The most important question for Bryan ...

... is: 'will people get their principal out if PIPS is not relaunched?' In other words 'does PIPS have enough money to cover them?'

This question should be answered as the no. 1 priority ahead of questions such as how much monies will be transferred from PIPS to the new scheme etc.

Another question is if the outcome on Nov 17 is negative (if indeed there is such a court hearing), can PIPS continue with someone else in charge in the meantime?

Bryan: is it at all possible to answer the first question 'will people get their principal out if PIPS is not relaunched?'

When pips is relaunched, that question of yours suddenly becomes the most unimportant question and would really not needed to be answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4profit

When pips is relaunched, that question of yours suddenly becomes the most unimportant question and would really not needed to be answered.

---

That was a very good answer and very simple.

Not only was the answer by 4profit an excellent answer but the question was also answered by Bryan in one of his posts here where he stated that members would get their money. That message is in Bryan's area. Prior to asking questions everyone should due their DD by researching previous messages.

This “most important question” borders on impertinence in the light of Bryan’s vision to bring economic relief to the impoverished of this world.

Can I ask another?

How would it be possible to restrict membership in Pure Investor to those who hold only the purest intentions for the disbursement of such an extraordinary income?

It appears that even Bryan was not concerned about such purity, but was willing to endure the ramifications of allowing the participation of members with selfishness and greed as their motivations.

interesting.

-----

I'll second that, interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interesting

How would it be possible to restrict membership in Pure Investor to those who hold only the purest intentions for the disbursement of such an extraordinary income?

It appears that even Bryan was not concerned about such purity, but was willing to endure the ramifications of allowing the participation of members with selfishness and greed as their motivations.

---

Hi interesting

Thanks for your post. Bryan did answer your question in one of his posts. His posts copied below, just in case you missed reading it.

Looks like there will be a cap (upper loan limit) on the earning of each "little guy's" account under restructuring, to "get rid of the greed merchants." And please don't ask how much is the limit. He cannot comment on any of it until get everything back.

We, "the little guys", will have nice ongoing income if we managed our accounts well.

For the "private invitation only program" under the restructuring, it will only "for the higher end accredited net worth guys" as Bryan posted.

Let us be patience when waiting for details about the restructuing. Let Bryan focus his time doing the important thing first, i.e. get the programs up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BM

The restructuring does take into consideration the points on private operations, greed, envy and sabatuers. One of the core reasons PIPS did not go private is that there are so many little guys out there that need help and restricting the numbers preclude many of those people.

Having said that the restructuring will offer two opportunities.

1. For the little guy, this will have an upper limit to the amount that can be loaned, gets rid of the greed merchants for this program.

2. A private invitation only program that will be for the higher end accredited net worth guys.

The forums etc. will also be totally private, members only will be allowed to read or post in the forums.

Please do not ask questions on how the restructuring and programs work, because I will not release any of that information at the moment.

Hope this answers your questions somewhat.

Bryan

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newlife

That was a very good answer and very simple.

---

Some people have COMON-SENSE, others have NON-SENSE