0.05 share is silly, that's like a month of bad dividends.
Why even discuss this?
Why even discuss this?
If one is mega-bearish on AM this can't be repeated often enough.
BTC is going down to $0.01, sell al yours before you lose everything.
Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 721. (Read 3917468 times)
September 07, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
If one is mega-bearish on AM this can't be repeated often enough.
BTC is going down to $0.01, sell al yours before you lose everything.
September 07, 2013, 04:49:51 PM
Disclosure: I am short AM.
better put it in your signature for a permanent understanding, a little dig through wallobserver thread could spit out some nice bear pics for your avatar.
just kidding around...
September 07, 2013, 04:35:33 PM
Less transparent than what? Do you want FC to let the competition know his every move?
Uh, yeah, if that's what it takes to keep his shareholders updated. What do you suppose that his competition is going to do with that information? He's not e-mailing the tapeout over to BFL. The competition is going to make ASICs one way or another, if FC lets them know that's still on his game plan too... uh, so what?
Updates are far more valuable to his shareholders than to his competition.
September 07, 2013, 04:24:22 PM
AM Shares slowly trending toward 0.00
Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.
They're worth around 0.05 imo.
Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.
They're worth around 0.05 imo.
Um, my price target (valid assuming no significant news updates) is 1.5. So I disagree. AM's working cash is probably worth more than 0.05/share.
There is definitely value here. People just overestimate how much. You underestimate, evidently.
Disclosure: I am short AM.
September 07, 2013, 04:18:24 PM
Are you Vycids alter ego, hlynur? You both have 168 posts as of right now
it's activity not posts, don't know exactly how it's calculated though.
and no i'm not somebody's alter ego. (or at least not that i know of
)vycid is just the first guy in AM-thread that pushes me to throw my 2 satoshis in the discussion from time to time.
I think his argumentation is a bit off because if you apply his criticism of AM to other ipos on the market, you couldn't invest in any of these at all.
besides: how did you pull it off to register April 2012 and do 4 posts until now??? I feel honoured that your 4th post is about asking me being an alter ego. Can't wait for your next one.
Actually, yes, I am not invested in ANY mining company. Even if they deliver product, I think the storm of deliveries will actually drive profits negative for a while (due to hardware and electricity expense) as people desperately keep their miners running, trying to try to claw back their investment.
The only mitigating factor would be another large BTC/USD increase within the next six months and I honestly have no idea if that will happen. It could go down and make things worse, too.
Some companies will probably fold. I do not want to be holding a doomed company.
September 07, 2013, 04:05:52 PM
Vycid's message is clear. He believes AM is going to BTC0.00. And of course his word is fact. 
September 07, 2013, 04:02:42 PM
Are you Vycids alter ego, hlynur? You both have 168 posts as of right now
it's activity not posts, don't know exactly how it's calculated though.
and no i'm not somebody's alter ego. (or at least not that i know of
)vycid is just the first guy in AM-thread that pushes me to throw my 2 satoshis in the discussion from time to time.
I think his argumentation is a bit off because if you apply his criticism of AM to other ipos on the market, you couldn't invest in any of these at all.
besides: how did you pull it off to register April 2012 and do 4 posts until now??? I feel honoured that your 4th post is about asking me being an alter ego. Can't wait for your next one.
September 07, 2013, 03:09:37 PM
Are you Vycids alter ego, hlynur? You both have 168 posts as of right now
September 07, 2013, 01:58:13 PM
I understand that you want to get more cheap shares. if not , what makes you spending your times day and day to explaining to everybody that AM will be dead?
Haha. I'm not invested in AM. I effectively maintain a short position via put options. When AM goes down I make money.
Frankly, there is nothing FC can do at this point to make the shares fairly valued. It's too late; all of the dividends that could've been used for growth have been paid out, and AM will never come close to its old profit margins.
AM won't go out of business, but there's gonna be some serious adjustment. For the long-term, not the short term, by the way - I would be shocked if we ever see 3 BTC again.
I am invested in Litecoin Global (BTCT's parent company), but it's a small position and I don't pay much attention to it.
I am also invested in a number of companies on traditional exchanges but that's kind of tangential.
Frankly, there is nothing FC can do at this point to make the shares fairly valued. It's too late; all of the dividends that could've been used for growth have been paid out, and AM will never come close to its old profit margins.
AM won't go out of business, but there's gonna be some serious adjustment. For the long-term, not the short term, by the way - I would be shocked if we ever see 3 BTC again.
I am invested in Litecoin Global (BTCT's parent company), but it's a small position and I don't pay much attention to it.
I am also invested in a number of companies on traditional exchanges but that's kind of tangential.
vycid has his strategic standpoint and it's logical he's supporting these interests with his argumentation on this thread.
I'd still love to hear arguments why Vycid doesn't seem to be involved in any other ipo? (does AM have any benefits for him after all....despite going to hell of course?)
If I read through other ipo-threads (e.g. labcoin) and start comparing, i know why i invested in AM. Imo it still has the most transparency and best reputation for an already risky investment in this market.
(this statement is written with my strategic standpoint in mind
)
September 07, 2013, 10:04:00 AM
"Scientific Wild Ass Guess"
Damn, I thought the "S" was "super".
In YOUR case, let's go with Shitty
September 07, 2013, 09:58:57 AM
There were skeptics at 0.2, yes. Rightfully so, since AM hadn't proven itself yet - but it is my understanding that at that point it DID share more of its business plan with the public. 0.2 was a decent bet, considering there was not much competition on the scene, and lots of coins up for grab until the rest of the competition could mobilize.
This is NOT a comparable scenario, since AM is LESS transparent and headed for extreme competition.
It's hardly a fear campaign. If someone says "this is ridiculous!!! how could you sell, AM has the highest dividends!!" I'm going to point out why that's not really important.
I understand that you want to get more cheap shares. if not , what makes you spending your times day and day to explaining to everybody that AM will be dead?
And from my understand, the cost advantage in China will cover the technical disadvantage of AM. (If those west competitor could get win on Cost , there would not that much electric devices is made in China. )
If mining BTC is profitable , why FC didn't adding more hashrate? the only reason I believe is he is waiting for some better devices to get more profitable for himself.)
FC doesn't care about the Share price, Since He can't use this to measure his company's value in real world , I mean to get loan or other stuffs.
at 2.BTC per share , I think this would not be long , because once he announce his devices, folks will be shocked like the first time when he announced he invented USB miner.
September 07, 2013, 09:38:35 AM
AM Shares slowly trending toward 0.00
Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.
They're worth around 0.05 imo.
Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.
They're worth around 0.05 imo.
Nice point ROLF
Good luck buying them at 0.05
September 07, 2013, 09:27:29 AM
AM Shares slowly trending toward 0.00
Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.
They're worth around 0.05 imo.
Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.
They're worth around 0.05 imo.
Obvious troll (who joined on the first of this month) is obvious.
September 07, 2013, 09:22:43 AM
AM Shares slowly trending toward 0.00
Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.
They're worth around 0.05 imo.
Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.
They're worth around 0.05 imo.
September 07, 2013, 06:31:54 AM
How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?
You could say that about most businesses.Hardly. Most businesses release product details, earnings guidance, business plans, etc. AM is supposed to be rolling out gen 2 "within the next couple months" and has shared no information. You are gambling here, and the downside is nasty - not to mention that gen 2 could launch as planned and still fail to compete, since we know next to nothing about the cost per unit or KW-h per GH or anything really.
Most companies that pay dividends provide some assurance of their ability to continue doing so in the future.
We've all just been through the GFC so c'mon don't be so naive: earnings guidance? Assurance? Ha!
You could make 0.1 BTC per share in dividends over the next 3 months - and then end up with shares worth less than 1 BTC.
Good deal, huh?
Or they could be worth more than 10 BTC, we just don't know.Good deal, huh?
I've made quantitative value arguments that 2 BTC is a fair price only if AM is successful at retaining a significant chunk of the hashrate for many years. 10 BTC is highly unlikely.
Sure, we don't know. I like my odds, though.
There were a lot of people sputtering at 3.0 about how it was still a super profitable dividend security, too. OOPS.
And there were plenty of skeptics at 0.2. OOPS. I thought you were going to stop spamming the thread with your negative bullshit? Factual, rational argument is welcome, and you occasionally have some worthwhile contributions, but the relentless hyperbolic fear mongering drowns out anything useful, and smacks of a self-serving smear campaign.
There were skeptics at 0.2, yes. Rightfully so, since AM hadn't proven itself yet - but it is my understanding that at that point it DID share more of its business plan with the public. 0.2 was a decent bet, considering there was not much competition on the scene, and lots of coins up for grab until the rest of the competition could mobilize.
This is NOT a comparable scenario, since AM is LESS transparent and headed for extreme competition.
It's hardly a fear campaign. If someone says "this is ridiculous!!! how could you sell, AM has the highest dividends!!" I'm going to point out why that's not really important.
Neither of us know what the competitive landscape will look like 3 months from now let alone 1 year; we don't know if it will be extreme or how extreme; extreme is subjective anyway, your extreme is another person's 'weak', who knows. Maybe extreme is when the top 5 chip makers start getting into the game, not just a few throw away virtual business plans floating around the boards.
Yes I'm just exaggerating a bit here to get my point across that you Vycid simply do not know, yet you continue to spam the board with your pretentious declarations of doom.
September 07, 2013, 06:29:14 AM
Vycid, your special brand of pharisaic retardation is a joke.
Surely you understand the difference. The first statement - 'share price has no reflection on ability to remain competitive' - implied that a change in share price does not have a causative influence on the ability of the company to be profitable. This is true and therefore I agree.
My statement - 'share price is a reflection of future profitability' - implies a change in profitability causes a change in the share price. This is not incompatible.
To be clear, X can cause Y without Y causing X.
You can go off and accuse me of being a pedant, but you're responsible for writing what you mean. English is funny sometimes and I can only read what you have written. I have not yet mastered mindreading.
Also, I'm not sure you meant to use 'pharisaic' -
phar·i·sa·ic (fr-sk) also phar·i·sa·i·cal (-s-kl)
adj.
1. Pharisaic also Pharisaical Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Pharisees.
2. Hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory.
unless you're referring to some hypocrisy I have missed.
Vycid, if you're going to keep repeating yourself please do us all (and yourself) a favor if you wish to remain reputable. Please state your short position or state that you have a short position at the end of every post.
September 07, 2013, 05:59:05 AM
Yes, I understand the difference, and yes, I did mean pharisaic.
My statement - 'share price is a reflection of future profitability' - implies a change in profitability causes a change in the share price. This is not incompatible.
I didn't see the implication. I too can only read what is written.
You can truthfully say, that your valuation of a fair share price is a reflection of your speculation for future profitability.
Anything else is bullshit.
My statement - 'share price is a reflection of future profitability' - implies a change in profitability causes a change in the share price. This is not incompatible.
I didn't see the implication. I too can only read what is written.
You can truthfully say, that your valuation of a fair share price is a reflection of your speculation for future profitability.
Anything else is bullshit.
September 07, 2013, 05:41:15 AM
Vycid, your special brand of pharisaic retardation is a joke.
Surely you understand the difference. The first statement - 'share price has no reflection on ability to remain competitive' - implied that a change in share price does not have a causative influence on the ability of the company to be profitable. This is true and therefore I agree.
My statement - 'share price is a reflection of future profitability' - implies a change in profitability causes a change in the share price. This is not incompatible.
To be clear, X can cause Y without Y causing X.
You can go off and accuse me of being a pedant, but you're responsible for writing what you mean. English is funny sometimes and I can only read what you have written. I have not yet mastered mindreading.
Also, I'm not sure you meant to use 'pharisaic' -
phar·i·sa·ic (fr-sk) also phar·i·sa·i·cal (-s-kl)
adj.
1. Pharisaic also Pharisaical Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Pharisees.
2. Hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory.
unless you're referring to some hypocrisy I have missed.
September 07, 2013, 05:27:50 AM
Vycid, your special brand of pharisaic retardation is a joke.
September 07, 2013, 05:26:39 AM
How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?
Dividends have some reflection on profits, and those profits are used to remain competitive.
The share price has no reflection on the future ability of the company to remain competitive.
Indeed. Instead the share price is a reflection of the future ability of the company to remain competitive.
You say indeed, then disagree?
And the share price is a more significant factor in your ability to make money than the dividends are, given the degree of volatility.
So you are talking about the viability of being able to trade the shares on a week to week basis for profit, rather than the viability of the company?
Not 'has a reflection on', but 'is a reflection of'. The forward earnings strongly influence share prices - that's the idea behind forward P/E ratios.
I am talking about the viability of holding AM shares, mid or long term, with the purpose of profiting from the dividends. It is highly likely those dividends will be nothing more than noise in the overriding signal of the price swings.
Jump to: