SL banks scramble for survival ahead of deadline
By Eric Reuters
SECOND LIFE, Jan 17 (Reuters) - They’re selling out, moving out, and closing out. With less than a week to go before Linden Lab’s ban on unlicensed banking goes into effect, the Second Life financial sector is scrambling to cope.
Last week, Linden Lab announced a ban on “interest or any direct return on an investment” unless banks are licensed by a real-world government. The deadline of Jan. 22 gave banks 14 days to cease operations.
Because Second Life’s banks are unregulated, it’s impossible to know how many there are, or the total amount of deposits. But a survey of major banks shows that most have implemented withdrawal limits and are juggling the demands of nervous depositors who are unsure if they’ll get their money back.
Steve Smith (Second Life: Travis Ristow) of BCX Bank has seen his deposits shrink from L$11.5 million (US$42,600) to L$5 million (US$18,500) in a week. “We have limited daily withdrawals while we reorganize,” Smith said. “Customers can withdraw L$2,000 per day - we can meet all deposits as long as we don’t have to liquidate all assets immediately.”
Second Life has an entrepreneurial class of over 50,000 residents with a positive monthly flow of Second Life’s in-world currrency, pegged to the U.S. dollar. With hefty fees on the official LindeX currency exchange, many merchants maintain large balances of currency. A banking industry emerged to invest Linden dollars on Second Life’s unlicensed stock exchanges or in private ventures, often promising massive returns for investors.
Critics alleged the banks were nothing but Ponzi schemes, a charge harder to ignore in light of recent high-profile bank failures. Ginko Bank went belly-up in August, leaving investors in the lurch to the tune of US$700,000. More recently, Midas Bank collapsed in a complicated investment scheme that left Second Life finance-watchers crying foul.
Attorney Stevan Lieberman (Second Life: Navets Potato) of Greenberg and Lieberman has been retained by irate Midas depositors to investigate possible litigation.
“Linden dollars are not play money,” Lieberman said. “You can exchange them back and forth to PayPal and your bank account.”
A nervous Linden Lab banned banks outright, but some institutions are looking for a way to survive.
BCX’s Smith is investigating moving his operations off the Second Life Grid. He’s eyeing opening branches in Central Grid, a virtual world based on the open-source Second Life mockup OpenSim.
Unlike Linden Lab’s Second Life Grid, Central Grid runs completely autonomously of the San Francisco company. However, Central Grid currently sports a miniscule user base and untested technology.
BCX isn’t the only bank looking to make an end-run around the ban. BNT Financial, run by Mike Lorrey (Second Life: IntLibber Brautigan) insists he can re-work his bank’s terms of service to offer “indirect returns” to depositors of 250% per annum and not violate Linden’s ban. If Linden won’t play ball, like Smith he eyes other grids. “Central Grid is the new world,” Lorrey said.
Others are looking to get out of the game entirely. Tyrian Camilo ran the Second Life Investment Bank, one of the virtual world’s most prominent. He’s courting investors to take the remnants of his bank — and his responsibilities to his depositors — off his hands.
“Basically, my debt to them [depositors] changes owners along with some of our assets.” said Camilo, who declined to release his real name.
One thing the bankers have in common is a sense of bitterness towards Linden Lab for giving a mere two weeks notice. For many, running a bank was the primary draw of Linden’s virtual world.
Steven Bridges (Second Life: Barton Giovinazzo) of Giovinazzo Choice Investments freely admits there were a number of crooked banking operations in Second Life, but says he only invested 35 percent of his depositor’s monies and his customers will get their accounts back in full.
“A huge part of why I started this bank is I had nowhere I could trust to deposit and walk away to just let interest grow,” Bridges said.
“You spend all the time and energy building trust and good relationships, then now what?” Bridges said. “It punished a lot of honest people more interested in providing a service than ripping off SL.”
2007 was a difficult year for Second Life. The current financial crisis bodes ill for 2008.
The establishment of anonymous accounts in June 2006 opened the doors to underage players. This resulted in international legal scrutiny, increased exposure to legal liability and damaging media coverage. Linden Lab responded by intruding into residents’ sexual relationships and expelling two consenting adults for underage roleplay - even though no underage players were involved. Refusal to close the anonymous accounts and dogged insistence on an ineffective and unsound ID-based age verification system cost Linden Lab considerable political capital with no benefit. ID-based age verification is no better at screening underage players that credit-card verification, nor is it more ‘fair’. It rarely works for residents outside their home jurisdictions and, in many countries, it may not even be legal.
While anonymous accounts may have launched Second Life’s dramatic growth phase (October 2006 to June 2007), failure to formulate a land management strategy resulted in a speculative bubble as Linden Lab first starved and then flooded the mainland market. Islands ceased to be an attractive alternative when LL raised tier charges from $195 to $295 early in the cycle. Worst affected were the very residents who comprised the growth phase. The unexpected policy reversal on gambling in July further undermined Linden Lab’s credibility. Growth stopped. Premium accounts and total hours remained flat throughout the second half of 2007.
The overnight imposition of VAT (15-25% sales tax) on European residents (40% of SL’s population) in September not only trashed European landowners, but it caused considerable friction between European and North American residents as Linden Lab, a supposedly global company, began charging based on regional factor prices. It also led to the crazy situation whereby European landowners (some owning dozens of islands) who shifted their tier to North American business partners lost access to Live Chat support.
Longstanding problems of asset management, grid instability and poor customer service have undermined residents’ confidence in Second Life’s entire technological and managerial infrastructure. While organic development was the correct approach to building Second Life, expectations of success amplified perceptions of failure. The year ended with the resignation of CTO Cory Ondrejka due to “irreconcilable differences” with CEO Philip Rosedale.
Just days into 2008, without consultation or discrimination, Linden Lab banned all banks, regardless of their history, reputation, structure or business practices. In a matter of minutes, SL’s evolving financial system was demolished as sound and responsible banks closed their doors in the ensuing panic. More residents lost money because of LL’s clumsy intervention than from all bank frauds combined. Good businesses were crippled and good people hurt - not so much by scammers as by Linden Lab itself!
So, what went wrong?
Philip Rosedale and the Board of Directors are highly skilled engineers with little or no knowledge of economics, economic history, strategic planning or customer relations. As Second Life grows from a technological startup to a mature business, they are out of their depth. They are making serious mistakes. They are destroying the wealth and confidence of the entrepreneurial class who risked enormous time and money to build Second Life in the first place. More importantly, they have lost sight of their original vision.
Second Life was about user-generated content, remember? It was about “your world, your imagination”. That was the business plan and founding principle: to create a world that was VIRTUAL, VOLUNTARY and ADULT - framed by the philosophy of individual liberty and responsibility. Second Life was NOT intended to be a pale imitation of real life. It was NOT meant to be a playground for Republicans and Democrats to ‘govern’. It was NOT about majority rule through public opinion. Yet this is what has leaked into Second Life since 2007, drip, drip, drip. The sad irony is that now, out of ignorance and a naive desire to ‘do good’, Linden Lab is poisoning the very world they created and seek to protect.
How do we fix it?
Linden Lab is a private company, so they can do with Second Life what they wish. We ‘residents’ have the choice of being here or not. At the moment, there is no viable alternative to SL as a comprehensive virtual world. Therefore, Linden Lab still has time to prevent Second Life from becoming the ‘Lotus 123′ or ‘WordPerfect’ of the virtual universe.
1) Regain integrity of the system. Announce the closure of all anonymous accounts on 1 March 2008. ‘Anonymous’ accounts may now be described as accounts without payment information on file or have not been age verified through the ID scheme. Keep the ID scheme during the transition process, but consider phasing it out by the end of the year and returning to credit card verification.
2) Stabilize the financial system. Lift the ban on banks. Present the following message on the login screen: “Rate of return (interest or profit) on any investment is proportional to the amount invested, the length of time invested and the RISK OF NONPAYMENT.” Give residents information, not regulation, and the system will evolve in a healthy and productive way. Reputable businesses providing good customer services will always prevail against fly-by-night operations.
3) Reassert the founding principles of individual liberty and individual responsibility. Resist the temptation to sanitize Second Life. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; the desire to protect residents from themselves will only lead to a downward spiral of regulations to offset the harmful effects of other regulations. Also, Second Life is NOT real life. It is NOT a nation-state. Second Life is virtual, voluntary and adult. We are here by choice precisely to escape the restrictions of real life - and there is no Berlin Wall to prevent us from leaving. As for those who want SL to become more like Disneyland, well, Disneyland already exists. We don’t need another one.
Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:01pm PSTThere is no need for banks in SL. None. No logical excuse for Linden to allow these con artist ponzi schemes to continue.
For those very very few that insist that they had no where to put their money so they opened one, that is just nonsense. You can make a return in a Paypal account, in a real life account.
I’m tired of hearing these con artists continue with their absurd views of SL needing banking industries. Most of the people in SL that run these so called banks have no educational background in banking or finance. The few that do should be giving all their personal information, their educational backgrounds in the finance industry, as well as a written guarantee that they will fund the monies from their real day jobs if they crash and burn. In which, they better have a decent day job.
RJS
Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:01pm PSTEric, smart business people don’t keep large amounts of Lindens inworld, they keep cashing them out and putting the money in PayPal money market or some RL place. I don’t see that it’s true that there are businesses keeping Lindens inworld because the fees are “hefty” on the LindEx. They just aren’t that hefty — go look at them.
No, it’s rather that certain businesses, like casinos, had a huge influx of cash, and also a need for a huge float to back up slot machines, etc. Certain businesses produce a lot of Lindens still, and cashing them out in huge amounts doesn’t make sense because that will depress the LindEx, or, since the Lindens now sell Lindens through Supply Linden, and they put brakes on amounts of cashouts, it means cashing out less, or cashing out *for* less, in lots of little packets. That’s annoying for some, and they cast around for some sort of place to earn high interest to make it worth their while if they do have to cash out larger amounts for less. Banks were perfect for that, and the reason you don’t hear too many people complaining, really, and dont see any real-life lawsuits yet is because the people who used the banks themselves mainly made money in casinos and prostitution, or else wanted to avoid taxation or whatever, so they didn’t want very close scrutiny of their businesses.
Deltango has a good summary here, but he repeats this same canard that was so common this last summer, to the effect that LL made “a different price” for Europeans. It didn’t. European governments made “a different tax for their citizens” — that’s what it’s about.
He also, in the anarcho-capitalist vein, thinks he can exhort Linden to turn back the clock on policies in place — that’s not going to happen, they are not going to be doing bank regulating. I also think they are totally ideologically wedded to anonymous accounts, and will never budge from that idea. They prefer to allow all freedoms everywhere, then put in tools to enable people to control their SL, then when that fails, scurry to make a policy. I don’t see them changing that behaviour soon.
I’m also going to point out yet again that Reuters, just like the “domestic” SL media, doesn’t have any more facts about Ginko than anybody else (and maybe less). There isn’t any actual practicing lawyer or investigator looking at this; no federal authority; no discovery of any documents; there isn’t any significant investigative journalism underway, i.e. lots of interviews with the principles; significant survey of users of Ginko, etc. The prosecutorially-zealous like Benjamin Duranske is also exhorting abstractions on the Ginko case, and claiming that even the original Charles Ponzi didn’t really mean to screw people over, and that original intent, or behaviour for 2 years, doesn’t count.
Yet it does count, and in fact the instructions on the tin were clear: if you invested in Ginko’s, there was no guarantee you’d get your money back, and withdraw when you wished. It wasn’t outlawed by the TOS, and federal or state authorities didn’t rush to apply to law the way Internet lawyers imagine they can.
Until there is a real-life governmental probe with real-life cases of people coming forward, we can only speculate, and with very low levels of information.
What amazes me is that Intlibber and company can imagine that anyone would invest in their capers on an untested reverse-engineered rogue server somewhere run by unverified avatars, when Linden Lab, which is a far more tested and transparent company with real investors, still enabled SL to be a place where people could lose money.
Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:01am PSTI for one used many banks in SL and made alot of money trusting the owners of those banks. It was my main source of income. I still dont see why some people who didnt like banks thought it was ok to fource others to live how they wanted but owell.
Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:01am PSTThe opensims will pretty much be the only places to do business now and I cant wait till they are up and running.
I think the smart and creatice people will be leaving SL for the open grids once this is settled.. if you look at the opengrids maps you’ll find quite a few in them already.
Prok when did you start becoming a Philip fanboi?
a) smart business people dont use currency exchanges to move money unless they are either taking profits, or putting it into a long term investment.
Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:01am PSTb) not only is there a 3% fee on Lindex, and a 3% fee on paypal, but a 1.5% opportunity cost for the 5 days your money sits in process credit. It is these costs that create the barrier to entry that create the interest rates that both banks need to charge, as well as people need to see inworld to justify bringing any capital inworld.
c) Since when is LL transparent? They wont give us any clarification of what exactly their policy means, their “economic statistics” are a joke, just ask ANY qualified economist.
d) the fudging of numbers by Zee Linden in the latest blog/propaganda makes clear one thing: people are hesitant to risk ANY capital in SL specifically because they cannot trust Linden Lab to not suddenly change the rules and wipe out their investment overnight. It is Linden Lab’s acts which have caused 99% of the damage to the SL economy, and many of those acts are caused by demagoging mob-inciting mass hysteria fanned by people like yourself who have absolutely no business or economic experience or training whatsoever.
Intblabber wrote:
“It is Linden Lab’s acts which have caused 99% of the damage to the SL economy”
100 percent of what you write is wrong. But this is 101 percent here. The people of SL wanted the fraud out. A very much large majority. No matter what you say, Linden did exactly what they should both from a legal stand point as well as a moral one. Linden didn’t “cause” anything. The fraudsters did.
You can either pay it back, or you cannot. It’s real simple IntBlabber.
–rjs
Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:01pm PST“People are hesitant to risk ANY capital in SL specifically because they cannot trust Linden Lab to not suddenly change the rules and wipe out their investment overnight.”
Linden didn’t wipe out anything. They have no control whatsoever with where or how you spent other peoples money. None. They are not responsible for your actions. They are only responsible to protect their REAL company from litigation that was most certainly coming at some point and time from the unlawful operations taking place that cost real people huge sums of real money.
You make little sense, your arguments are not worthy of response really.
The MAJORITY population of SL users have demanded for years that Linden do something about the fraud perpetrated on their servers.
The only thing that really happened here, is Linden called the bluff. There is no necessity for banks. You know it. I know it. But yet you continue to spit out your “Linden did it” garbage all over the net. It’s just simply not the case. This is what the MAJORITY of people within SL wanted. Like it, or not.
–rjs
Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:01pm PSTrjs, so, now LL has a moral right to do whatever the “MAJORITY of people within SL wants”? So, if this “MAJORITY” is opposed to BSDM or gay furries or whatever, LL has every right to ban any such activities?! So, if “MAJORITY” of SL residents hates, for example, landowners and their greedy tier fees, LL has every right to implement “rent control” policy “to protect the public”?! So, if MAJORITY feels that some person, say Anshe Cheung, is unworthy or whatever, it is a good excuse to strip such person from their property and ban them from SL?!
Where do you start and where do you stop if you begin enforcing the MAJORITY opinion (which was never even expressed through any formal voting procedures, to be sure) through bans and restrictive policies? What kind of society SL will become if such policy is taken to a logical conclusion? Who in their sane mind would choose to be part of such society?!
Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:01am PSTWe were looking into the option to sell SLIB’s liabilities, we got offered a really good deal, and it was one of the options.
However, we opted for reimbursing account holders over time to preserve businesses.
Unlike other banks in SL, we started several subsidiary businesses, all of them are highly profitable and doing magnificently! We also did some speculative investing, and into other SL banks.
The 3 primary methods, ensured that our money was stuck when this policy came, however, i were able to honor way way more than our reserves were, without getting much of the liabilities towards us honored.
We are now in progress with our plans, and our chosen primary method of reimbursement might result in profits for the account holders in the end. Our method got chosen on the basis of preserving all of the profitable businesses we have launched during this time, no idea in killing a milking cow and on the basis of PR value. We must remember that SLIB has probably the most loyal clientele, and this should go further to make that loyalty even stronger.
We have renamed our business to SL International Business from SL Investor’s Bank.
- Tyrian Camilo, CEO of SLIB
Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:01am PSTAlthough I ran one of the “smaller” former banks of Second Life not mentioned in this article, I again would like to point out that Crystal Springs Land and Loan paid back over L$2,000,000 in deposits, certificates of deposits and investments within 8 hours after Linden Labs announcement of the ban. CSLL will continue operations as a land-based business, and the company is doing just fine.
I will make a comment about other banks in Second Life that probably won’t be too popular with depositors. Imagine the US Government announcing that Citibank or any other bank in the United States had to refund all their investment accounts within 2 weeks. Do you think customers would be able to get their money back before then? Of course not.
Banks like BCX have a large customer base and operated responsibily, and could have used more of a “warning” about this decision to prepare for it. I hope Linden Labs has learned about what NOT to do in the future regarding major financial policy changes like this.
Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:01am PSTI can see why LL does not want scamers in SecondLife. They do not want any competition!
Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:01am PST“rjs, so, now LL has a moral right to do whatever the “MAJORITY of people within SL wants”?”
Well I think you need to understand that a majority of written law is based on moral majority in the United States. Not that we are not over regulated here in the US, but I think you need to look at the situation from the perspective of a business whom risks the loss. A majority vote rules in the United States as a general rule of law yes. But, not to say that the corruption plays a part in outcomes.
“So, if this “MAJORITY” is opposed to BSDM or gay furries or whatever, LL has every right to ban any such activities?!”
But you know, you mention BDSM, Furries etc.. I mean, you do need to be able to separate real life from your second life. And Furries and BDSM play in second life is not illegal nor is it a real concern. It’s more important to look at whom is in SL viewing it. Whom in SL is not following the law. So you know, I am more interested in the reality of business more than role play and believe Second Life is primarily created for content creators and
others that want to express themselves with various skills etc.. I view second life as a platform of development and business opportunity. I’m not much of a role player. I think it’s important for you to understand my position when I post.
“So, if “MAJORITY” of SL residents hates, for example, landowners and their greedy tier fees, LL has every right to implement “rent control” policy “to protect the public”?”
Oh absolutely. Since when has the United States been a democracy? Illegal wars of aggression against countries with sticks and stones? Get past it. It’s the wild west of law and every man for himself. Sure. Linden should be removing fraud from every corner of SL if they know what the top agenda is and understand that it “is” the future for the company. If they cannot do it, they will eventually be forced to do it. In which is not good for anyone in the SL community. I would much prefer Linden take a stance on the issues and make it public. They are just starting to respond.
“! So, if MAJORITY feels that some person, say Anshe Cheung, is unworthy or whatever, it is a good excuse to strip such person from their property and ban them from SL?!”
Anshe Chung is a person whom wanted to work hard and make something out of SL. Anshe Chung is a business person whom respected the platform of communication that Linden developed. You need to be able to understand business and how it works. The legal matters in this day and age are just overwhelming for companies and for the average individual not engaged in such business on a daily basis is just not explainable.
Real life business is not what people view. Not at all. That is where the wealth is sure, but few has what it takes in expertise and / or education. My opinion is most don’t even have the common sense needed to start.
“Where do you start and where do you stop if you begin enforcing the MAJORITY opinion (which was never even expressed through any formal voting procedures, to be sure) through bans and restrictive policies?”
Well, first off I think we need to look at the real prospects of growth within Linden Lab. Second Life could be so much more without the issues they have to endure. The constant influx of issues that pose a company problems and deters from real progress. I believe the real problem was the opening of the gates to allow all people free access with no real age verification. The kids came in and have never left. It’s just the facts.
It’s a liability issue Linden will deal with until they revert back to the credit card and true proof of age.
And the current, and I’m sure expensive concept of age verification is a mistake. It need go back to credit card only verification or a drivers license or federal ID. Yes. so to answer the question the enforcement of bans and and majority vote is absolutely the way to proceed within the company. You know, when you get a pop up box asking whether you believe Linden has improved or gone backwards with their ideas in the company, it’s up to you to check the boxes and write in the box below. I usually write a few legal, political , and personal views when I have the opportunity to vote. So yes. The majority counts, linden sponsors the majority with polls and other media to get input. It’s expressly written in US law that the majority does count. Within the court system with the volunteers whom spend their time giving a verdict, or whether it be a Linden Lab vote or question box that pops up when you login. Linden wants the feedback, but few really have anything at all to say due to lack of education in the various areas. We have a right to say what we will, just do it, but do it right.
“What kind of society SL will become if such policy is taken to a logical conclusion? Who in their sane mind would choose to be part of such society?!”
The Majority sir. The Majority. In fact it’s been that way for quite some time.
BTW, I don’t hide behind rjs, that is my initials of my real name, my online SL name is Tracy Welles if anyone is interested.
Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:01pm PSTrjs, I think you need to wake up to the fact that “the US law” you have mentioned several times has nothing to do with the MAJORITY of the SL residents. The fact of the matter is, US residents are but a fast decreasing minority of SL populace, even though its a vary noisy and pushy minority. WHY should “US laws” which you seem to hold so dear regulate the virtual life of people who log into SL from Europe, or Japan, or Australia, or China?! Why should the laws set forth by the government which is located half a globe from myself and which I never elected regulate my life, be it first or second one? Do you remember your own history, rjs? This is exactly the type of situation which incited a Boston tea party, starting the Revolution.
Yes, I vigorously oppose “regulation without representation”, and refuse to have anything to do with “US law” which has no relevance to me. If LL decided that it needs to treat differently EU customers and charge them additional money, it should logically follow that it needs to enforce different policies towards customers from different countries, rather than spit out generic bans based on some weird “US law” which has no jurisdiction over majority of SL population.
Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:01pm PST“rjs, I think you need to wake up to the fact that “the US law” you have mentioned several times has nothing to do with the MAJORITY of the SL residents.”
I beg to differ sir, as long as Linden Labs, a corporation in the United States, based in the United States, and hosting in the United
States, they are required to abide by the laws of the United States. Those whom register with Linden Labs, to use the service of Linden Labs, are required to follow the laws and regulations of the company whom provides the service. The US law very much has to do with US law as the service provider is based in the United States.
“The fact of the matter is, US residents are but a fast decreasing minority of SL populace, even though its a vary noisy and pushy minority. WHY should “US laws” which you seem to hold so dear regulate the virtual life of people who log into SL from Europe, or Japan, or Australia, or China?!”
Because Linden is a registered company in the United States. Not Japan, Australia, or China. They have to regulate according to the
the laws in which they do business.
“Why should the laws set forth by the government which is located half a globe from myself and which I never elected regulate my life, be it first or second one? Do you remember your own history, rjs? This is exactly the type of situation which incited a Boston tea party, starting the Revolution.”
Because that is the law. I could care less where you are, if you are on Lindens Servers, you are working under the laws of the United States. All businesses in the United States are regulated to some point and extent and there are laws to be followed whether it is an internet business or not. Fraud is most likely against your laws as well, either way, fraud is certainly against the law in which this company operates.
So like it or not, just because you are not in the United States, you are obligated to follow the Terms and Conditions regardless. Linden has regulations to follow, which affects all that use their service.
You might consider studying a bit before posting.
Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:01pm PST“Yes, I vigorously oppose “regulation without representation”, and refuse to have anything to do with “US law” which has no relevance to me.”
You are seriously misguided.
–rjs
Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:01pm PSTrjs, I understand that like most Americans you genuinely believe that US is ruling the world and everyone should bow to US law. Since the end of Cold War, blatant disregard for any law but its own home-grown variety and open contempt for any international regulation is so characteristic of all American institutions.
If we take technology frontier, clear example of this is extraordinary American pretense to single-handedly “regulate” the Internet. Now, 3D virtual worlds are becoming somehow “subject to US laws”? I think not.
Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:01am PST“rjs, I understand that like most Americans you genuinely believe that US is ruling the world and everyone should bow to US law. Since the end of Cold War, blatant disregard for any law but its own home-grown variety and open contempt for any international regulation is so characteristic of all American institutions.”
This is childish. No one said that at all, all that was said is that there are laws and regulations for Linden to follow, and that they are based on what jurisdiction the business is operating. My company is the same way. What floats here locally for company regulations may well not float the same in another state or jurisdiction. I’ll leave it at that. You have a right to your opinion no matter how flawed the concept.
–rjs
Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:01pm PSTNice post Deltango. May I offer a little more dressing?
Ginko, one of the largest and well-known of the virtual banks, collapsed because most of it’s large investors were casino operators. When LL shut down casino operations, the operators withdrew their capital in Ginko.
Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:02pm PSTwe need representation!
Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:03pm PDT