Topic: ASICMINER Speculation Thread - page 180. (Read 808757 times)
You heard me
Anyways it is the end of an era and mpex's jewel is gone
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2751536
On a sidenote Evoorhees sold Sdice
Your explanation shows a disregard in accepted logic in order to leap to your conclusion.
Please explain?
It also implies that TAT.AM can be worth less than zero, which is obviously impossible.
No it does not! My model simply calculates TAT.AM as being worth exactly 95% of the full AM shares if you buy and hold forever. There's no way it can be worth less than zero with my model.
You can put any numbers you want into my model, you'll never get a negative valuation for TAT.AM
Why are you guys measuring per year values when you can just trade between the two
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/ddm.asp
Prove your point with math
MATH BATTLE !
Never get to say that
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/ddm.asp
Prove your point with math
MATH BATTLE !
Never get to say that
Because your math requires numbers we don't have access to.
Just make some rough estimate till we get financials with AM monthly or weekly scales are where it's at as bitcoin itself fluctuates and as investors we need to calculate currency risk as well into all our valuations as it impacts the stock price
That's a good way to calculate nonsense.
Not necessarily but it would be pretty rough
I'm not reading your example. I understand your point from your sentence. As I've said repeatedly, I'm looking at this from a long term investor perspective, not a trader perspective. The balance of market participants in each camp is impossible to know, but the correct valuation is somewhere between the two camps.
I hear ya, I'm just saying I think there are more small holders with less than 5 btc that investors like you. And, I think that's why the price gap is historically a lot closer than the 4% we were seeing.
Sure, there are probably more. But the large holders (obviously) have more weight each.
I'm not reading your example. I understand your point from your sentence. As I've said repeatedly, I'm looking at this from a long term investor perspective, not a trader perspective. The balance of market participants in each camp is impossible to know, but the correct valuation is somewhere between the two camps.
I hear ya, I'm just saying I think there are more small holders with less than 5 btc that investors like you. And, I think that's why the price gap is historically a lot closer than the 4% we were seeing.
People have a limited supply of btc, and they want to invest the whole amount of BTC, not just whole shares.
This is the strongest point I've seen so far, but IMO is balanced by convertibility of whole shares.
I'll give you a real life example. I bought some shares on an auction when AM-PT was trading around 5.1. I bought the shares for 4.7. Meanwhile, the price crashed, and by the time the share transfer had gone through, the price had dropped to 3.6, back to 4.7, back down to 3.9, back up to 4.5, then to 4, then back and worth between 4 and 4.5.
Had I had those shares, I could have bought and sold them a number of times during that volatility period and increased my holdings and overall value considerably.
Now, I knew what I was getting into, so no big deal, but for a small holder, than has 5 btc to invest and is not looking at a several month investment, converting to direct shares is a liability, not a benefit.
The point here is that these valuations depend a lot on the investor's goals. Short term, long term? different valuation. under 10 btc, over 100btc? different valuations. day trading or hands off? different valuations.
I can see several cases where TAT.AM is a smarter investment for a small holder than full AM-PT or direct shares.
I'm not reading your example. I understand your point from your sentence. As I've said repeatedly, I'm looking at this from a long term investor perspective, not a trader perspective. The balance of market participants in each camp is impossible to know, but the correct valuation is somewhere between the two camps.
People have a limited supply of btc, and they want to invest the whole amount of BTC, not just whole shares.
This is the strongest point I've seen so far, but IMO is balanced by convertibility of whole shares.
I'll give you a real life example. I bought some shares on an auction when AM-PT was trading around 5.1. I bought the shares for 4.7. Meanwhile, the price crashed, and by the time the share transfer had gone through, the price had dropped to 3.6, back to 4.7, back down to 3.9, back up to 4.5, then to 4, then back and worth between 4 and 4.5.
Had I had those shares, I could have bought and sold them a number of times during that volatility period and increased my holdings and overall value considerably.
Now, I knew what I was getting into, so no big deal, but for a small holder, than has 5 btc to invest and is not looking at a several month investment, converting to direct shares is a liability, not a benefit.
The point here is that these valuations depend a lot on the investor's goals. Short term, long term? different valuation. under 10 btc, over 100btc? different valuations. day trading or hands off? different valuations.
I can see several cases where TAT.AM is a smarter investment for a small holder than full AM-PT or direct shares.
You are welcome to disagree or use your own valuation models, but the fact that you choose to do so, does not make your method absolutely better, or more accurate.
+1
I've explained my method and the reasons why it works for me. I'm not trying to claim everyone should value things in the same way, and if you are a short term trader than the other methods presented have some merit.
Maybe an extreme example will help. If AM shares go up to 100btc each, but the dividends stay at about .025 per week. Is a 5% mgmt fee still going to justify TAT.AM selling for 95btc? Of course not.
I agree with everything you said except this. YES a 5% management fee means TAT.AM is 95 BTC when AM is 100 BTC. Why not?
Think about it this way: Eventually all stocks go to zero, no company lasts forever. If you buy and hold AM for 100BTC you'll make X BTC in dividends over the life of the company. If you buy and hold TAT.AM for 100 BTC you will make 0.95 X over the life of the company.
Therefore TAT.AM is worth 95% of the regular AM shares.
So basically you'll ignore every other point you agree with in order to make one of the points untrue? Your explanation shows a disregard in accepted logic in order to leap to your conclusion. It also implies that TAT.AM can be worth less than zero, which is obviously impossible.
You are welcome to disagree or use your own valuation models, but the fact that you choose to do so, does not make your method absolutely better, or more accurate.
People have a limited supply of btc, and they want to invest the whole amount of BTC, not just whole shares.
This is the strongest point I've seen so far, but IMO is balanced by convertibility of whole shares.
Maybe an extreme example will help. If AM shares go up to 100btc each, but the dividends stay at about .025 per week. Is a 5% mgmt fee still going to justify TAT.AM selling for 95btc? Of course not.
I agree with everything you said except this. YES a 5% management fee means TAT.AM is 95 BTC when AM is 100 BTC. Why not?
Think about it this way: Eventually all stocks go to zero, no company lasts forever. If you buy and hold AM for 100BTC you'll make X BTC in dividends over the life of the company. If you buy and hold TAT.AM for 100 BTC you will make 0.95 X over the life of the company.
Therefore TAT.AM is worth 95% of the regular AM shares.
Interesting hypothesis. But here I'll speak for myself: usually the TAT price follows the full share price pretty close. Even if I'd be interesting to look at one month period, I'm pretty sure the TAT price will catch up with the other one in this period. So without any consideration for dividends, I'd buy them now. They will rise at least to catch the other... I just did a bit actually, with what I could afford.
And you'll see why in a bit, as soon as the AM-PT pays out the dividend...
People have a limited supply of btc, and they want to invest the whole amount of BTC, not just whole shares. They are not looking at an annual timescale, for the most part. So, with those 2 things combined, the share prices tend to stay a lot closer, and when the gap widens, there is opportunity for profits.
Now, you cant really arbitrage in the true sense, because you can't trade TAT shares for AM-PT shares. But, you can still earn profits from a gap like this.
Why are you guys measuring per year values when you can just trade between the two
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/ddm.asp
Prove your point with math
MATH BATTLE !
Never get to say that
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/ddm.asp
Prove your point with math
MATH BATTLE !
Never get to say that
Because your math requires numbers we don't have access to.
Just make some rough estimate till we get financials with AM monthly or weekly scales are where it's at as bitcoin itself fluctuates and as investors we need to calculate currency risk as well into all our valuations as it impacts the stock price
That's a good way to calculate nonsense.
What do you have to say about this:
If I take 5% off the top, I have to take 5% off the bottom to have the same dividend yield.
If I take 5% off the top, I have to take 5% off the bottom to have the same dividend yield.
If AM decided to retain dividends for 6mos to do a massive expansion, are the shares now worth 0? 50%? What?
Dividends are not the only driver of price, thus dividend yield is an incomplete way to factor it. 5% mgmt fee on divs cannot be directly converted into a 5% less valuable share.
It ignores so many factors. How long do you intend to hold the shares? What will the price be when you sell? How much will you have collected in dividends by then? None of those things are absolute, nor is the yield %.
You would need to hold the shares for a considerable amount of time to realize a 5% loss in gains (respective to share price) from the mgmt fee.
Maybe an extreme example will help. If AM shares go up to 100btc each, but the dividends stay at about .025 per week. Is a 5% mgmt fee still going to justify TAT.AM selling for 95btc? Of course not.
I agree that current dividends are not the only driver of price, but people wouldn't buy if they didn't expect future dividends. For my investment I use a combination of current dividend yield and future growth potential, but I'm more of a long term investor than a trader like many here seem to be. Seeing as how it is the same company, growth potential is the same (unless I don't trust you, but that would cause me to value AM1 even more highly since I can convert those to direct shares). Current dividend yield is equal at 95% AM1 price for AM100.
If AM shares go to 100BTC with a dividend yield of 1.3%, they had better have a good story to back it up. But ultimately, if I was comfortable enough with the story to accept the temporarily low yield, I still would discount it 5% because I am valuing the future dividends that the price implies. If I don't value them so highly, I will sell out.
What do you have to say about this:
If I take 5% off the top, I have to take 5% off the bottom to have the same dividend yield.
my answer to that is that most of us are not investing on an annual timescale. We are investing on a monthly timescale, so that equation doesn't necessarily hold.If I take 5% off the top, I have to take 5% off the bottom to have the same dividend yield.
I gave you an example for a 1 month holding period with the 5% fee, and the overall value difference was 1.2%, if the gap didn't close and prices remained stable. If the gap closes (past performance), and you have a limited amount of BTC, then the TAT security will outperform the full AM-PT.
Interesting hypothesis. But here I'll speak for myself: usually the TAT price follows the full share price pretty close. Even if I'd be interesting to look at one month period, I'm pretty sure the TAT price will catch up with the other one in this period. So without any consideration for dividends, I'd buy them now. They will rise at least to catch the other... I just did a bit actually, with what I could afford.
Why are you guys measuring per year values when you can just trade between the two
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/ddm.asp
Prove your point with math
MATH BATTLE !
Never get to say that
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/ddm.asp
Prove your point with math
MATH BATTLE !
Never get to say that
Because your math requires numbers we don't have access to.
Just make some rough estimate till we get financials with AM monthly or weekly scales are where it's at as bitcoin itself fluctuates and as investors we need to calculate currency risk as well into all our valuations as it impacts the stock price
What do you have to say about this:
If I take 5% off the top, I have to take 5% off the bottom to have the same dividend yield.
my answer to that is that most of us are not investing on an annual timescale. We are investing on a monthly timescale, so that equation doesn't necessarily hold.If I take 5% off the top, I have to take 5% off the bottom to have the same dividend yield.
I gave you an example for a 1 month holding period with the 5% fee, and the overall value difference was 1.2%, if the gap didn't close and prices remained stable. If the gap closes (past performance), and you have a limited amount of BTC, then the TAT security will outperform the full AM-PT.
What do you have to say about this:
If I take 5% off the top, I have to take 5% off the bottom to have the same dividend yield.
If I take 5% off the top, I have to take 5% off the bottom to have the same dividend yield.
If AM decided to retain dividends for 6mos to do a massive expansion, are the shares now worth 0? 50%? What?
Dividends are not the only driver of price, thus dividend yield is an incomplete way to factor it. 5% mgmt fee on divs cannot be directly converted into a 5% less valuable share.
It ignores so many factors. How long do you intend to hold the shares? What will the price be when you sell? How much will you have collected in dividends by then? None of those things are absolute, nor is the yield %.
You would need to hold the shares for a considerable amount of time to realize a 5% loss in gains (respective to share price) from the mgmt fee.
Maybe an extreme example will help. If AM shares go up to 100btc each, but the dividends stay at about .025 per week. Is a 5% mgmt fee still going to justify TAT.AM selling for 95btc? Of course not.
Jump to: