ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Stock and Bond Fraud, including Boiler Rooms / Pump and Dump Schemes, Mutual Fund & Hedge Fund Fraud, FOREX scams, plus Churning, Private Placements, Venture and Bridge Funding, IPOs, Viaticals Fraud, HYIP and Prime Bank scams, MTNs, Historical Notes, Recovery Schemes, etc. Includes the Jim Norman Project and the Michael Dotson Project and similar HYIP scams.
grimreaper
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:20 am

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by grimreaper »

Why are you assuming they retained their net winner status?

Say they bought five contracts on Jan. 1, 2007; they weren't net winners on those contracts until Jan. 2012. At that point, they bought five more contracts. With the money from those last five going to pay both the old and new contracts, they were still net losers until mid-2014, just about the time the scheme collapsed. If they bought six or seven or ten new contracts in/after 2012, they were net losers through the end of the scam, even though they were in before 2009.

Maybe I should have been more clear......
Not ALL, it depends how many years they profited and the # contracts they had prior to 2010. I personally know someone who had many contracts going back to 2000 and then purchased more in 2012 (loss). They're still net winners though.
Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 660
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Hyrion »

grimreaper wrote:I personally know someone who had many contracts going back to 2000 and then purchased more in 2012 (loss). They're still net winners though.
You leave me wondering how you define the word "net".

I assume you're using the word "net" in the context of "net winner" in the same way it's used to define "net income".

Basic definition of net income:
  • net income is an entity's income minus cost of goods sold, expenses and taxes for an accounting period
Placed in the context to define a "net winner" of a person visiting a casino:
  • net winner is an individual's in-pocket sum from the time they enter the casino to the time they leave the casino and that sum is more then they had when they entered
You appear to be using the term "net winner" in the context of two very differently defined periods of time - at the same time. But only one time frame matters:
  • the time frame the receiver reviews
When the receiver calculates the bottom line for the specific time frame for a given individual, it won't matter if said individual had lost money on a specific machine if - overall for the time frame - they were paid more then they "spent" into the system.

I'd suggest that's the only "net" definition the receiver is interested in. I doubt your definition is of much concern.
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7559
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by The Observer »

All of this nonsense boils down to essentially either grimmie not understanding the mathematics behind a Ponzi scheme or his pride not allowing him to say he was wrong and dropping the nonsense of a 1:1 ratio. The fact that he posted the comment that he wanted an explanation of why it required 5 (or 4) contracts to support an initial contract so that it was a net winner may support the former contention.
Tednewsom wrote:I'm not going to get in a fight over this, but I'll point out that a number of otherwise-canny people here have insisted that Gillis and Wishner must have taken only a small, reasonable salary in all the 17 years they ran the scam, because, of course, all their loot was dutifully used to pay their customers
Yes, I was one of those people - canny or not. But none of us said that there was not skimming going on. We just maintained that it couldn't have been to the degree that you thought it could be in terms of being able to recover large amounts of hidden stashes of cash from Joel and Ed. Our position was that the length of the scam meant that our deceitful duo probably had kept their larceny to a point where it didn't upset the boat in the beginning. And let's not forget the investment by NAS in Fuel Doctor (1 million or so) and the Oasis venture(s). That was skimming as well.

The fact remains that any skimming of any amount is going to result in the scammers having to secure more investors than if they were not dipping their hands in the till. And more investors means more net losers in the end.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Tednewsom
Ponzinator Extraordinaire
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:20 pm
Location: California

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Tednewsom »

well... there is my simple variation: creating bogus Joe & Bill accounts for every Chump & Sucker account, and making a buck personally for every dollar they pay out, consistently, throughout the life of the scam. You know: like Gillis repeatedly said they did? :)

As for Fuel Doctor or the movie production company trailer fleet -- I don't consider that a waste of money by them, more like a happy investment in yet another couple of scamaroonies. Plenty of similar products are equally useless, but that doesn't mean PT Barnum was wrong. The clone of Lyle Waggoner's long-established truck fleet company is actually a good idea (if about 30 years outdated because of the lack of actual production in Southern California).
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by webhick »

They also had legitimate ATM income.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
Tednewsom
Ponzinator Extraordinaire
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:20 pm
Location: California

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Tednewsom »

Well... :haha:

But, yeah. Even 200 or 300 machines -- owned by the company -- could take care of a couple mortgages and rent on a crummy little office. And then some.
Timehasrunout
Tourist to Quatloosia
Tourist to Quatloosia
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:33 am

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Timehasrunout »

Somewhere on this 1727 posted thread (and counting) one poster talked about an investor who owned 900 ATM contracts, bought with his inheritance money. This one investor alone blows the curve on 15 ATM per investor ratio. Watching this slow moving train wreck is starting to cause some posters to have a go at each other and that is unfortunate because for the most part this thread was helping investors navigate this financial mind field. We will just have to wait and see what happens.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Gregg »

well... there is my simple variation: creating bogus Joe & Bill accounts for every Chump & Sucker account, and making a buck personally for every dollar they pay out, consistently, throughout the life of the scam. You know: like Gillis repeatedly said they did? :)
Just tell me, who would be making the payouts to these accounts that matched the accounts of the victims? NO MORE MONEY CAME IN because they said they were buying one for themselves with every one they bought for an investor. The "Chump and Sucker" accounts represent someone who sent them a check, the other ones...don't. If they had really bought any machines and those machines were in fact generating more revenue than they promised, this would matter, but since for the most part they didn't buy a machine, (or two) with the new deposits, what they said they were doing doesn't matter, because they weren't doing what they said they were. They weren't buying one machine for an investor, they weren't buying a second machine for themselves, they were just shuffling the money around until what they needed to have was more than they did have, and then it ended.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 660
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Hyrion »

Gregg wrote:They weren't buying one machine for an investor, they weren't buying a second machine for themselves, they were just shuffling the money around until what they needed to have was more than they did have, and then it ended.
And that's part of the factors (many, many, many....) in the equation.

If they put the "money promised to buy a second machine" into the total they were using for payouts, then that was a factor that extended the life of the project.

If the put the "money promised to buy a second machine" into their pockets, then it was a factor that shortened the life of the project. At least, I've never seen where the statement to buy a second machine meant the money came out of their own pockets.

I've always assumed (with exactly zero evidence) that:
  • The investment purchase price is $19k per machine
  • Actual cost of the machine (let's say expensive) is $6k (and assuming they actually bought one
  • "For each machine you buy, we'll be buying one ourselves
= "investment price - actual purchase price equals leftovers for the pocket"

But that's me. Whenever I've heard that kind of sales pitch I've thought "ahh... you want to sell me product X for 2-3 times what it's really worth so you can reap the extras as your salary.... I'll find someone else selling said product".

Lol, I actually had a vacuum salesman tell me exactly that: "the machine is worth $4k, but you can have it for $2500 and I'll benefit because I receive a commission of $1250 on each sale" - newbie, not supposed to tip your hand like that.
worried
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by worried »

I couldn't resist revisiting the spreadsheet exercise. I can't help but wonder (like others) where the money went and how much of it was skimmed off the top by Joel and Ed.

I hope the images come through ok, this is the first time I've tried this....

I included a view of the formulas for those that are interested in copying it and playing with the numbers. It's only a simple model with a fixed exponent for the growth curve, etc. I found an exponent value that recreates the 31000 total sales number. If you vary the initial sales you find that the 31000 doesn't really change, but the balance in the far right sure does... the reality had to be much more varied than this simple model, but it's still interesting...
(click on the images to see the whole picture)
Image

Image

edit: looks like I didn't include the images properly... I've sent a pm to webhick asking for help, will update once I get educated...
edit: thanks to webhick for fixing things for me and giving me tips... I had hoped the images would be visible completely in situ on the forum so that the 'total skim' number of $96M would be visible and enticing to those inclined to play with the numbers...

Some interesting points can be noted from studying this simple model and playing with the numbers. First, there has been some arguing about numbers of 'winners' vs. 'losers'. Those discussions have included ambiguous definitions of those terms. I think you have to just count contracts that are older than 5 years vs. those that are newer (it doesn't really matter how many of those contracts are owned by any one person and when they bought each of them, that is completely and wildly variable, although I would suspect that many early buyers went for more later). Looking at just those numbers, in this simple model, only about 2000 out of 31000 contracts are 'winners'....

Second, I can't get the simple model to end up at 31000 without using the 0.525 exponent (using the exponential forumla e^(0.525*time)) AND starting with a small 'initial sales' number. The 0.525 exponent results in very slow sales for the first ten years. If you increase the initial sales too much the scheme goes bankrupt too soon to get to 31000 after 18 years. If you increase the exponent to make up for that, you end up with way too many sales after 18 years (trying to match what little I know of reality here). It's also interesting that an initial sale of 0 results in the highest 'total skim' at the end.

So, a half-baked theory of mine is that Ed (the accountant who would probably be much better at all this than me and would be able to handle all the variables and uncertainties in the real world while trying to follow a model like this) had this planned out to maximize the 'total skim'. They couldn't just sell 31000 contracts the first year because they hadn't built up any 'trust' yet. They started a small REAL atm business and started very slow selling people on the scam idea and waited for those people to trust them and not only buy more later, but start recommending them to others. All Ed had to do was watch the numbers and keep the growth exponent from increasing sharply (which would cause bankruptcy just a few years later, but before reaching some magical 'total skim' goal) by having Joel limit the number of contracts written every year.

The question still remains (it's been asked before): what was their end-game supposed to be? Where did the money go? Did they hope to disappear at some point? Didn't they have enough to disappear with already or did the last few years of questioning on social media like this one severely stunt what were supposed to be the most profitable years keeping them from disappearing? The story is that they took in 6 more million in the last month, but also kept paying out checks, why? I know I've based some of my speculation on assumptions that may not be true, but it doesn't make the questions less valid.... It sure would be nice to know the truth...
Last edited by worried on Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:48 am, edited 5 times in total.
If you have to "Believe" something, that means you can't prove that it's true... please, for your own sake, speak and act accordingly...
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7559
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by The Observer »

Gregg wrote:...[T]hey weren't buying a second machine for themselves, they were just shuffling the money around until what they needed to have was more than they did have, and then it ended.
My take on the "2nd machine story" was that this story was peddled by Ed and/or Joel as a way to lure the marks into believing that this was how NAS was able to generate the income necessary to support the promise return rate. Of course, Hyrion correctly points out how naive you would have to be to believe that your investment should reward Ed and Joel with a "machine of their own" but I am sure at that point the investor was only thinking of a 20% return, and a "hey, if this is what it take to do it, well then count me in."

Of course, Ed and Joel did buy some machines, but whether because they thought that buying and placing ATMs would be a breeze, because they thought it would help defer the day of final reckoning, or because they needed *some* machines in place to further mislead the victims I am not sure we will ever know. What is obvious is that they gave up early on acquiring machines.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by webhick »

The Observer wrote:What is obvious is that they gave up early on acquiring machines.
I don't recall seeing anything about when any of the actual ATMs were purchased. It wouldn't surprise me if they bought them later to stave off the inevitable collapse or to be able to point to an ATM and prove that they owned it.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
MarvinGardens
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:26 am

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by MarvinGardens »

Of Historical Interest:

This is a transcription of an interview with Joel Gillis on a podcast by the Capitalists Exploits advisory site circa November 2011. The podcast has been removed from the site archives. Kind of nostalgic.


Your latest edition of Capitalist Exploits

Interview with a Money Printer...

Earlier this week we spoke about an opportunity to get involved in a relatively simple, straightforward and profitable business. Something that literally anyone, including college students and retirees could do.

As promised we provide the conversation that I had with the investor I was introduced to.

I’ll alert you in advance that his isn’t a frontier market business. Joel operates entirely in the U.S. Normally we look outside the States, however there are opportunities everywhere, and although we think the States has some tough times ahead of itself, this does not preclude us from seeking out particular investments which provide us with a decent return with limited risks. We believe this particular deal ticks all the necessary boxes.

So, what’s the deal? Cash baby, cash…

Joel runs a company called Nationwide Automated Systems (NAS for short). It’s a private company operated by Joel and his partner of the last 17 years.

Put simply, NAS owns and leases ATM machines in hotels, convenience stores and gas stations across the US.

Right now they control about 20,000 such machines, owning 2/3 of those directly, and leasing the other 1/3 from individuals that have purchased the machines and leased them back to NAS. Hence the opportunity…

Joel and I spoke via phone from his poolside cabana location at the Four Season’s Maui. I have to admit that I was momentarily a bit envious. No matter where you are, or what your perspective, the Four Season’s Maui has to be one of the nicest spots on the planet.

Mark: I guess the first thing to ask is how did you get started in the ATM business? I know there are some barriers to entry so how did you guys stumble into this?

Joel: Well actually at the time I got into it, which I think was in ’95, I was with New York Life. I was an estate planner for them. One day I got a call from my (now) partner in this business. He’s a CPA and had always done my taxes. I’ve known him for years. He said there was a fellow in his office that was getting into the ATM business and he wanted to meet me because I had insurance customers that owned property, and he wanted to put his ATMs on those various properties.

So I went over and met the guy and we made a finder’s fee deal.

It didn’t work out as planned, and he wound up owing my partner and myself about $6,000. We never got paid, and we started chasing him for the money. We started gathering all this information about ATMs. We talked to his bank, his processing company, etc. and we decided to try it ourselves.

We put up about 6 machines. We couldn’t touch his machines because they didn’t belong to us. It was a total disaster. I was almost immediately looking to sell the machines.

Then we got a break. I have a brother who’s a securities attorney in Texas who deals with some hotel chains. He set up a meeting with a client and I flew to Houston. I met with them, and that meeting ended with us getting the Sheraton Astrodome. At the end of the first month there was huge volume. We grew from there.

We landed Hilton in ’97 and they gave us 1,800 properties to do. After 17 years we’re approaching 20,000 machines running. We’ve done mostly hotels, but we have 5,000 Exxon Mobile stations, and a lot of convenience stores.

Mark: So, in actuality you’re selling a small business. People buy the machines from you and then my understanding is they lease them back to NAS who places them, maintains them and insures them.

Joel: Yeah, the individual owns the machine and we lease it from them. It’s a small business really, so they are entitled to depreciation. They write off 20% a year over 5 years. Basically they’re getting their money back in 3.8 years when it’s all said and done.

The machine owner can keep it forever if they want to, but after 2 years they can sell them back to us and we’ll literally give them their money back. After 2 years we’ve made a profit and we don’t care whether they own it or we own it.

Mark: So then when you buy those machines back from the investor, they’re NAS machines. They don’t get sold to another investor. In that instance they become an asset of NAS..?

Joel: Right.

Mark: In a way, NAS kind of backstops the business owner’s risk because you guarantee a minimum payout per machine per month is my understanding..?

Joel: That’s correct. Actually we guarantee it for a year based on the machine’s cost. Let’s use round numbers – if the machine costs $20,000, by contract we have to pay the owner $4,000. We’re guaranteeing them 20% per annum on the lease back.

If the machine produces less, then we send them a makeup check at the end of the year. However, we changed that about 3 or 4 years ago and now we just give them their 20% monthly. So we’re going to send the owner a check of $330 per month, per machine that they own. We also pay at the rate of $0.50 per transaction, so if the machine does more than 660 transactions a month then the investor gets the difference.

Mark: OK, so if you’re in a high traffic location you could do better.

Joel: Correct.

Mark: Which tend to be the best performing locations?

Joel: The convenience stores are really the best locations we’ve ever had. Selfishly, we try to keep the best locations in house. As an example, we do the Waldorf Astoria in New York. That hotel produces 3,000-4,000 transactions a month. We’re not going to give an outside owner that hotel.

We make sure and give owners locations that we know will perform to at least the minimum, guaranteed payout.

Convenience stores are excellent. By the way, that’s what we’re doing now. We’re installing 2,500 additional convenience stores.

Mark: We imagine a lot of the current owners will want to pick up these additional locations because, like you said, you haven’t been offering new opportunities for awhile.

Joel: That’s correct.

Mark: So you’re offering a first right of refusal to existing owners, but those interested in getting involved for the first time – there’s also a chance for new people to come in, correct?

Joel: Short answer, yes. Here’s what happens. Current owners always have their name on my waiting list whether they buy 1 machine or 10 machines. They’re always anxious for more machines. As an example, if you said to me today, ‘Put aside 100 machines for me,’ I would put them aside for you, new owner or existing. If you’re buying 1 or 5 or something like that, it’s not a problem. With 2,500 locations I’ve got enough available now.

If you’re interested in doing something with us, now is a good time to do it. We’ve gone as long as four years without a location. They’re hard to come by.

Mark: What’s the typical lifespan of the machines? Do they literally last forever?

Joel: The original machines that came out in the mid ’60s are still operating. As a matter of fact, there’s one in Phoenix that has a big plaque that says, ‘This is the original ATM machine.’ They’re a box with a cash drawer and circuit board and occasionally we change out the circuit board or something, but we pay for that.

Mark: What kind of tracking system is in place to make sure that you’re tracking the machine transactions properly and the onwers are getting the proper payout?

Joel: We use processing companies. We have 5 of them around the country. They monitor the machines. If a customer goes to a machine and puts in any kind of credit card or bank card, within a millisecond the processor knows whether they have money in their bank account and they can release cash, or whether they don’t. They give us what kind of a card is used, the time of day, how much cash was dispensed, etc.

If the cash is running low in a machine, they send out the armored car to refill the machine. If a machine breaks down, they send out the service people. We have service people in each state, geographically, depending on how many machines we have that in that state. They pretty well monitor everything for us.

Mark: OK, and that’s covered by NAS not by the owner, correct?

Joel: Correct. We also insure every machine out there with Hartford, and they cover it for anything that could possibly happen, including liability insurance – $4 million per incident in case somebody gets robbed or shot using the machine. So we pretty well have it covered.

Mark: Over the last 17 years have you seen changes in revenue patterns? Is this a business that’s growing year over year or is it pretty consistent?

Joel: The business is pretty consistent; however, we’ve had times where maybe our machines are up 5% for a year or down 5%. When the recession hit 3 years ago, we did see a downtrend in most of our locations except for hotels for some reason. Hotel businesses picked up. It’s very hard to put a handle on it.

People use cash. Some people say, ‘Well, don’t they use less cash?’ We haven’t found that to be true. Cash is cash. If you travel yourself and you go to a city, you’re not going to walk around without some cash in your pocket. You have to tip, and cab drivers don’t always take credit cards, that sort of thing. Cash is still relevant. In our industry we always talk about the downside if we become a cashless society. We feel that’s still many years away.

Mark: That leads me into my next question. Most of our readers are pretty sophisticated and some of them, including ourselves, are of the opinion that the current financial system is heading for some sort of a shakeup and possibly even in a worst case scenario, a reset.

Joel: If something should happen – let’s say there’s a run on our banks or something – we’re a very cash-rich company. We have reserves that are pretty significant.

Again, remember, we own 2/3 of the machines that are out there. Independent owners only control 1/3. We would probably just pay the investors back and that would be the end of it. Like I said earlier, In our contract the owner can cash out, so that’s probably what would happen. We would be out of business, investors would get paid back and that would be the end of the story.

Mark: What about all the automation that’s happening with things like iPhones and Android phones?

Joel: It really doesn’t affect our business. You got to remember, our machines are strictly cash dispensing machines. You still can’t do that on an iPhone. I think that we’re probably very safe in my business for another 20 years before we have to start to worry about it, even with all these new innovations that are coming out.

Mark: Say that I work my way up and I eventually own 100 machines myself. I’ve got equipment now that’s theoretically worth $2 million, 100 machines times roughly $20,000 just for even numbers, which is giving me a massive cash flow of about $400,000 a year. No employees, no maintenance; it’s a beautiful business.

I can’t think of a reason someone would want to sell out of that situation but anything is possible. Does NAS allow people to sell their business as an independent, or does NAS always have first right of refusal?

Joel: Yes, they have to sell it back to the company. They can’t sell them to someone else. The only time they can transfer is if someone dies and it’s in their trust or will. Other than that if somebody wants to just cash out, it’s got to come back to us.

Mark: OK. Right now when you say you control 20,000 machines does that include NAS and the independent owners, or is that just NAS machines?

Joel: Right now the independent owners have about 6,000-6,500 machines – in that range.

Mark: That’s something like $120 million worth of equipment?

Joel: Sounds right.

Mark: So in a worst case scenario, NAS would be in a position to buy those machines back from investors?

Joel: Oh yes, absolutely. I would like to buy them back tomorrow to be honest with you, but most of my machines are with people that have owned them for years, they’re friends really, and they’re collecting 20% plus on their money.

I’ll turn the question to you. Let’s say you’ve been with us for 10 years and you are getting paid every month, without fail and I call you up and I say, ‘You got 50 machines; I’d love to buy them back. I’ll send you a check for a million bucks.’ What are you going to say to me? You’re going to say, ‘It’s going to cost you a lot more than a million bucks.’

Mark: Yeah because you’re buying the cash flow…

Joel: Exactly. We were approached by a big bank several years ago that offered us a fortune for our business. The only thing is, they didn’t want to take the independent owners machines. If I sold the company machines, it wouldn’t do me any good because I’d still have the same amount of work as far as the other machines are concerned.

So we didn’t sell out, and the current owners have a forever deal. If I probably had to do it over again, Mark, I would set it up differently. I wouldn’t do what I’m doing because the company is actually locked into the investors forever. My kids will be locked into the investors.

It’s been a wonderful business; don’t get me wrong and everybody’s thrilled with it, but I would probably structure it differently if I did it today.

Mark: What about these 2,500 new locations? Have you considered just buying them all yourself then and not offering them out?

Joel: We could except I have so many obligations from current owners that are waiting for new locations. I wouldn’t do that to them.

The way it’s probably going to come out is we’re probably going to take half of them and offer out the other half of them. That’s the way we’ll split them up.

Mark: OK, fantastic. I wish I would have bought a few machines years ago! Anyway, I want to let you get back to enjoying your vacation.

Joel: Thanks Mark. Take care, aloha!

————

Mark again… as Joel mentioned, NAS has available locations and machines. If this is something that interests you we’d be happy to pass along contact information, just drop us a note here.

- Mark

“The use of money is all the advantage there is in having it.” – Benjamin Franklin
Read on the web here →
refer a friend
What you missed last time...
A License to Print Money

On 27th June 1967 Reg Varney, a British television celebrity withdrew £10 from an ATM outside Barclays bank in Enfield London.

It was the beginning of an era that decimated bank tellers jobs, increased profit margins for banks and decreased costs for bank customers. More importantly, it ensured that never again would inebriated youths need to curtail their night on the town when running out of cash. The ATM had arrived. Revolutionary stuff indeed!
Read the full article →


Copyright © 2011 V Holdings International Limited, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to our list at http://www.capitalistexploits.com. You can un-subscribe at any time.
Our mailing address is:
V Holdings International Limited
Unit 1010, Miramar Tower 132
Nathan Rd. TST KLN
Hong Kong 11111

Add us to your address book

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences | Disclaimer
MarvinGardens
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:26 am

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by MarvinGardens »

Those of you trying to model NASI's enterprise will need a good understanding of first order linear differential equations and familiarity with Laplace transforms. This is no easy task, but for you math majors out there whose calculus is fresh, here is a good description of how to model a Ponzi scheme:

https://ouchmath.wordpress.com/2011/03/ ... i-schemes/
Tednewsom
Ponzinator Extraordinaire
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:20 pm
Location: California

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Tednewsom »

MarvinGardens-- it's nice to have the entire interview available for everyone to see. I brought it up several years ago here and eventually posted it in (I think) its entirety. In any case, I communicated with the guy runs the site (and had posted comments on his site linking interested parties back to Quatloos) and the apparent enthusiasm of his interviewer was not shared by the blog owner. His suspicion of a Ponzi was a major reason for removing the interview.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Gregg »

Right now they control about 20,000 such machines, owning 2/3 of those directly, and leasing the other 1/3 from individuals that have purchased the machines and leased them back to NAS. Hence the opportunity…
This is a decent reference for any model, also; in 2011 the absolute maximum number of contracts was less than 7,000 machines. It's also been typical of ponzi scheme that mention numbers like this of overstating them by about double or more. Your model above, depending on where you'd overlay the time period in question, is in the ballpark at least.

I also notice (and agree, its kind of central to the point I've been trying to make for 6-7 months) that going back 7 years your model shows only 801 of the total 31,000 contracts sold as being pre-SOL for the purpose of clawbacks. Look at that again and let it sink in kids, out of 31,000 contracts sold, it's possible and even likely that less than 1,000 of them are, for the purposes of clawback, in profit.

Math, it isn't just for breakfast any more.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
worried
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by worried »

My little simple model above which, since it is an exponential equation of the form y=e^(at), actually IS a solution of a first-order differential equation in the time domain. Laplace is the transformation to the frequency domain and not needed here, well, ok, unless you want to study the stability of the system (fluctuations in balance at the far right) to changes in an input (step change, impulse, sinusoidal, etc.), now you've got me thinking about doing just that for the fun of it ;-)... and yes, I AM a professional geek ;-). .... I deliberately kept the resolution in time coarse (yearly steps) to keep it small and easily comprehensible at a glance or two. There are a lot of variables that could be added but the uncertainties on all those variables (what happened in Joel's actual scheme) would make it a waste of time. Higher resolution in time might change the answers a bit, but I was just looking for rough behavior as certain inputs are changed (exp, initial sales, skim%)..... NOTE, that my little model requires 2600 sales 4-5 years ago, that happens to match Joel's advertisement of 2500 new locations in that 2011 interview, also Joel says that in 2011 ~7000 contracts were signed with 'investors', that same row in my model shows a total of 6451 units sold... coincidence? maybe.... now where did all the 'skim' go?.. note also that my model ONLY considered the $12000 price, the actual total skim (minus commissions) should be larger .....
Last edited by worried on Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you have to "Believe" something, that means you can't prove that it's true... please, for your own sake, speak and act accordingly...
Tednewsom
Ponzinator Extraordinaire
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:20 pm
Location: California

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Tednewsom »

worried wrote: .... now where did all the 'skim' go?.....
No, no, no, no. They just took a modest yearly salary and enough to occasionally buy a new car and some nice cigars. Those multiple millions coming in from the super-healthy days of the scam, they didn't sock that all away, it just vanished. Pay no attention to it. All your nice calculus and spreadsheet stuff is great, but those annual profits in six, seven, eight figures-- nah. Fergit it. They weren't smart enough to hide It somewhere. :)
worried
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by worried »

Gregg wrote:
Right now they control about 20,000 such machines, owning 2/3 of those directly, and leasing the other 1/3 from individuals that have purchased the machines and leased them back to NAS. Hence the opportunity…
This is a decent reference for any model, also; in 2011 the absolute maximum number of contracts was less than 7,000 machines. It's also been typical of ponzi scheme that mention numbers like this of overstating them by about double or more. Your model above, depending on where you'd overlay the time period in question, is in the ballpark at least.

I also notice (and agree, its kind of central to the point I've been trying to make for 6-7 months) that going back 7 years your model shows only 801 of the total 31,000 contracts sold as being pre-SOL for the purpose of clawbacks. Look at that again and let it sink in kids, out of 31,000 contracts sold, it's possible and even likely that less than 1,000 of them are, for the purposes of clawback, in profit.

Math, it isn't just for breakfast any more.
But, the scheme pays 20% per year, so it only takes 5 years to break even, and apparently, per the stories from actual victims on this forum, contracts broke even sooner than that because Joel was giving more and 20% per year to keep everyone in blissful denial...

Ted: are you being sarcastic? It's hard for me to tell :-)... In addition to the Fuel Doctor, I found that NASI was listed as an unsecured creditor of a bankrupt golf course in Hawaii... 31000 contracts... money went somewhere whether it was directed intelligently or not... or with the presumed inability to keep up the growth of sales did the 'skim' pot (whatever was left after laundering through 'failed investments') just get sent back out in the form of payments?

Note that my little model doesn't account for the 'commissions' which, if EVERY contract paid $1000 to the referrer, would reduce the pot by $31M (does anybody know if they really paid that much for every contract? I suspect they didn't start paying commissions until they really needed to.)...

The forensic accounting report is going to be very interesting...
Last edited by worried on Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you have to "Believe" something, that means you can't prove that it's true... please, for your own sake, speak and act accordingly...
Tednewsom
Ponzinator Extraordinaire
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:20 pm
Location: California

Re: ATM LEASEBACK SCHEMES-- any insight?

Post by Tednewsom »

No specific information has come out about commissions yet. Occasional referrals from customers I could see NASI paying a grand per successful sale. As for the couple of people who pedaled the things full time, that seems far too low. To make a decent living, you'd have to sell 40 or 50 every year. That's one a week on average.

Yes, I'm being facetious. Your figures come up with a total skim of $36,000,000. The couple million they spent late in the game on Fuel Doctor is chump change, and really was a great idea for a product scam. A cheap little infomercial and you're off like a rocket. The fleet of movie production trucks & dressing rooms, likewise, had a superficially good concept to sell to other suckers. The movie end of it would be sexy to high rollers, the permanent aspect of a fleet of trucks used from project to project makes it sound more stable than a one-off movie budget scam. I doubt The Boyz were taken by other sharpies. More likely, they recognized a potentially good con and bought into it.