View previous topic | View next topic

Mars Mission

Page 3 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

14-11-2014
1214309.  Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:19 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Navy, no? I can't see that being done as a commercial venture and space craft are known and treated as ships for a reason.

Excluding a hoax, the business of Mars One is the production of One reality TV show. The only reason why this would work, from a commercial point of view, is the fact that it's supposed to be too expensive to return people. The drama is their commercial unique selling point.

The mission itself is not a commercial venture. As stated earlier, they can earn too much money to keep claiming that it's too expensive to return people. If it's a commercial venture, then there's no such thing as earning too much money. Mars One Ventures AG can earn too much money.

In theory Mars One has bought Cashcloud (Infin Innovative Finance) to issue an awful lot of new shares to provide funding for the production costs, but a foundation or a government's more scientific approach would have been a better choice indeed.

Examples of commercial ships are Musk's. Apparently the ISS is funded and operated by governments, without a weird goal, and the added value of SpaceX is a reduction of the costs. The added value of Mars One is the drama of not returning people. Otherwise it would become a government's mission, without the guaranteed drama.

Mars One wrote:
For the Mars One foundation, taking the mission closer to successful completion is the only important goal. To most investors in Mars One Ventures however, a positive return on their investment is more important than the actual mission success. A viable business case that projects a solid return on investment even if the Mars mission wouldn’t progress as scheduled, is therefore essential to successfully attract investments. To make sure that the interests of the Mars One foundation and Mars One Ventures (hence investors) are aligned, a funding structure was developed that ensures that both entities mutually benefit from each other's success.

This concept won't work. Completing a mission is not a goal, for One. If the return on investments will be solid, let's say £870 billion, minus production costs, minus 5 per cent to fund the foundation, then they'll still have to keep saying that they are too poor to return people.

Another question may be why the foundation needs $6 million now, but after completing the £870 billion mission they need £43.5 billion (or 5% of any random turnover, for example 5% of £0.00).

It's not a commercial venture, and it's not a commercial version of the mission of a government. Drama, reality TV and being too poor is their business. Without ever having to complete any mission, and if it's not a hoax.

 
gruff5
1214425.  Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:04 pm Reply with quote

more prosaically & probably more productively, the ExoMars project has just passed a funding hurdle in Europe :)

 
14-11-2014
1214544.  Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:05 pm Reply with quote

Tomorrow Never Dies. Perhaps there's a way to dramatise ExoMars too.

If Mars One Ventures AG wasn't that childish so far, then they could reverse their new funding structure. A small company has to fund the large foundation, and this large foundation has to manage the funded project. This will get rid of the paradox of too much profit to not return people, because the project manager can decide to use £600 billion of its profit of £870 billion to return people.

If "you" want to fund Mars One Ventures AG, then you'd better wait. If it's a serious company, then a reverse split of the shares is quite likely. Typically this will undo most of the current ~1000:1 price:value ratio. A potential initial loss of ~99.9%. Hobby traders may try to tell you that a reverse split of a penny stock is positive news, like Farage's financial markets were rallying. A reverse split of a penny stock isn't positive news for shareholders.

In general a financial press release (and a prospectus) of Mars One havsto be more accurate than a dream, so the comment that Mars One may never launch anything is quite significant. Not launching anything is a realistic possibility, according to Mars One Ventures.

 
14-11-2014
1214561.  Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:32 am Reply with quote

Mars One wrote:
In the general assembly meeting earlier today, 18.81% of the InFin shareholders were present in person or by proxy. All shareholders present have voted in favor of the agreement with Mars One. The agreement involves issuing 478,887,500 new shares for purchase of the Mars One Ventures PLC shares, appointing Suzanne Flinkenflögel and Bas Lansdorp to the board and renaming InFin to Mars One Ventures AG. The shareholders have also approved issuing up to 248,497,000 new shares for the capital raise that is currently ongoing.

So at least two people have a second or third job.

The ongoing capital raise isn't interesting. If you'd invest 15p per new share and InFin is almost worthless, then you're donating a value of ~10p per share to other shareholders.

An usual trick, if raising capital isn't a serious goal, is to issue new shares at the lowest possible market price of the shares, which is €0.001. If raising capital is a more serious goal, then you'd expect a reversed split first. Even €0.001 per share, if that's the tick size of the stock exchange indeed, probably exceeds the real value by far.

It's too boring to verify it, but I guess that selling those 248 million new shares to specific friends is allowed without having to write a prospectus.

 
gruff5
1217593.  Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:58 pm Reply with quote

I can't pretend to understand everything you are saying about the financing of Mars One, 14th November - I'm only a rocket scientist (and occasional brain surgeon)! But I sense you know what you are talking about on this matter (if anyone on QI disagrees with 14th Nov's thinking on this - please show your working!).

I'm not a fan, generally, of the run-of-the-mill reality TV shows (though enjoy some of the genuine survivalist ones), but I'd really like to see 'Mars One' take off (literally!). Would it be possible for me to invest, say, 20 USD in Mars One? If so, can you tell me how* to go about it? The national space agencies are going to pussy-foot around with a manned mission to Mars until after tech civilisation has expired and the likes of Elon Musk simply will never have deep enough pockets to do it alone.

Salamat Po!

*please keep the investing instructions as simple and basic as possible - I'm a bear of very little financial brain!

 
14-11-2014
1217894.  Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:16 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Would it be possible for me to invest, say, 20 USD in Mars One? If so, can you tell me how* to go about it?

the likes of Elon Musk simply will never have deep enough pockets to do it alone.

0. There is no need to discuss or mention me, even in some positive way. Even if I would want to read how amazed foreigners are that I'm still answering their questions and that I've saved their day/month, then I'll open my inbox. Of course I also don't have an area of expertise. Contact an expert near you I'll discuss strategies instead of actual investments.

1. It's not possible. Duh! This has nothing to do with investing, speculating nor trading. It's gambling. Is it a horse, and will it ever win a specific race? So far there's nothing, and you could suffer a loss of 100% of the "investment". A low amount is a common excuse of private investors, whom buy 10,000 "cheap" shares (while making sure that the whole office can hear the words "buy 10,000 shares" of the order).

2. If they really need your $20 (excluding transaction costs, and so on), then the depth of their pockets is nothing compared to Musk's.

3. If Mars One Ventures starts selling their merchandise, then you could buy their items. They could earn some money, and you should receive something. Buy the products, don't invest in the shop.

4. https://community.mars-one.com/webshop/express-donation. Same as 3, but without the product.

5. Wait. There's nothing but risks (including dilution), your $20 won't really help them, and get-rich-quick is out of the question. That's not your goal, but other people could consider an "investment" in one lottery ticket if that's a goal.

6. Open a new account (if needed), contact 008 in Europe's Lower Saxony area, ask him to buy the shares in Germany with a specific order to avoid paying more than about $20 (excluding costs), and ask him to transfer the shares to your account. First make sure that the account will accept any transfered share with an ISIN-code. There may be a policy to sell "unknown" shares.

7. Visit a (German) bank in another country, make sure that they can give you the required level of access to the Deutsche Börse to be able to buy the specific shares, open a new account and buy the shares.

8. Political correctness going mad. In theory killing people plays an important role in Mars One Ventures' drama, according to at least one German. So in the future your bank may say goodbye to you, and/or not allow you to own or trade the shares.

The best strategy depends on what you want. In your case I'd recommend #3 (return on investment) or #4 (never mind that printed T-shirt) to fund their life-style.

If you really want to gamble and probably lose ~100% of the money, believe that Mars One has deeper pockets than Musk, believe that your $20 will really help, and so on, then for most foreigners strategy #6 will be the most efficient gateway to a financial disaster.

No matter what, a low amount is a typical excuse of gamblers. That's one of the reasons why a transaction of 10,000 shares of $0.01 is quite common. You're not one of those gamblers, because you have a goal. A weird goal (Musk has pockets without large holes, I'm not sure if Mars One Ventures has pockets too) is a goal too.

Just donate money if you want to save Mars One Ventures and yourself avoidable costs, or buy the merchandise of the Mars One Ventures shop if you want to show that you're one of the Founding Fathers.

It may be hard for people in the Eurozone, excluding Germany, to buy the German shares, because you'll need a broker with full access to the Deutsche Börse. Hence 008.

In a nutshell, for gamblers: if you want to gamble abroad, then ask 008 to buy (and ship) one foreign lottery ticket. This month the jackpots will be impressive, including but not limited to that Spanish one. The shares are far more expensive, and it's guaranteed that you won't get-rich-quick.

For potential $20 (and that's it!) shareholders, like gruff5: the seller of the worthless shares will receive your $20. You're not funding Mars One Ventures AG by buying existing shares. You're funding other gamblers, banks, brokers, and you're supporting the excessive market value of a worthless pennystock.

Fortunately KCC.DE has already lost ~50% of its market value last month, so the number of shares you can buy with $20 is increased by ~100%. Hence the fifth strategy.

And you may end up with 0 shares, after a likely reversed split (e.g. the conversion of 10,000 old shares of EUR 0.001 to 1 new share of (less than) EUR 10.00. Then you'll own about 0.2 new share, which typically will be sold by your broker.

 
14-11-2014
1218144.  Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:42 am Reply with quote

Quote:
understand everything you are saying about the financing

FWIW, the fact that you may have to use a German friend to buy the shares shows that it's quite hard to buy Mars One Ventures AG shares.

I'm not sure what Mars One has to do with a Mars mission, and you won't fund Mars One by buying old shares, and burning $20 may be more effective (due to the CO2 emission, forcing people to leave Earth) than buying a worthless penny stock, but if they would have understood their own financial construction then they would have selected another stock exchange.

Far more private gambler will have access to the American OTC markets, and it should be easier to sell new shares.

Wikipedia wrote:
Companies quoted on the OTCBB must fully report (i.e., current with all required SEC filings) but there are no market capitalization, minimum share price, corporate governance or other requirements to be quoted. Companies which have been "de-listed" from stock exchanges for falling below minimum capitalization, minimum share price or other requirements often end up being quoted on the OTCBB.

Stock of non-reporting companies (those without current SEC filings) may be quoted on one of the markets operated by OTC Markets Group. Most OTCBB companies are dually quoted, meaning they are quoted on both the OTCBB and the one of those OTC Markets Group markets. Stocks traded on these markets are usually thinly traded microcap or penny stocks, and both retail and institutional investors generally avoid them, because of fears that share prices are easily manipulated and there exists a potential for fraud. The SEC issues stern warnings to investors to beware of common fraud and manipulation schemes. As such, most companies choose to list on more established exchanges such as the NYSE MKT, New York Stock Exchange, or NASDAQ once eligible.

 
14-11-2014
1218145.  Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:02 am Reply with quote

According to http://www.mars-one.com/investor-relations/shares, Mars One wants you to know that a new symbol will soon be allocated. That's about as significant as a new logo.

More interestingly, Mars One's financial professionals want you to believe that the number of outstanding shares is 18,106,500. That's false, and maybe even fraud. One could report this to the German SEC, the BaFin, assuming that KCC has issued an awful lot of new shares to buy Mars One.

Yet another problem is Hong Kong:

Mars One Ventures AG wrote:
Mars One is pleased to announce that it has secured an investment of €6 million from the Hong Kong based investment firm World Stock & Bond Trade Limited.

World Stock & Bond Trade Limited: “We know that Mars One carries inherent risks and this will remain a challenge for some time. However, we believe that the potential returns, if and when the brand name takes hold, makes this an exciting investment opportunity for us".

The funding agreement is irrevocable and binding and provides for the funding to be released to Mars One Ventures over a six month period in equal monthly instalments starting in January 2017. The investment occurs at a price of € 0.18 per share, with two bonus shares for every share purchased – resulting in an average price of € 0.06 per share.

Hence the listing. Now they can offer such an investor 100 million new shares, i.e. a little bit more than the 18,106,500 issued old shares, suggest a misleading value of €0.18 per share by using bonus shares, and they can ignore minority shareholders.

The investment actually increases the value per share for a while, but it will still be less than €0.01 per share.

 
gruff5
1218889.  Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:49 pm Reply with quote

Sorry, don't have the patience to wade thru all of that you wrote, 14 Nov.

I've had a better idea - I'll donate 20 bucks to Zubrin's Mars Society instead. Much more chance of achieving something that way.

 
gruff5
1219031.  Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:59 pm Reply with quote

anyone out there? (including on Mars!)

 
'yorz
1219032.  Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:26 am Reply with quote

Yeah, but not into Mars. And certainly not into trying to understand 14.

 
14-11-2014
1219068.  Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:34 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Sorry, don't have the patience to wade thru all of that you wrote, 14 Nov.

I've had a better idea - I'll donate 20 bucks to Zubrin's Mars Society instead. Much more chance of achieving something that way.

Goal achieved... Almost anything is a better idea than Mars One.

 
PDR
1219071.  Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:44 am Reply with quote

gruff5 wrote:
anyone out there? (including on Mars!)


Still waiting for a response from Mark Watney.

PDR

 
gruff5
1219147.  Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:38 pm Reply with quote

yes, but Mars One might stimulate more sensible people into getting a move on ...

 
PDR
1219152.  Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:51 pm Reply with quote

There seem to be some who feel NASA are dragging their feet on this one. Obviously they have funding limits and priorities, but as far as I can see they're pushing quite hard. They have established the pre-requisites for a manned Mars mission and discovered the hard bits are in unexpected areas, so they're putting a lot of money into developments in things like robot surgery and tele-medicine (my local research hospital in Guildford is involved in this, for example), atmosphere generation, hydrophonics etc etc.

As I understand it they regard the simple acts of flying there and back as relative child's-play and are focusing their research into the things which are actually difficult.

PDR

 

Page 3 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group