Topic: [BitFunder] TU.SILVER -- Interim Report April 12th, 2013 - page 2. (Read 12890 times)

Hullow!  


I've heard this thread has turned to popcorn central?

Someone bring me up to speed or....wait... I'll just guess: People shoved billions into the usagi's greedy little hands again and the usagi fucked it all up again. Is that close enough?

Not sure why anyone played along with another Usagi scheme. Look at all the info people figured out about him last time when the craziness in his GLBSE based things came out, he does this with every internet community he comes across. He'll read up a bit about whatever the main topics are then storm in acting like he knows everything and tries to run/do something big and important. Eventually it comes out that he is incompetent and he retreats with his tail between his legs, making lots of impassioned posts about how everyone is out to get him. It's a clear pattern.

Usagi, you need to recognize your own destructive pattern and try to fix it. Stop biting off more than you can chew by trying to jump ahead when you are not ready for it.

Same shit, different day.

It doesn't make too much sense to me either, but I find the number 0.09818688 (a number that apparently includes the "cash kitty") interesting as it is less that half the initial book value of one of the fund's shares.

I've now looked at the Book Value calculation page of the spread-sheet.  All I can say is what a mess.  Guess DT was having a bad day when he decided it was fine.

Here's SOME of the pretty basic errors in it:

1.  Unsold silver is double-counted.  The valuation of each share starts off as being the Ask price for silver (shown in the excerpt I posted above).  To that is then added a portion of the value of the unsold silver.  So right away, before anything else is done, shares have been valued at more silver than is actually possessed.  In theory it's possible some other value then negates that - but having looked at the other pages there's no apparent deduction that would correspond (and absolutely no reason to be doing it this way even if there were).

2.  The calculated Book Value is for ALL issued shares - whether sold or not.  That's just horrible - as it means the simple act of selling a share so as to receive exactly book value would change the book value.

3.  Unsold silver is valued at the Ask price in the excerpt I posted earlier.  That includes BitFunder fees and a markup.  Neither of those should be in the valuation of unsold silver because:

a)  Bitfunder fees will NEVER go to the fund even if the shares are sold (should be obvious why).  So at no point ever will they be realisable.
b)  Intended markup when sold should NOT be in a valuation of unsold silver.  You don't mark BTC you hold up by the profit you expect to make investing them - and you shouldn't mark silver up by the profit you hope to make selling them.

It's trivially easy to prove that the calculation is wrong in two ways:

1.  Add up the book value of all current holdings (silver, cash, invetsment position, kitty).  Now divide it by number of shares.  Do you get Book Value?  No you don't - whether you divide it by all issued shares OR sold shares you don't get the same number.  How can the total book value be different to number of shares * book value/share?  It can't.  That it IS different is because one or the other (actually both) are totally fucking wrong.

2.  Modify the data to represent selling a single share and receiving EXACTLY book value for it.  Does book value change?  Yes it does (and I tried both ways - selling a newly issued/backed share AND selling an already issued one).  So it's wrong.  Note that if selling an issued share at BV reduces BV/share then there's a pretty serious problem anyway.

The BV usagi calculates does NOT represent the value of one issued share OR one sold share.  I've no idea what DT thought it represented when he approved the books - but it would seem whatever checking he did failed to include the two simple tests I just listed (in fact #2 isn't ALL that simple as you have to adjust a fair few data items).

Even if it DID represent the BV of a share then the system is still screwed - as anyone wanting to buy silver through the fund (its supposed main purpose) has to buy the silver at a price that includes all the investment junk then sacrfice all those other elements when redeeming for silver.  That makes it impossible for the fund to sell silver at a good price without losing BV.  That at present those wanting to get silver through the fund have to pay an additional premium for pretty simple errors in the calculation of BV just adds insult to injury.

On a side note I received a PM request from usagi to delete my previous excerpt from his spreadsheet.  I am declining that - as there's nothing particularly confidential about silver spot prices, MTgox rates or a very simple calculation using those.  There ARE some parts of the spreadsheet I won't publish - such as the identities of people who bought silver (why this was left in a spreadsheet given out to ANYONE other than usagi beats me).

I didn't edit anything. At all. What the heck are you talking about.

I did agree not to share the data in public. I shared it privately with Deprived.

Not that hiding this is very ethical.

Usagi said, "The only thing I ask is that, since this is a paid service, you not share the data in public (i.e. in a forum post) or something like that."

Thanks for the kind words. I am interested in supporting the community and your own efforts as well. I'll PM you with a few questions about silvervault if I may, as it looks like a valuable and needed service in the community. My main question is, if I could somehow store all of TU.SILVER's silver in silvervault. I'd prefer a community option even if it was a little more expensive.

I have those sheets too.  And would you believe it - the final book value is STILL below the price you charge.

Not that it SHOULD have any relevance - but you still can't make up your mind what you're selling.

Is it silver?  Well in your (now locked) thread about FinCen compliance you state in the final post that you're a silver store - which would tend to suggest you just sell silver.  And when someone redeems shares all they get is silver.

Or is it ownership to some extent of other assets as well?  Well your pricing seems to suggest so - as does your repeated refence to some book value that contains elements that far exceed just 1/10th oz of silver plus associated costs.

When you make your mind up WHAT you're actually selling then it's likely we can make some sense of your pricing policy.

Or should I PM DeadTerra and ask "What do shares of TU.SILVER actualy represent ownership of - and how are all elements of that paid out when a share is redeemed?  How is the answer to that consistent with claims that TU/SILVER sells silver at a competitive price?".  Do you think he could actually answer that?  If so, wouldn't it make more sense to post the answer here?

Hey, what do I have to do with anything!

So these extra calculations somehow add over 100% to the price you charge the public?

You seem to have a problem understanding DeadTerra's role in this.  All he does is verify that your accounting is accurate.  He's not vouching for other things - like that you charge a reasonable price for silver you sell.

Do you seriously think he COULD explain why you add well over 100% markup to a price that already includes shipping, coin markup, Bitfunder fees etc when determining the price you sell at?  An auditor does NOT determine whether a company sells goods at a 'fair' price - they determine whether what you've recorded as being your financical transactions is actually accurate.

You've slipped back into your old ways - of answering criticism by repeatedly saying "You're wrong" and "I've explained this before".  Without once having explained why you need a 100%+ markup on silver you sell - or how that is, in any way, competitive or a good price for silver.  Or, for that matter, what (if anything) ownership of a share of TU.SILVER represents above 1/10th of an oz of silver (easiest to explain this by defining what they get back in addition to 1/10th oz of silver when they redeem a share).

DeadTerra can't explain WHY you do things the way you do (at best he could relate a hear-say version of what you've told him).  So when my questions are 'Why' then there's no point me asking him.  If I spot a simle arithmetic error then obviously I'll PM him - but I'm not actually interested in that anyway.  As all your shares apparently represent is 1/10 oz of silver + an undefined donated dividend (raised from funds investors neither own or have any future guarantee of the existence/scale of) then the only thing investors actually need to know is that you have enough silver to back the shares.  All the rest of it is pretty irrelevant - what you do with unsold silver that YOU own and investment funds that YOU own is of no relevance: other than when you try to pretend that it's somehow owned by investors (to justify a steep hike in price) whilst at the same time categorically stating that YOU personally own it.

Let me say this once and be perfectly clear.


You, MPOE-PR, and DannyM/pigeons, are being jerks.

First, pigeons lied to me, that he wasn't going to share the report. I'm going to remove his access now (no, you can't have your share back). Second, you were lied to by pigeons because you were given an edited version of the spreadsheet which did not explain what the ask figure represents. It is the end-calculation of the first spreadsheet. There are THREE further calculation sheets that number goes through before I get a book value.

You have been told over and over that you do not understand what you are talking about. You have been told to talk to DeaDTerra who does our books. But instead of honestly approaching DeaDTerra with questions you have chosen to engage me with dishonest debating tactics and flat-out lies.

From now on, if you or anyone has a question regarding the company's finances you MUST speak to me or DeaDTerra about it privately. I am not interested in enabling a troll.

There's not actually anything wrong with that - provided the bid is at less than the cost of buying silver elsewhere.  Coins DO trade at a significant markup to spot.

Problem is, of course, that the tiny spread he intended to run just doesn't work if actually left up as orders.  As the BTC/USD rate can easily move far more than that spread during a few hours - making it very easily for a trader to exploit by buying from out-dated Asks then selling into Bids when they get updated.  That's why it just can't run how it started out - when it actually DID have a tight spread and good prices.  For about a week.  That week is, of course, the only time I've traded the shares

My guess is he that the stupidly high prices right now are mainly to try to trick people into buying and exercising options - there are/were options up which could be bought and then exercised at just UNDER the current Ask.  Only need one idiot to fall for that to make up for the profit on selling a load of silver at genuine competitive prices.  But regardless of the motive, the current Ask price makes a total mockery of any delusional claims to be in any way competitive with other silver sellers on price.

A better question is perhaps "Why does he bid over spot?".

Hmm, maybe I did miscalculate the price - or perhaps I didn't factor in things like shipping, the markup on coins etc properly.

Shame there's not some spreadsheet that could work all of that out.

But wait - what's this?  Seems to be usagi's books - complete with a tab to calculate the bids/asks at which TU.SILVER should trade taking into account markups/fees etc.



Seems like your OWN books say you're charging more that double the correct rate (the boxed cell is what usagi's spreadsheet indicate would be the correct sell price).  Why the over 100% markup?

Do note that the fonts may differ slightly as I imported into Excel - but the content is 100% from a pretty recent copy of your own books.

Still laughing?

Perhaps usagi should diversify into sex parties and chocolate. 

+1. Don't disregard advice even if it's critical.

Personally I keep tabs on this thing because usagi's insanity is usually amusing. To wit:


Go figure, I seem to recall one guy who had not one but two one-ounce gold mints running some sort of microfund.

Yeah, I also find it pathetic. It is OK to start small, but making too big a noise relative to your actual position in the market just, makes your appear childish and scares away the actual investors.

Take this as a kind word from president of the depository, whose holdings are 100,000+ ounces of silver.

(Yes, I know there are guys with 1000 times more than I have, and I would be grateful if they ever talked to me (which they don't ))

Deprived is within the top 5 of most insightful posters on this message board.  You should probably put him on ignore though, responding to him just gives him motivation, and what TU.SILVER needs is pure, unadulterated stream of your consciousness.  Frankly I don't see why he bothers with your microstakes pseudo fund.  Waste of his time.

What, you think DeaDTerra didn't look at our books or something? Wow Deprived, this is getting truly pathetic. Please, just take the out I'm giving you. You're right. You can stop now




Lol, this guy! I'm in tears! THANK YOU, Deprived! I'm going to have to put this guy on ignore just to get some work done, I'm laughing so hard!