SCAM IPO [Bakewell] - Finally, a 'transparent' investment that will 'grow'!

[Charles Bass]

I will tell you why i vote for dividends.
If i get dividends i can buy new shares.
So my personal value raises und the company value raises.

But if we retain the money, the company value raises but not my personal, because when people buy shares in 6 months they profit form my "dividends" i diddnt get payed..


greets Chuck

[btcash]

I can't vote and apparently I am not the only one who can't vote:

YES: 0 NO: 0

Are you sure the motion is unlocked?

[LoweryCBS]

You know, that's a pretty good point.

What's the amount per share that's in question here?

I will tell you why i vote for dividends.
If i get dividends i can buy new shares.
So my personal value raises und the company value raises.

But if we retain the money, the company value raises but not my personal, because when people buy shares in 6 months they profit form my "dividends" i diddnt get payed..


greets Chuck

[LoweryCBS]

The amount to be paid / retained will be in the area of BTC48

(sorry, too lazy to search) 48 BTC over how many shares?

[LoweryCBS]

We currently have BTC127.3 banked. If we were to retain the additional 49 from mining to date we would be at 176.3
 add to what we can raise from selling a few more shares from the treasury and what maintenance and growth will receive in dividends,
 and I think having BTC200 ready to go to is within reach and probably a good idea. That gets 2 singles (or equivalent) shipped to us right quick once they come out.

My initial leaning was towards paying out, but then I decided to vote my 310 shares YES for retaining the earnings.

I believe Ian can put the earnings to work (once ASICs are available) and best increase the value of Bakewell shares that way.

[btcash]

But if we retain the money, the company value raises but not my personal, because when people buy shares in 6 months they profit form my "dividends" i diddnt get payed.

+1

once they come out.

When do you expect that to happen?

[Deprived]

Just something you ought to know about motions on BTC.CO.

The criteria for a motion to pass is that 50% or more of ALL outstanding shares must vote Yes - there's no putting up a motion for 24 hours, only a handful of shareholders vote then something major gets changed.   I think you probably rushed this motion before everyone even realises the share has been relisted - and will struggle to get 50% to vote.

There's also a problem with this - as you have non-voting/non-equity shares allocated to collect growth fund.  If you don't vote with these it would be hard for a motion to pass, if you DO vote with them then votes get decided largely by shares that shouldn't vote at all.  Only way round it right now is that before vote ends, transfer those shares back to treasury - so they don't get counted in vote result - then transfer them back after the vote.  Then whenever you sort contract out you need to change the part regarding those shares and just take 30% for growth and then dividend other 50% out (which will allocate correctly to your management shares which I think ARE entitled to vote). 

Using shares to split income - when the shares aren't bought, don't own equity and can't vote is just terrible: not just for votes, but also for calculation of share value and distribution of equity in event of a closedown.

[Deprived]

I am also not entirely convinced those shares should not be able to vote.

Of course they can't vote.  Otherwise you'd have 50% of votes even if you didn't invest a cent of your own in buyinh shares.

Same as if company shut down they wouldn't get a share of what was raised from selling assets - as those shares are owned by the company itself not by you.

They're basically treasury shares that are being reserved so as to mess up voting/valuing etc just to save having to multiply income by 0.3 to work out how much to reinvest.  Put like that hopefully it's pretty obvious how bad an idea they are.

Shares for management is different - those are owned by you, though debatably it's still a bad way to do it as in theory you could have closed down right after selling first load of shares, distributed raised funds amongst shares and kept 20% for doing nothing).  Plus it by no means clear what happens if you ever buy shares back - do you have to return some management shares to treasury?  Do you not get to take new ones until shares sold surpasses old highest level? etc.

[burnside]

I wish burnside would implement sub portfolios already ;p

+1

It's getting more important by the day.  I'm hating having to hop around accounts when it's dividend paying time.

[Charles Bass]

There is many to do, bakewell looks transparency but it istn for me..
Whats the value of the Hardware, whats the value of cash in the company?

if we want to be professional we need a Supervisory board, and something like a balance sheet..

Are the 5700 Shares only private ownership or are they including the Company & CEO shares?
When is it planed to give out "new shares"?

greets Chuck

[Carnth]

Seriously - just return all the growth shares to treasury, retain 30% of all future dividends (including the outstanding one if motion doesn't pass) for growth, return 360 of your private to treasury (so they're up to date with what's actually sold) then going forward you give yourself 20 shares each time 80 more have been sold. 

I agree with doing things this way as it does making furute accounting and motion voting much easier (and transparent).

But, I would request a motion so that the contract can be changed to reflect this.

[Deprived]

You have it backward, I sell and then balance - putting me at the loss while waiting for shares to sell, not putting shareholders out of pocket up front.

2500 were sold
1500 then got sent to G&M
1000 then got sent to me - I paid out 252 as bonus shares on private sales, leaving me 748

that accounts for the first 5000 shares - a public tranche of 2500 and then a balancing

the other 700 shares currently outstanding are part of the second 2500 share tranche

Neither myself nor G&M have been balanced against those 700 yet. Balancing happens AFTER all share sales in the tranche.

Removed my post - as I'd misinterpreted what you meant by 2500 sold (because of your system sold doesn't mean same as outstanding as it usually does).  Yeah - assigning them after a block is sold works to advantage of investors (means their dividends don't drop so heavily while a batch is half sold).

[Charles Bass]

So are the 700 Shares saled or for sale?

If we want that more people buy these shares we have to pay dividend!
I bought shares 3 months ago and got only risk and no benefits!
Why should people buy shares without any payout?


If ASICS boards come out Next Year and we get one, and the people bugying Bakewell shares, where is my profit from taking the risk?
Where is my Benefit for buing the first RIGs that Bakewell could start and mining money to buy asics?




just my 2 cents

Chuck

[Deprived]

Yes: 1806 | No: 1288 | Abstain: 2 .... 356 shares missing outside of what I control.

I vote yes with 748 personal shares. I vote yes with 1500 company shares.

Yes: 4054 | No: 1288 | Abstain: 2
5700 (4054/5698 = 71.1% Approval)

The mining revenue will be retained

On what basis do you believ votes allocated purely to retain 30% for growth should vote?

By doing this you're basically saying that you get to vote with 50% of all shares every time (20% go to you, 30% to growth) so you only have to buy 1 share and you can pass any motion at any time.  So any time you choose you can withhold dividends, vote to close and pay back nothing etc.  It basically makes investment in the company worthless - as you get half the votes without having to part with a cent, so can change anything and do anything you want.

If the company were to close down, would growth shares get a portion of the proceeds from liquidation?  If yes - then where would those funds go?  If no, then pretty obviously they don't hold equity and can't vote (they're just a clumsy method to hold back 30% for growth).

Seems strange you'd devalue your company like this just to hang onto a few BTC - but issuers doing everything they can not to return funds to investors isn't exactly new.  FWIW if I'd held shares I'd probably have voted YES - retain the cash for growth - but fixing a vote to do it isn't the way to get a change.  Passing a motion is MEANT to be hard - as contracts should be rarely changed - it's not meant to be something operator just does on a whim without overwhelming support from investors.

[strello]

Hi there.

As a new investor, may I gently suggest that it appears to me to be time to get a few things in order.

The question of voting rights which Deprived addresses above is very important. I completely agree that giving yourself 50% control over any motions by giving votes to the growth shares seems unreasonable, and detrimental to the voice and wishes of shareholders. I believe this is making Bakewell less attractive as an investment. The share price seems to be dropping as I write this, and I see that as a clear sign of dissatisfaction, not only with the result of the recent vote, but the state of the fund in other areas as well. The growth shares should not have a vote.

The contract is also a mess and unclear, still referencing GLBSE, and obviously not reflecting the actual situation at the moment. I would suggest this should be updated as soon as possible.

And the questions which Charles Bass raised some days ago are very important. I think there should be much clearer information about the current state of equipment, finances, mining revenue, shares and future plans.

I fully realise that there has been a period of chaos and uncertainty due to the GLBSE fiasco, and I'm sure you have been very busy, but now it seems to be time for some real transparency.

I'm very happy to have had the opportunity to invest in Bakewell on BTC-TC as I have been following your progress since the start, and I have been very impressed so far. I would really like to see Bakewell succeeding and profiting at this exciting new phase with ASICs just around the corner.

Good luck!

[creativex]

Yes: 1806 | No: 1288 | Abstain: 2 .... 356 shares missing outside of what I control.

I vote yes with 748 personal shares. I vote yes with 1500 company shares.

Yes: 4054 | No: 1288 | Abstain: 2
5700 (4054/5698 = 71.1% Approval)

The mining revenue will be retained

I'm disappointed that you've chosen to vote with growth and income shares that should clearly not have had a vote. Unfortunately as investors are now fleeing I can only join the herd and sell at a loss at this point or hold onto shares that have no voice.

[Deprived]

Yes: 1806 | No: 1288 | Abstain: 2 .... 356 shares missing outside of what I control.

I vote yes with 748 personal shares. I vote yes with 1500 company shares.

Yes: 4054 | No: 1288 | Abstain: 2
5700 (4054/5698 = 71.1% Approval)

The mining revenue will be retained

I'm disappointed that you've chosen to vote with growth and income shares that should clearly not have had a vote. Unfortunately as investors are now fleeing I can only join the herd and sell at a loss at this point or hold onto shares that have no voice.

Silly thing about it is that the motion would have passed anyway had he just temporarily transferred the growth shares back to treasury before it closed: but that would have meant acknowledging the growth shares had no vote and losing ability to choose the outcome on future votes which may not otherwise  go the way he wants.  The problem isn't that the motion passed (looks like it would have legitimately passed) - it's that the way it was done shows a total lack of respect for shareholders and makes it plain they have no say in what happens.

There's also another issue - that it seems unclaimed shares HAVE been transferred back to treasury despite that being entirely inappropriate whilst nefario is still sending out updates to lists.  I explained earlier in thread how those should be dealt with - and it was also described in the thread detailing how to migrate to BTC.CO.  You don't just get to take back shares because nefario hasn't yet included their owner in the list he sent out.  He's by no means only asset issuer trying this on - and it just creates a mess down the line when new claims finally show up (aside from being extremely dubious and in bad faith).

[Charles Bass]

Whats up Ian, do you make holidays?
Beginn to work as CEO and lead the Company, you only burn our money and save the earnings for the company by fake motions by voting with company helded shares..
Look at the Chart, the price is now  @0.07, thats the half of the issue price, wake up!...

You just only found cheaters company on this board..

the not amused Chuck

[bitcoinbear]

I am a bit confused by the recently passed motion. Are you no longer paying out any dividends? Why did the price just drop 50%, if the company is holding onto more funds, wouldn't that make the price go up?

[Carnth]

I am a bit confused by the recently passed motion.

The motion was to either pay out all accrued BTC (during the glbse fiasco) or "bank" it to buy more equipment.

Why did the price just drop 50%, if the company is holding onto more funds, wouldn't that make the price go up?

The price dropped because Ian used "growth" (company) shares to vote. In my opinion (and others) growth shares should abstain from voting as technically nobody controls those shares. Because Ian's personal shares and company shares will equal 50% of the vote, it makes any future motion worthless and Ian can vote whatever he wants.
Some shareholders believe this is not how BAKEWELL should be run and have dumped their shares.

Ian, this really needs to be fixed. Growth and Maintenance shares need to abstain from all future motions as those share have no voice.