Topic: ASICMINER Speculation Thread - page 205. (Read 808768 times)

We already have seen how right your technical indicators and fundamental valuation are.

You can only have a bubble if ppl pay an ever increasing price for the same good as with the housing bubble and the bitcoin bubble...
this is not the case with AM cause its share price is increasing to reflect the ever increasing value of the company and of the dividends as it is normal.
If AM goes bad the value will drop if they do well the value will raise and that is normal and not a bubble...
If i see ever declining divs  or AM doing bad and the price going up then i will start worrying

Are you kidding? Neither Bitfunder nor BTCT is a reliable exchange.

You guys are aware that AM used to trade on GLBSE...?

There is currently no such thing as a reliable Bitcoin exchange, and there won't be until some serious money comes in to do underwriting.

The suggestion that AM is in a bubble begs us to define exactly what a bubble actually is. I prefer this definition:

"A surge in equity prices, often more than warranted by the fundamentals and usually in a particular sector, followed by a drastic drop in prices as a massive selloff occurs."

We know there was (and still is) a surge in prices. This is a matter of record and irrefutable. But this alone does not make a bubble.

The first question an investor must ask is whether or not the surge is warranted by fundamentals. This aspect has been hotly debated since before we at 2.0, and I expect can only be answered for any given timeframe or value in retrospect. Some people believe 5.0 is not warranted. Heck, if you scratch around enough you can still find people who think 2.0 is unwarranted. One thing is certain: there is nowhere near enough information about AM financial structure to even begin to do a proper analysis. The truth is that we really don't know the fundamentals, so we do not know if it warranted... period.

There has not been a drastic drop in prices. This is also a matter of record.

I would suggest that the recent volume of sales could well be considered massive. The volume of shares at auctions for direct shares has increased substantially recently, however, they did nothing but temporarily stabilize the prices. Likewise, volumes on the exchanges have accelerated as well, but once again, there are still plenty of buyers driving the prices even higher.

If we did not see the increased volumes of sales I might suspect a bubble forming as the trade was being pushed up because of a thinning of the market. But the number of liquid shares appears to be increasing without driving the price down. This is not a sign of a bubble, but rather, of an undervalued asset.

Emphasis mine! This is good advice in general, and I fear that a lot of people are not in the habit of doing this. 

My point is that it doesn't. A month or two ago, a couple of AM blades might have been 1% of the network, yeah? Now you'd need many, many blades to get 1% of the network.

Do you think that the manufacturing cost is the same? (It isn't). Do you think that the electricity cost is the same? (It isn't.)

As competition ramps up - i.e., the hashrate - the marginal profit per % hashrate will drop precipitously. AM will feel that, both in terms of mining profit and hardware profit (people will simply pay less per TH, which is how manufacturing cost is determined).

Call me crazy, but even if they are working on next gen chips, who's to say they won't mine the shit out of those and ship just before they're not profitable, as was done this generation?

At least AM realized this was the only logical scenario, embraced it, and created an everybody-wins situation.  The others were naive and realized what must be done once they started acting rationally, or were evil right from the start.  There's no reason to think this cycle won't repeat each generation.  I think AM is a solid investment for some time to come, and the other company's mining hardware is a solid rape-scenario for the customers (as long as the producers continue acting rationally, and mine the shit out of their hardware before shipping).

Again....Does Bitfury trade on reliable exchanges ??as Bitfunder or BTCT...
If not , what makes you think OUR investors will move our fund to other place ,this equal to extra risk ....

That's absolutely true, and you should weight what I say accordingly.

But based on both technical indicators and fundamental valuation, this is (to me) unmistakably a bubble. When a bad dividend week comes in, we'll see who is right.

You think that chip die shrinks are going to maintain the current ratio between BTC spent per miner and coins per month mined? I'm afraid not: the move from GPU to ASIC produced the biggest one-time profit opportunity for mining we will ever see short of quantum computing. And it isn't as if the other ASIC companies aren't working on their own next-gen chips.

It's probably better to consider price per network hash %, rather than price per gigahash/terahash/etc. when it comes to evaluating mining equipment available for purchase today.

Doing this more or less normalizes the cost for a given time.

Cost of manufacturing heavily outweighs cost of electricity, especially as they move to nextgen. They have proven they can do this very successfully anyway. So Bitfury came up with a working chip. So what? Avalon and BFL have working chips. Where are they? Not shipping at a rate high enough to compete, as you've said, AM has a monopoly, but it's for a reason.

You have a substancial amount of puts, and you have 3 months to convince people it's a bubble and try and pop it to reep the benefits of your efforts.

Saying it's just us who say it's not a bubble, that is right on par with value (OUR OPINION OF ACCEPTABLE RISK) with ulterior motives is bullshit serving your own motives.

I don't see the relevance of price per terahash. When difficulty will rise, terahash per units will rise too, next generation chips will be more powerfull for probably roughly similar price. Income then can remain similar even when difficulty rise.  

Yes, there is no competition. And it will remains like this for at least few months. People know this and this is reflected in the price. When competition will come serious, AM will have a large head-on, reflected in the price too.

AM has already revealed plans to legally move away from China, with their actual financial power, I don't think they couldn't move server farms away, wherever they will be happy with electricity costs, climate and regulations.

This makes you sound just as biased as the other people in the case you mentioned:

All 3 of your points are counteracted by simply being the fastest to release the latest tech miners in bulk.

The real risk is if miners stop buying on the whole, like if bitcoin becomes worth $20 or such.

Might be worth pointing out that for quite a while now, Vycid has been busy buying puts on ASICMiner as fast as he can spam the board readers to writing them.

Did you just copy pasted post from AM thread when we hit 2BTC ? Its like word for word
As much as I dont deny possible correction its 100% not a "bubble", poeple throw that word too loosely around here. Even if we fall 50% of the price of AM share I cannot imagine price of it staying at 2,5 for a long, I sure would buy a shit ton at that price

This is a bubble.

Anyone saying otherwise has ulterior motives (they probably still own a lot of stock).

It's clear as day. Look at the parabolic trajectory. Consider the lack of short selling. Have you guys already forgotten Bitcoin in March? People were saying much the same things about Bitcoin then as they are saying about ASICMiner now.

Everyone is quoting the "26% APR" as a validation of ASICMiner's share price. First off, 26% APR is not that great a return for a super-unstable security traded with a super-unstable currency.

But, more importantly, ASICMiner's current dividends are inflated for three reasons.

One: because people will pay more per terahash while the difficulty is low. That's kind of obvious: your potential return is a lot higher per terahash while the difficulty is low, so therefore AM can charge a lot more. That effect is quickly subsiding, as evidenced by AM's prices.

Two: there is no serious competition yet. Beyond the organic competition anticipated from Avalon, BFL, KncMiner etc getting their shit together, at this point the sales volume of miners is large enough for an established mid-size electronics manufacturer to mosey on over here and embarrass AM price-wise.

Three: electricity cost. Believe it or not, the location of AM (Guangdong province, China) is not the cheapest place for electricity. Don't quote this figure, but I believe it comes out to about $0.06/kWh. As competition ramps up, money getting in on a piece of that 26% APR will launch huge farms in places like Washington state or Siberia where the price is $0.01/kWh - and they will do so by licensing the BitFury chip, for example, not by buying expensive AM hardware. AM will have trouble competing.

I've sold all my shares. I'm now buying puts with the sole intention of playing the downside. Just like at $266 with Bitcoin, there will be a hiccup - probably a bad dividend week - and this bubble will pop, and a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money, very very fast.

Literally just wrote something along those lines and when I hit "post" I got that "Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post. "  Creepy-awesome.

NOT THIS

If bubble is this prevalent on everyone's mind, it probably is not a bubble.  It is when people think it can do no wrong and the sky is the limit I will start to worry.

"AM, the only investment in BTC world that is so successful that shareholders want it to stop rising and chill a bit"