From what can be gathered from people very close to the source:
1. monies will be coming through from a trading platform (one of those huge ones paying 6% if you invest $10m or more). This will provide short-term relief
2. bank licence, although it will take a year or 2 to be profitable
3. restructure of PIPS program
4. a top UK corporate specialist has come out of retirement to help PIPS
5. most importantly, the banks and trading platforms are holding on to $10s of millions under Patriot and other acts. This is a reason why we are not being paid
6. only merchant's with 4 years experience in business will be permitted to continue to be a merchant.
We also know that some are frustrated with BM because he has his own casual style and they have a much more structured approach to business.
This is a lot to claim to know without giving any real verification. Can you give us anything to show that this is not just pure speculation on your part?
From what can be gathered from people very close to the source:
1. monies will be coming through from a trading platform (one of those huge one's payine 6% if you invest $10m or more). This will provide short-term relief
2. bank licence, although it will take a year or 2 to be profitable
3. restructure of PIPS program
4. a top UK corporate specialist has come out of retirement to help PIPS
5. most importantly, the banks and trading platforms are holding on to $10s of millions under Patriot and other acts. This is a reason why we are not being paid
6. only merchant's with 4 years experience in business will be permitted to continue to be a merchant.
We also know that some are frustrated with BM because he has his own casual style and they have a much more structured approach to business.
Normally I would dismiss a post like this. But some of your statements sound so plausible that I'm intriqued to say the least. Could be why we haven't received an update from Bryan yet. It will be a whopper of one when it comes if any of this is true. Thanks pipsie!
I prefer not to nominate sources, but they are very good I assure you.
Gary Nicholls got back to Malaysia yesterday, and we think he was able to secure the investment in the 6% fund.
There is a LOT of work for PIPS to do, but BM has a very relaxed approach, but others with him are much more structured - we all hope they work out their different approaches to this. BM needs a management board working to him, but he prefers to centralise everything etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbu
This is a lot to claim to know without giving any real verification. Can you give us anything to show that this is not just pure speculation on your part?
I prefer not to nominate sources, but they are very good I assure you.
Gary Nicholls got back to Malaysia yesterday, and we think he was able to secure the investment in the 6% fund.
There is a LOT of work for PIPS to do, but BM has a very relaxed approach, but others with him are much more structured - we all hope they work out their different approaches to this. BM needs a management board working to him, but he prefers to centralise everything etc, etc.
If you consider the financial institutions holding million of dollars of PIPS, then the restructuring of PIPS will probably mean a lot less profit then before. But if that is what they have to do to save PIPS, I'm for it.
BM has to begin letting go of everything going through him. He certainly has a problem with delegating. Definitely needs more organized people and ones that are able to anticipate problems with new ventures. They have been too reactive and not enough proactive in their approach. Which drives the membership crazy.
I prefer not to nominate sources, but they are very good I assure you.
Well, many people could assure me about many things that weren't necessarily true, but without some sort of plausible verification they would logically have to be considered just opinions.
I just wanted to establish whether or not you were willing or able to back your statements up in any way, and apparently you're not.
Why would banks be holding any legitimate funds? The Patriot Act specifically applies only to US banks and then would have no reason to hold any funds if they were from legitimate sources. This sounds to me like the usual "banking problems" hogwash that Marsden specialises in.
Why would banks be holding any legitimate funds? The Patriot Act specifically applies only to US banks and then would have no reason to hold any funds if they were from legitimate sources. This sounds to me like the usual "banking problems" hogwash that Marsden specialises in.
-----------------------------
US intermediary banks can do that. They have no idea whether funds are from legitimate sources or not. HSBC NY branch a US intermediary once frozen PIPS funds last year.
It is up to the issuing source to provide adequate documentation to prove that the funds are not of criminal origin. If they are legitimate, there is no reason for a bank to "freeze" them. If, however, substantial funds arrive in an account without explanation there will be questions asked. But the answers are perfectly simple - provided the funds are from a credible source. It may well be that funds from PIPS are not regarded as being legitimate in view of their lack of transparency.
07-22-2005, 09:00 PM
What the PIPS announcement will be
Linear Mode
