Topic: RentalStarter - A Midwest Real Estate Investment Company - page 17. (Read 120488 times)

I'm only three hours away from where Branny operates.  If the thing suddenly went South, I can drive down there and punch him in the throat.  So I have no worries about it being a Ponzi, at all.  You seem to be the only person in here being dumb and having concerns.  And I'm sure you're not an investor.  All the information about what is going on and has been happening is in this thread.  Branny answers PM's and posts on here with very clear information even to trolls like you.

And at no point did I say we made profit.  I said Branny distributes income from the houses.  It's all very clear.  It's a growing business.  You don't always make dividends on stock purchases.  Sometimes you wait for the growth to end before dividends are distributed.  You either do your homework when you invest, or you don't.  Some of us do.

Go away fly... 

Mmhmm, and you think that the SEC is going to waste its time coming down on Rental Starter ex post facto before/instead of pushing the proposed revisions (i.e. Title III) through first?  When they have bigger fish to fry?  Trololol, that's rich.

I'm done, I've made my points.  You've chosen one out of every ten to respond to, citing defunct legislation (via Wikipedia rather than reading the actual bills) without any economic backing to support your paper mache FUD.  Every one of the investors in on this project have been through far shittier offerings in the past and know what they're doing by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JOBS_Act.

Feel free to chime in on all the other points

* "Almost all private funds are deemed to be "investment companies" under the Investment Company Act, and "investment companies" are required to register under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "Investment Company Act") (similar to what mutual funds must do) unless they fall within an exemption from the registration provisions."

http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/banking/b/venture-capital/archive/2012/04/24/you-cannot-crowdfund-a-fund-in-case-you-were-wondering.aspx

Which JOBS Act are you reading (or still not reading)?  Try Title III of H.R. 3606 - it amends the Securities Act of 1933.

^Please don't confuse the issue.  The bill specifically prohibits the crowdfunding of investment funds.

@tempestb:
Lolno.  In the first prospectus revision, Branny states that over the course of six years, "[RentalStarter] has maintained an average simple return of about 24%," promising to pass on 70% of these profits (which translates to ~17%) to his investors.  Current returns, according to Havelock's "Yield" is 4.11%, or ~1/4 of what the original "contract" projected.

4.11% yearly yield.  As the share price drops by ~20% from first IPO price, and 40% from the second.  To translate that for the math-challenged, those who bought in @ first IPO have lost  ~17% of their money, while those who bought in @2nd have lost ~38%.
Very profit.
Much wow.

Curiously, this "contract" makes no mention of borrowing money at exorbitant rates or sampling the crack of real estate investors--flipping houses.

The "contract" ends on a curious note:  "To comply with SEC regulations, we currently do not allow investment from US entities."  Branny then goes on to market this "security" on an unlicenced Panamanian exchange, which makes no effort to screen US investors.  The quoted clause may have seemed like a reasonable nod to teh SEC a few years ago, when Bitcoin was bush-league and attracted nominal attention from the regulators.  Today, and in light of Branny's claim to register his Asian-registered shell with the SEC, it's simply begging to be milked for lel.

I understand that, finding oneself stuck in a ponzi scheme, the only reasonable course of action for one to take is denying it is a ponzi.  Acknowledging this situation for what it is would preclude any possibility of a graceful exit.  Please understand that I'm not judging you for acting in your own self-interest--this is to be expected.

OTOH, as I'm sure you understand, allowing this continue garners horrible publicity for Bitcoin as a whole, and why I think it best to put an end to this thing.
Thanks.

@jjdub7:  proposed != current.  

Bump.  If you haven't read the SEC's proposed rules, then... 

NotLambChop is conducting his personal crusade against all the funds that are in havelock, now has landed here too, i'm tired of his posts so clicked ignore... all ignore him too...

Believe me, he does. In fact, I'd say he's the most hardworking troll on this forum.
It's semi-informed drivel at best, but I can't figure out what his motivation is to pump out such a volume of it.

You seem confused or purposely trying to poke holes in something that is and has been pretty clear to everyone involved, except you.  Or you are fine with it, and are trying to produce FUD to get a lower share price.

The IPO was setup in rounds.  After the first round, Branny had another one.  Was all explained in detail, everyone knew about it.  There were other planned rounds if I'm not mistaken.  I think a total of 5?  This is not unusual, many securities are structured the same way.  Branny owns those shares, he can sell them if he wants to.  Just like you can if you owned any.

What Branny is trying to do isn't Ponzi.  He isn't taking the investments people make and then paying the people with those same dollars.  He's buying houses and paying investors a percentage of the income from the renters.  Pretty clear.  Would be the worst Ponzi ever considering the gains we're seeing.

The second offering, and now loan, is being done to gain enough properties to have leverage.  The fund has enough physical assets to cover the loans if anything goes sour.  He just sells off some property and we're straight.

Otherwise, it would take years to build up enough income with the few properties that he currently has, to purchase more properties.   However, once he has the loan and purchases the new properties, even with the loan payments, the income would then be high enough to allow continued expansion and investment in new properties, and thus the business grows.

This has been one of the most transparent and well communicated investments I've been involved in, and I've been in involved with dozens of them.  If you're not here to invest, go complain in one of the hardware manufacturing threads.  There is plenty to complain about there.

When are you returning the 100 BTC to MintSpare (MS) investors?

P.S.  "You continue doing what you have always done"

^Not complaining.  Chuckling a bit under my breath, that's all.  Can you blame me?  
When you sold your first IPO, did you not realize "Real estate investment is debt/capital heavy"?  How about when you sold your second?  Did it become clearer then?

Amuse me a bit more, though:  Will your current "investors" be required to provide personal info, a la VirtEx (VTX), for SEC compliance?
Will non-accredited investors be sent packing?
This is fascinating stuff!

Branny,

Stop engaging with people that their sole purpose is to spread misinformation. Some never take the price of BTC/USD into account when investing into Bitcoin denominated investments. They will never stop to complain as their objective is to complain.

You continue doing what you have always done and focus on growing your business. Patience is a virtue in Real Estate. We have an ignore button option in this forum for a reason.

The business doesn't rely on any influx of capital. However to scale it does, and investors want scalability.

Real estate investment is debt/capital heavy. I still ask you how much you know about rental real estate.

As part of the BTCjam signup/verification process, I will be putting together a package that will contain deed copies, lease copies, income statements and bank statements to futher verify what I say is true. So, even if we don't go the BTCjam route, all of that data will be certified by a 3rd party.

Additionally, once we're filed on EDGAR will you stop complaining?

Things I learn here...  Did your "8 years in real estate" bring you this wisdom, or did all this just hit you like a ton of bricks, as it is hitting me now?

Anyhow, fascinating info.  Now that we're sharing, I got an amusing yet edifying factoid of my own:  Businesses relying on a continuous influx of money--from "investors" through sequential public offerings or through loans--are collectively referred to as ponzis or, moar formally, pyramid schemes.

These businesses, while paying out "profits" in monthly dividends, are, in fact, not generating any.  Resorting to BTCjam and mooching for loans @14% is either a desperate bid to keep a failing business afloat, or a typical last-grab endgame.

Filing with the SEC is the cherry on top.  Anyone believing this is insane.  If it is, in fact, true--you are.

To your credit, you had me right up 'til the second IPO.

Didn't see this before - thanks for the shoutout man

Have you read this?  http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/33-9470.pdf

Buying real estate is expensive. It's the main problem with any real estate related venture, there's very little anyone will ever buy or can buy in their lifetime that's as expensive as a house, yet every single person has to live somewhere.

With the BTCjam venture, we'll have a 3rd party reviewing our income statements in order to look at loaning out on the properties.

As far as the SEC stuff goes, there are few companies trying to do the right thing, and by filing we're trying to put our best foot forward for our investors and improve the legitamacy of the company.

So...  An Asian company selling unregistered securities to American persons through an unlicensed Panamanian exchange is filing with the SEC.  While trying to raise some scratch on BTCjam because banks won't deal with it.  A couple of months after issuing a second IPO to raise said scratch.

Where to begin...