Thread: What Do You Really Feel About Pips

Originally Posted by scubadiver

Those that talk about PIPS failing because of not paying members. Have any of you done your DD to see when and where the problems started. Payments were going out fine until the bank PIPS was working with decided that they didn't want to handle the account any longer. Many people have said that Bryan (PIPS) should have just written checks to pay members. As was stated many times in the origional PIPS forum the laws over there require that checks going out of the country from businesses be issued by the banks not the business. I feel that PIPS will be back in a restructured form and with several payment processors connected to it. Also instead of members being able to request as many withdrawals as they want a month (there were people with over 30 requests in one month), they will be restricted to 1 per month, quater, semi-annual ect. as stated in a message in Bryan's area here. Wally

Whatever the problems were regarding withdrawals, it was Bryans responsibility to correct it. As far as the number of withdrawals a member requested is concerned, i remember members themselves suggesting limiting withdrawals to one a month. I beleive Bryan once said that he didnt want to restrict members funds in any way. So look what happened.

Denim,

Not that you would necessarily need affirmation, but,

YOU GO BOY!!!

Stand fast and watch it rain on the just and the unjust.

Lloyd (mmfast)

Originally Posted by rolbuddy

hine,

You say it failed. How can you use such finality in talking about pips?

Or do you rather mean that it seems like a failure to you at the moment? That leaves the possibility of success in the future.

What if PIPS comes back and it turns out it works? Has it then still failed?
Or does it then change magically to having been a success with some obstacles on the way?

Or would you then say that it has failed but it is a success?

If your child was ill and kept in isolation and you would not know if you would ever see your child again, would you say that your child was dead?

In financial circles, a program, shares, bonds, loans that has not been able to deliver the agreed ROI or transaction (from a few days - to a couple of months), are considered at default and the investment is written off!....a total loss of investment! PIPS has been at default for more than one year....not good news!
Bank accounts that has been frozen (picpay and available funds) are the members funds and I do hope that when PIPS and picpay investigation is over that the funds are still there (which I doubt),...but I could be wrong!

You are speculating that PIPS will be back!....and I doubt that. Maybe PIPS will be back as a totally modified program. But the PIPS that we invested in is dead to me!....

Your metaphor re. sick child (life) does not compare to a DEAD investment!...

hine

Originally Posted by hine

Your metaphor re. sick child (life) does not compare to a DEAD investment!...

hine

Hehe, no you're right, the metaphore is not valid within the structure of your definitions and beliefs.

I now understand what you mean. Although I don't share your perspective, the meaning of your words are clarified for me. Thanx.

I received payments in 2004 that came through HSBC - the bank PIPS was using at that time. Everything was working fine. I was doing two withdrawals a month. Money was always in my local bank within seven to ten days from submitting a withdrawal. I used to get an eMail notification that my withdrawal had been approved and often the money would be in the bank that day, if not by the next day for sure. Then my last withdrawal that I put in towards the end of December 2004, encountered a delay. This was when HSBC suddenly closed PIPS bank accounts. If I remember correctly HSBC also froze PIPS funds in that bank and it took PIPS lawyers some time to get that money back out of HSBC. Bryan later said something to the effect that it had cost the company a lot of money in lost earnings whilst that money was frozen plus the legal fees.
I've often wondered why HSBC took that action. Perhaps the fact that HSBC was/is facing a legal attack from some Israeli citizens claiming that HSBC was irresponsible in not realising that one of its subsidiary banks in the Middle East was being used for terrorist funding was making HSBC nervous. Perhaps HSBC decided that handling so many bank wire transfers to thousands of unknown recipients all over the world was too risky. What if just one of those transactions was discovered to be funding for some terrorist activity? Or supposing Picpay was being used for money laundering etc? I am just trying to see it from the perspective of HSBC. Well anyway, Bryan said he was trying to set something up with other banks to get the money out to the members. I do know for a fact that such arrangements were made because my last payment from Dec 2004 eventually arrived last April and it came through a bank in another part of the world. A friend of mine also received payment from yet another bank. Unfortunately these alternative-banking arrangements didn't last very long as those banks apparently also decided not to handle PIPS/Picpay funds. It seems to me that Bryan was making a real effort to get the payments out but kept getting blocked by the banking system. I'm not suggesting that the banking situation is the only problem. It appears that Picpay itself had gotten pretty screwed up. Maybe that is the root cause of the bank problems?
Actually I was kind of relieved when I learned that Bank Negara was investigating Picpay! I think the only way for Bryan and PIPS to regain the confidence of the financial community is by having a thorough, official investigation and by correcting all the problems with a restructured program. I'm confident this is what is going on and reasonably optimistic it will happen.

I don't think Pips will return in the same manner either. It is supposed to be restrutured anyway.... I do feel people should look at themselves for the decision they made. I take responsibility that I made this choice to become involved. If it was a foolish choice then I'm to blame. Plus this isn't over yet so why decide prematurely what is going to happen?

Originally Posted by rolbuddy

Hehe, no you're right, it doesn not compare within the structure of your definition and beliefs.

I now understand what you mean. Although I don't share your perspective, the meaning of your words are clarified for me. Thanx.

no problem buddy!....smile...

I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that approx 20% of the population disagee all the time with everybody for all kind of reasons!

hine

Yes, hine, people disagree about most of everything most of the time that's why my aim was more to understand your perspective than to convince you of mine. :)

Originally Posted by moncheri

I don't think Pips will return in the same manner either. It is supposed to be restrutured anyway.... I do feel people should look at themselves for the decision they made. I take responsibility that I made this choice to become involved. If it was a foolish choice then I'm to blame. Plus this isn't over yet so why decide prematurely what is going to happen?

As far as Picpay goes, that is still our funds not Pips. People are going to be held liable for it. Thats what im hoping the investigation will uphold.

Originally Posted by OICU812

As far as Picpay goes, that is still our funds not Pips. People are going to be held liable for it. Thats what im hoping the investigation will uphold.

Yes, I know what you mean about that, a possibility, too. That would be better than some programs where you don't see a dime of it... But then again.... you never know we may get up and running.

I guess I'm lucky because I have found an attitude about it all that I'm not planning on anything, but it would be fun to be surprised!



ps... but I think Bryan is a remarkable person and so I do support him and think he has been through enough and the fact that he has not quit is even more remarkable.