surfer
August 27th, 2005, 03:37 PM
The most recent conference calls helped to clarify
exactly how positions will be weighted in the new
system.
From the August 25 Q&A.
Q-8: If I purchase a $20 position today, August 25th, will it take exactly 360 days before it moves into the Reading Fees Table?
Answer:
No, I don't think I can say exactly 360 days. What we are saying is that we will take the current purchases and compress them down into a 90 day cycle. Let me give you an example.
If we had flipped the switch last night. That is how it will work in the new compensation plan, but we need to get there first. Depending upon how fast we can get there, it should be relatively close. The only difference would be the how the position gets treated during transition.
In short, we are going to credit each position for the length of time it has been maturing under the current system. For example, assuming a 300 day cycle time at time of transition. In the Accelerator Plan:
a. A position 100 days into the current cycle will receive 30 days credit under the new plan. Since it is 1/3rd the way through the current system, it will be 1/3rd the way through the new system.
b. A position 200 days into the current cycle will receive 60 days credit under the new plan.
Other dates would transition proportionately. This will take all the existing purchases and compress them down into a 90 day cycle. After the first cycle, the position will cycle every 90 days.
Transition weighing for positions valued at 32 EPCs will work similarly. With this plan,
a. A position 75 days into the current cycle will receive 8 Permanent Bonus credits under the new plan . Since it is one-quarter the way to maturing in the current system, the position will get one-quarter the credits as a permanent bonus going into the new plan.
b. A position 150 days into the current cycle will receive 16 Permanent Bonus credits under the new plan .
c. A position 225 days into the current cycle will receive 24 Permanent Bonus credits under the new plan.
The next logical question for members would be
what does that mean as far as payments to
them?
Using the only total we have for the number of
mature positions, 170,000, I have a couple different
examples.
Although current "real" revenue is much less than
$500K/week, we'll use that in our figures.
If there was no weighting of positions, each mature
position would be worth about $2.94 the first week
based on revenue of $500K.
For simplicity we'll break positions down into 30 day
increments basing it on a 300 day cycle if the new
system started now.
The first example has all mature positions spread out
evenly with 17,000 in each 30 day period.
The second example is probably more realistic in that
it has the bulk of the mature positions being older.
Example 1:
17K positions - 300 days - 32 + 32 bonus credits
17K positions - 270 days - 32 + 28.8 bonus credits
17k positions - 240 days - 32 + 25.6 bonus credits
17k positions - 210 days - 32 + 22.4 bonus credits
17k positions - 180 days - 32 + 19.2 bonus credits
17k positions - 150 days - 32 + 16 bonus credits
17k positions - 120 days - 32 + 12.8 bonus credits
17k positions - 90 days - 32 + 9.6 bonus credits
17k positions - 60 days - 32 + 6.4 bonus credits
17k positions - 30 days - 32 + 3.2 bonus credits
What the bonus credits actually do is dilute the
RFA pool by making 170,000 positions pay out like
263,500 positions. This makes shares that would
have been worth $2.94 become worth $1.90. Then
the $1.90 is "weighted" based on age of positions.
A 300 day old position is worth $3.80
A 270 day old position is worth $3.61
A 240 day old position is worth $3.42
A 210 day old position is worth $3.23
A 180 day old position is worth $3.04
A 150 day old position is worth $2.85
A 120 day old position is worth $2.66
A 90 day old position is worth $2.47
A 60 day old position is worth $2.28
A 30 day old position is worth $2.09
So the oldest positions end up getting $0.86 more
per week than they would have received without
weighting and the 30 day old positions end up
getting $0.85 less per week than they would have
without weighting.
Kim Inman isn't giving anything extra to anyone. As
always, he is taking from the newer members to
pay more to the older ones.
The second and probably more accurate example has
70% of the mature positions at 210 days or older. This
was before the ponzi really started to slow down.
The bonus credits are of course the same as the first
example based on how old a position is.
Example 2:
30% - 51,009 - 300 days
20% - 34,000 - 270 days
10% - 17,000 - 240 days
10% - 17,000 - 210 days
5% - 8500 - 180 days
5% - 8500 - 150 days
5% - 8500 - 120 days
5% - 8500 - 90 days
5% - 8500 - 60 days
5% - 8500 - 30 days
In this example the weighting of positions makes
170,000 mature positions pay out like 294,968. So
the $2.94 essentially drops down to $1.70 based
on a $500K week.
A 300 day old position is worth $3.39
A 270 day old position is worth $3.22
A 240 day old position is worth $3.05
A 210 day old position is worth $2.88
A 180 day old position is worth $2.71
A 150 day old position is worth $2.54
A 120 day old position is worth $2.37
A 90 day old position is worth $2.20
A 60 day old position is worth $2.03
A 20 day old position is worth $1.86
Of course, if we knew what the actual weekly
"real" revenue of YMMSS was, we would be able
to present a much more accurate picture. Based
on what I see, I would have to say it's less than
half the $500K used in the example.
We also have to note that each week thousands
of positions will be pouring into the RFA.
exactly how positions will be weighted in the new
system.
From the August 25 Q&A.
Q-8: If I purchase a $20 position today, August 25th, will it take exactly 360 days before it moves into the Reading Fees Table?
Answer:
No, I don't think I can say exactly 360 days. What we are saying is that we will take the current purchases and compress them down into a 90 day cycle. Let me give you an example.
If we had flipped the switch last night. That is how it will work in the new compensation plan, but we need to get there first. Depending upon how fast we can get there, it should be relatively close. The only difference would be the how the position gets treated during transition.
In short, we are going to credit each position for the length of time it has been maturing under the current system. For example, assuming a 300 day cycle time at time of transition. In the Accelerator Plan:
a. A position 100 days into the current cycle will receive 30 days credit under the new plan. Since it is 1/3rd the way through the current system, it will be 1/3rd the way through the new system.
b. A position 200 days into the current cycle will receive 60 days credit under the new plan.
Other dates would transition proportionately. This will take all the existing purchases and compress them down into a 90 day cycle. After the first cycle, the position will cycle every 90 days.
Transition weighing for positions valued at 32 EPCs will work similarly. With this plan,
a. A position 75 days into the current cycle will receive 8 Permanent Bonus credits under the new plan . Since it is one-quarter the way to maturing in the current system, the position will get one-quarter the credits as a permanent bonus going into the new plan.
b. A position 150 days into the current cycle will receive 16 Permanent Bonus credits under the new plan .
c. A position 225 days into the current cycle will receive 24 Permanent Bonus credits under the new plan.
The next logical question for members would be
what does that mean as far as payments to
them?
Using the only total we have for the number of
mature positions, 170,000, I have a couple different
examples.
Although current "real" revenue is much less than
$500K/week, we'll use that in our figures.
If there was no weighting of positions, each mature
position would be worth about $2.94 the first week
based on revenue of $500K.
For simplicity we'll break positions down into 30 day
increments basing it on a 300 day cycle if the new
system started now.
The first example has all mature positions spread out
evenly with 17,000 in each 30 day period.
The second example is probably more realistic in that
it has the bulk of the mature positions being older.
Example 1:
17K positions - 300 days - 32 + 32 bonus credits
17K positions - 270 days - 32 + 28.8 bonus credits
17k positions - 240 days - 32 + 25.6 bonus credits
17k positions - 210 days - 32 + 22.4 bonus credits
17k positions - 180 days - 32 + 19.2 bonus credits
17k positions - 150 days - 32 + 16 bonus credits
17k positions - 120 days - 32 + 12.8 bonus credits
17k positions - 90 days - 32 + 9.6 bonus credits
17k positions - 60 days - 32 + 6.4 bonus credits
17k positions - 30 days - 32 + 3.2 bonus credits
What the bonus credits actually do is dilute the
RFA pool by making 170,000 positions pay out like
263,500 positions. This makes shares that would
have been worth $2.94 become worth $1.90. Then
the $1.90 is "weighted" based on age of positions.
A 300 day old position is worth $3.80
A 270 day old position is worth $3.61
A 240 day old position is worth $3.42
A 210 day old position is worth $3.23
A 180 day old position is worth $3.04
A 150 day old position is worth $2.85
A 120 day old position is worth $2.66
A 90 day old position is worth $2.47
A 60 day old position is worth $2.28
A 30 day old position is worth $2.09
So the oldest positions end up getting $0.86 more
per week than they would have received without
weighting and the 30 day old positions end up
getting $0.85 less per week than they would have
without weighting.
Kim Inman isn't giving anything extra to anyone. As
always, he is taking from the newer members to
pay more to the older ones.
The second and probably more accurate example has
70% of the mature positions at 210 days or older. This
was before the ponzi really started to slow down.
The bonus credits are of course the same as the first
example based on how old a position is.
Example 2:
30% - 51,009 - 300 days
20% - 34,000 - 270 days
10% - 17,000 - 240 days
10% - 17,000 - 210 days
5% - 8500 - 180 days
5% - 8500 - 150 days
5% - 8500 - 120 days
5% - 8500 - 90 days
5% - 8500 - 60 days
5% - 8500 - 30 days
In this example the weighting of positions makes
170,000 mature positions pay out like 294,968. So
the $2.94 essentially drops down to $1.70 based
on a $500K week.
A 300 day old position is worth $3.39
A 270 day old position is worth $3.22
A 240 day old position is worth $3.05
A 210 day old position is worth $2.88
A 180 day old position is worth $2.71
A 150 day old position is worth $2.54
A 120 day old position is worth $2.37
A 90 day old position is worth $2.20
A 60 day old position is worth $2.03
A 20 day old position is worth $1.86
Of course, if we knew what the actual weekly
"real" revenue of YMMSS was, we would be able
to present a much more accurate picture. Based
on what I see, I would have to say it's less than
half the $500K used in the example.
We also have to note that each week thousands
of positions will be pouring into the RFA.