Topic: [CLOSING...] MOVETO.FUND - MoveTo Growth Fund - page 6. (Read 12888 times)

NAV updated to 1.0892598858

Shhh... 

How is COGNITIVE that different from NASTY (other than length of operation) both seem to be the same idea.

Doing some major surgery today, which is exciting! It's time for some changes.

Things have been steady for us for a while, but now we need to rotate a lot of the portfolio out and buy into promising new companies, and sell off some of the old ones that have turned to crap. Except of course for trusty old COGNITIVE, which is probably my favorite asset on the entire GLBSE (it has a great yield, is low risk, is tied to btc value, has increased in value substantially since we bought it, and represents actual ownership of a company rather than just a bond which may be callable later). I've also made some minor tweaks to the model to give us a better look at the overall market.

FYI one of the reasons I like doing monthly updates rather than weekly is because inter-month I don't want to publicly talk about what I'm buying - otherwise others may bid up those shares. It's best that I just do what I need to do each month and then let you know about it after the month is over.

That's all for now

MOVETO.FUND Monthly Report 8/1/2012*
*Report issued 7/27/2012

Portfolio (Using last trade prices as of 7/27/2012 @ 10:00 AM EST)

SYMBOL	SHARES	PRICE	VALUE
TYGRR.BOND-B	13601	0.121	1645.721
COGNITIVE	2000	0.79	1580
FPGA.CONTRACT	62	0.205	12.71
BDK.BND	5946	0.1015	603.519
PUREMINING	3209	0.21	673.89
TYGRR-TECH	153	2	306
GIGAMINING	259	1.165	301.735
NCKRAZZE	2400	1	2400
BTC	0.03383413	1	0.03383413
ABM	18	0.15000001	2.70000018
TEEK.B	160	1.09	174.4
IBB	6	0.64	3.84
ZIP.A	139	0.69	95.91
BTC-MINING	1	0.96	0.96
MPOE.ETF	4	1.1	4.4

Valuation
Total: 7805.81883431
# Shares before fees: 6675
NAV per share before fees: 1.1694110613
Last HWM: 1.025688372
New HWM: 1.1694110613
Earnings per share: 0.1437226893
Fees per share: 0.0287445379
NAV per share after fees: 1.1406665235
Buyback Price: 1.1292598582
Fees in BTC terms: 191.869790242
Fees in share terms (rounded down): 168
# Shares after fees: 6843

Summary
This month was a great time period for us. The markets rebounded sharply from an oversold condition, creating a large net gain for us. I am quite happy that we finally got some price increases in our stronger assets - namely, in our large holding of COGNITIVE shares - which is what I had expected a long while ago due to its relative undervaluation to other mining assets. Our weakest asset is FPGA.CONTRACT at present, but luckily we own very few shares of it anyway.

I have learned a lot this month about how to operate on the GLBSE, and the differences between that and the S&P500 which is the arena I am more accustomed to. The largest difference, of course, is one of volume: with such light volume, short term trading is essentially impossible, and therefore you must be very careful what you buy - because you're probably going to be stuck with it. The lack of liquidity on the GLBSE is in stark contrast to the S&P500, where I am used to being able to hold a position for only a few days and then exit quickly. On the GLBSE, however, we cannot do this: consider PUREMINING, which was never meant to be a long-term hold for us, but rather had become extremely oversold and thus a great candidate for buying and flipping. However, there are virtually no bids at all in the marketplace, so it is becoming difficult to unload. Luckily, GIGAMINING's upgrade path to ASIC provides a perfect counterbalance to our PUREMINING position: if ASIC delivers, then GIGAGMINING becomes TERAMINING and we gain from that to offset losses in PUREMINING, and vice-versa if ASIC is significantly delayed.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that as the number of assets on the GLBSE increase, it is taking longer and longer for me to pull down data each day. Hopefully the GLBSE APIs will improve in the near future and this won't be an issue. However, depite the huge increase in the total number of securities, it still amazes me how few are truely great long-term investments - that is why we're still fairly concentrated. A few news buys did come up this month, which we're wading into, most notably ZIP.A which is our first asset purchase that is not related to mining or a bitcoin-denominated bond. This type of pure equity represents more risk since currency fluctations can have more of an impact, so I'm being extra careful with this investment.

I will keep you posted. Take care,
-cytokine

Thanks for catching this, I'll go back through my posts and add "per share" where I refer to NAV to eliminate the confusion. I'll also have to fix this in the GLBSE share contract.

Net asset value

And he actually gives the nav per share, so if you want the nav, multiply by the number of shares outstanding

Stupid question: what is NAV?

Class act. Thanks!

Absolutely! I'm going to do the monthly report this weekend. Monthly reports are public and include full financials, performance information, and commentary.

For a sample, see last month's report here.

I'm very happy with this fund so far... great work Cytokine!  Just wondering if shareholders are going to get a comprehensive report concerning the funds assets?

NAV per share updated to 1.1162182324

I think that's a great point. That's one additional reason why I didn't do the CPA deal, because CPA itself is backed by various bitcoin institutions pledging capital, which themselves are likely backed by loans and securities (some of which people are probably buying insurance on, creating some circular dependency). The web of interconnectedness here is probably quite mind-boggling if it could be visualized.

However, the level of risk is mitigated by the high dividends of GLBSE assets - with more risk comes more return, and the market reflects that: we have bitcoin currency risk, default risk, no real legal recourse in the event of a default, etc. But if we can get up 30% or so in a few months, then if 10% of the fund defaults we're still up around 20% in total. That's kind of the point of the fund, since you can get higher returns than a bitcoin bank ( which "guarantee deposits" ), but with more risk since you're taking on the market directly.


Not right now. We do everything on the GLBSE except for one outside investment (which is here on the forums). I've considered investing with various bitcoin banks to give us increased stability, but their returns are too low and defeat the purpose of the fund (you can always allocate some of your capital to various bitcoin banks anyway if you want more security/stability with a lower return - in fact, I strongly recommend this provided the bank is safe and trustworthy and has a high asset to deposit ratio).

If you have any other ideas that you want the fund to look into feel free to post it here, but of course you should probably just snag those for yourself if they're promising

Lately, something has been concerning me regarding most BTC funds.

Due to this economy being so small, it appears that many investors cross-fund each other, making them sort of codependent and probably more fragile.

Are some of this fund's capital invested in ventures independent of this forum/GLBSE?

I hope that makes sense.

Thanks,

curious bob

Thanks for the feedback. I get the feeling a lot of investors feel this way - so it's good for me to fully understand this.

Anyways, glad we got that cleared up. Now: up-up and away we go!

+1  I invested in this fund specifically for lack of pirate exposure. Not only for the risk either... I want to know for sure what business my investments are supporting and that they are ethical.  Not making any allegations whatsoever but I can't be sure if there isn't full disclosure from the issuer.

NAV per share updated to 1.0828000403

Ok, so I thought about this and your feedback for a long while, and believe it is best for the fund that we continue to be 100% pirate-free in every sense. So I will not do the insurance deal with CPA.

The following reasons come to mind:

- The thing is, even if we made a small 100% insured pass-through, it still *taints* the fund in the sense that returns cannot then be compared to other non-pirate / pirate investments.

- We miss opportunities to snag great non-pirate investment that will continue to deliver gains long after the pirate ship has sailed.

- If pirate defaults (or even if he just winds down his operations and returns funds) there would likely be a mad rush into non-pirate investments, driving prices up and yields down, so we want to already be holding these investments rather than waiting for an insurance payout.

So to reiterate: I will not do the deal, and we will continue with the current share contract and remain 100% pirate-free in every sense.

Many thanks,
-cyto

I think maintaining zero pirate default risk is best for the fund, as long as you don't have a better use for the coin (i.e. normal trading).

I have plenty of coin in btcst, so for me, finding bitcoin investments that are not dependent upon pirate is important.  I don't expect a default, but diversify just in case.

If Pirate were to default I suspect the overall market would get hit, which would still affect your nav and share price, so don't think that avoiding direct exposure will completely insulate MOVETO.  If you have some dry powder at that time (even if only via the insurance payout), and your system really is good, you might be able to pick some bargains, ultimately sending the nav soaring when things recover.  

Update today

I'm *considering* a minor modification of the share contract (which would naturally require me to open a 1-month long buy-back offer at the full NAV per share as per the share contract) in order to allow us to invest in a fully insured pirate deposit (via CPA) with a small percentage of our capital - see the insurance discussion here. Please note that with this opportunity we will still have zero pirate default risk, which is a position I have maintained since the start of the fund, and have no intention to ever go against. Regardless, please review this idea and give me your feedback, because I not wish to taint the fund in any manner if investors believe this deal would in some way go against our philosophy. I absolutely will not invest in this without your blessing, so please comment.

Many thanks,
-cyto