpetual and had no maturity date. I wasn't going to answer this question because, candidly, the question was dumb and you were just being arrogant, condescending and argumentative over a non-issue. I don't play those games.

You are exasperating, and I really am done now.

I sure did ignore it - None of those sources issued the Bond.

Ginko DID. And ginkos definition of face value was clear at the time the bond was issued.

The prospectus? LOL thats just a definition. But still it doesnt invalidate, nor does it even mention the other statements. Does Ginko call that a prospectus? LOL

While its possible he no longer uses the term face value to describe the amount of debt the bond represents, It doesnt change that he did call it face value.

You are defining the bond by some reference definition just becuase it has some qualities in common. BUT The Ginko bonds do not have to adhere to to that definition.

I am defining the bond by the statements made BY THE ISSUER at the time the bond was issued.





I didnt ignore your deflation statement - I just didnt see it.

The "gravy" statement was wrong, though, becuase the interest is paid becuase he holds the money. He still owes interest for as long as he holds the money. 10 years, 20 , 30 doesnt matter. He still has to pay the principle back seperate from the interest payments.

This is why your statement suggesting Nick be able to drop his minimum bid to .97 cents after paying people 3 cents made NO sense to me. Since he owes people those 3 cents AND the dollar.

She told me "you have the dates messed up in your head." I wanted her to explain why she said that. I simply asked for which date. She made no reference to what dates she thought I messed up. I still have no clue what dates she means.

The other part is the maturity date. The maturity date doesn't exist of what I can find (so I asked if I missed something), so there is no way possible to have a "face value" on a day that will never exist. Due to that, I said NP either screwed-up with using the the words "face value" or lied, but people told me I was wrong, which would mean, the opposite, that he neither lied nor screwed-up and that there is a maturity date.

I wonder if Nick came out and said

"Look I can get 75% of everyone's money if I liquidate" if people would accept than and let him buy them out.


Would they accept 50%?


Just makes me wonder.

If you must state it is wrong, do tell where I did not divide correctly.

To continue with the other part of your post...



That is a complete logical fallacy beind a Argumentum ad hominem. As you see I explained above, you have no freak'n clue about my perspective, and you just assumed arrogance. You were more interested to cast negatives at me than the information I used.

At this point, I no longer care, Dzonatas. It was a simple question that I had already answered prior to you asking, and I wasn't giving it again. I don't give a crap why you asked it, because it furthers no argument. You have shown very little above obtuseness since you entered the first Ginko thread late in the game (without reading it and getting caught up) and make mountains over molehills over non-issues that would end up distorting the whole picture of how the bond actually works. You want to ram a definition down our throat and Nick's throat that changes the way the bond is behaving, and we refuse to let you do that. Fine. It's your world, we're just in it. You can keep your world.

Back on freaking topic.

My math shows $27k USD worth of inworld holdings (minus BNT, I couldn't find that). This cannot represent 25% of Ginko's assets! Rather, I hope not. I seriously hope not.

There was a much more extensive list of SL assets floating around at some point - it was in the neighborhood of 47 million lindens.

Yes, but those assets are things that WSE cannot take away. They have no control over them. If Nick packed up and ran, WSE would not be able to seize those assets. If you include the Ginko sims, the buildings on them, and the rental property revenue, maybe it would be that much inworld. But should that count for the value of the bond?

He tried to set the defination of the value not the defintion of the words "face value."



Only a statement of value was given, but there was no statement of facts, which is the logical fallacy on NP's part.



NP isn't the only one on the board of GPB. NP could say one thing and the board could decide another.



Yep, and I said he screwed-up or lied about that.



The prospectus is what we have to go by now. NP can say anything he wants at this time, but by virtue he agress to follow the the prospectus, which could be totally different than what he says. That is how many companies work. They are required to meet the statements made in the prospectus.



You said above that "you sure did ignore it"?????



Please find me a source that explains one has to pay back the principle under a perpetual bond.



Because the term "interest" was used, it probably confused you to think that there is a principle and interest that is being paid. The payments are just yields or stock dividends. One could say that if he pays 3 cents, then 3 cents is being paid towards the principle he owes you. In that since, his minimum bid could drop to 97 cents. Your right that people want the interest, also. As I have stated the yield many times as "interest/dividend," you could split the yield 50/50 for each towards interest and dividend. It would drop his minimum bid by 1.5 cents increments every quarter. It would take longer to pay back the principle, and it may be deflated by that time.

Did anybody ever get invited into the BNT group. A place to ask...

I no longer care that you are wrong - have a nice Second Life.

for tax purpoes........

Report worthless securities on Schedule D (Form 1040), line 1 or line 8, whichever applies. In columns (c) and (d), enter "Worthless." Enter the amount of your loss in parentheses in column (f).