Topic: [GLBSE] Nyancat Financial: Your Friend for Life (see post #2 for FAQ) (Read 17814 times)

After the GLBSE closing, will you (usagi) be transferring the NYAN.x assets to another exchange? And will we get our dividends/shares back?

Really?

May 1st: Buy 10 singles for 120 BTC @ $5/BTC. Mining company market cap: 1,200 BTC.
October 1st: 10 singles are worth 55 BTC @ $12.30 each. Mining company market cap: 550 BTC.


Seems like cant even follow your own train of thoughts.
Quite Understandable.

As for not owning gigamining, had you bought gigamining in may at the original IPO price, you wouldnt be down 60%. You would have been slightly up. The above "argument" shows just how little you comprehend.

Why dont you borrow one?
I used actual dividends that gigamining  paid out since may. You think giga earned less?
So whatever company started mining in may with singles would either have protected its shareholders from the losses you claimed through dividends or reinvestments. Your arguments is therefore null and void.


Thats why only idiots bought them at that price and lost half their money. Idiots like you.
And you are buying them even today at 600% of hardware costs. Words fail to describe that sort of stupidity.

It does however raise an interesting question (if we assume for the purpose of argument that your reasoning above is correct - rather than that you picked a sample of companies and a time-frame that happened to produce the results you wanted).

If your investment companies are outperforming mining companies - and all mining companies are losing money.  Then WHY, WHY, WHY would you be trying to convert an investment company into a mining company?  Shouldn't you just be getting out of the sector totally?

I have to agree that the idea of valuing mining gear assets based on BTC/USD exchange rate is not the best approach.  Here's how I believe they should be valued:

1.  When purchased they should be be valued at the price paid (in BTC).
2.  Their expected life-span should be calculated - i.e. how long before they run out of warranty or the likely difficulty increase is such that it would no longer be profitable to mine with them.
3.  Their expected resale value at that time should be calculated in USD.

Their value at any given time should be based upon a steady depreciation from their initial cost in BTC to their expected resale value at decommisioning time (converted from USD to BTC at current rate).

The exchange rate would thus have minimal impact at (or near) purchase time but increasing impact as decomissioning draws nearer (and the resale value becomes of increasing relevance).  Obviously there's nothing to stop an extended warranty being purchased to increase the period over which depreciation is applied (albeit at an additional cost).

Mining equipment is purchased to provide a revenue stream. Where there's no intent to actively trade it, then writing off the purchase cost over its projected life-span makes a LOT more sense than trying to revalue it every week with the value dependent on an exchange-rate that is initially IRRELEVANT as there's no intent to sell.

Obviously leaving it on the books without any depreciation is just as bad - as when the equipment finally fails (or has to be sold due to being unprofitable to use) that would cause a large drop in value which was 100% to be expected and should have been accounted for.

A few points follow from this:

1.  Mining companies should be aiming to mine sufficent coins with hardware to cover the costs of it before it gos out of warranty or will become uneconomical to use (see, however point 4 for an exception).
2.  If the projected revenue from mining falls steadily below the rate at which you need to depreciate the hardware then the project is a no-brainer bad idea.  That's because IF you depreciate hardware at a steady rate in BTC (as I propose) and the income STARTS by not compensating for that decline, then as income will drop (unless you believe difficulty won't rise) it's never gonna catch back up with the line.
3.  Why the fuck do so many people invest in mining companies when those companies SHOULD have calculated proof that it's a good investment in optimistic circumstances (low-rising difficulty) at a minimum, yet rarely bother to actually demonstrate to investors even the best-reasonable-case scenario and how investors will make money.
4.  It's my contention that the life-span of mining equipment should be based on the warranty period for the hardware UNLESS there's good statistical evidence for that specific hardware that it's actual life-span (when being used to mine) is longer (when something near that value could be used - especially for larger operations where the number of rigs is likely to produce overall results somewhere near the expected mean).

A slightly off-topic post - but relevant to the point being discussed.

So why do you keep valuing your undelivered single at  63 BTC and AMB's old single at >300 BTC?


Not your inability to reason. Those 10 singles would have earned you 733 BTC in mining dividends (calculated using gigamining divs 0.43 BTC per 2 MH).

Oops.

Simple question.

What happens when you IPO something at 1 BTC when the price is at 5$, then the price doubles to 10$ for 1 BTC? If the stock price drops to 0.5 BTC, in a way, it still have the same value.

Since the price jumped, it seems that everything on GLBSE went down on BTC value. But the value of 1 BTC is worth a lot more now, so I think when you compare numbers, you should also consider the date of the purchases/sell/etc. Comparing BTC at two greatly different value seems a little hypocrite to me.

Also, since the market is having a liquidity crisis, is it possible that everything is under-valued right now, since everybody is trying to get some liquidity back? Many people have lost their buying power since BTCST has closed, so they can't hold back the prices of different assets against the sellers.

There is some hope in the clowns camp for you. At least you can write silly little poems about yourself.
As a portfolio manager, you must be the worst that BTC world has ever seen. Even defaulting PPT's held the value better than coin in your portfolio.
LOL. And this is a fact. No matter how you whine here.

And let me repeat the again, you miserable little man, only person who has offered any money to spam and troll its competition is YOU, usagi.
Why don't you stop lying and move on.

For fuck sake, and WTF! is that:


Is this how you hide your utter incompetence? Wow! How low can a liar sink? I guess we have to wait and see.

Reality check, usagi.

Symbol     Invested   Loss       Gain/loss 
CPA                 10    -60,30%       3,97
BMF                 10    -49,10%       5,09
NYAN.A              10      8,00%       10,8
NYAN.B              10     13,10%      11,31
NYAN.C              10    -60,10%       3,99
NYAN                10    -32,00%        6,8
Total               60                 41,96
Total P/L                            -30,07%



No comments.
 

lol.  That's honestly the first time I've even read that thread.  I have to say, in fairness, that I now can totally understand why you believed I was being paid by MPOE-PR/mirceau.  Looks like you pointed it out just in time for me to claim my free shares as well.  If you'd linked me to that thread earlier then a lot of the dialogue between us could have been skipped - as until you just posted that link I thought you had zero reason to believe me a mircea puppet when in fact you had a good reason.

That said, you MUST realise that if I actually had some deal to be paid by him then surely he wouldn't have listed me in that post (unless, I guess, it was some sort of double-bluff).  It's a Bayes Theorem/Prosecutor's Fallacy type scenario - where evidence (if properly assessed) actually doesn't support the hypothesis it would appear to.

Anyway guess I need to send a mail to claim my free shares - thanks for pointing it out.

I agree there's no point us repeatedly going over the same ground, so I'll ask a simple question with a follow-up:

Do you believe it's sound business/accounting practice to buy something for price X then immediately value it at a price Y, where ALL of the following are true:

1.  Y is much higher than X.
2.  You can buy more of the items on the open market for much less than Y.
3.  Noone is willing to buy the items now for price Y?

I'm not asking whether it should ALWAYS be done - just if it's EVER good practice to value the item at Y if ALL 3 of the above are true.

If your answer is no (or "Only extremely rarely") then why are you you routinely doing it?
If your answer is yes then why do you believe Enron executives were charged (amongst other things) based on their use of precisely such a "future profits" accounting system?

Regarding "I know mircea pays you" - you still haven't figured out how wrong you are on that?  You accused me of being an account made this August to be a sock-puppet for mircea (do I need to link to your post saying that?).  That's despite ANYONE being able to look at my forum creation date and see you're about a year out on when my account was made.  The ONLY "evidence" you have linking me to mircea is that we both disagree with you.  You CAN'T have any other evidence - as I've never had any interaction with him other than posting in some of the same threads here and occasionally replying to his posts or him replying to mine.  Baseless accusations like that do nothing to further your credibility.

EDIT: to avoid a seperate post please clarify this.  You repeatedly refer to "local rules" which allow a thread-starter to choose who may post and what content they may post.  Can you PLEASE point me to some official FAQ or guidelines post giving any validity to such "local rules"?  I honestly can't find one - but will happily stick to local rules if (and only if) such official guidance exists.  If no such guidance exists then please don't waste your virtual ink in the future referring to such meaningless "local rules" again.

To cut to the chase on your valuation policy - you will value companies above the highest current Ask price when you believe in the long-term they will be worth that amount.

The problem with that approach is that:

1.  It assumes your judgment is correct - when NOONE else with liquid BTC agrees with you.  we KNOW noone else agrees - or the ASK wouldn't be there.

2.  It allows generation of paper-value that's in no way realisable.  e.g. if you value (say) Nasty at 0.6 when there's ASKs on the market at (say) 0.4 then for every NASTY share you buy the valuation of your fund (by you) immediately jumps by 0.2 due solely to you buying from the ASK-wall.

Point 1 is major given your track record - where there's a whole ton of examples of you buying things then finding out they weren't even worth what you paid: let alone some even more generour value.

Point 2 is dangerous as it allows you to make it look like you're doing well, even if you're doing badly, just by progressively over-valuing your assets more and more based on some combination of beliefs, guesses, believing people who tell you things on irc and total lunacy.

At some point you need to accept that the fact pretty much everything you touched in the past has lost money is probably a more reliable indication of what's coming in the future than delusional optimism.  And you also need to start accepting that when everyone else says "stock X is not worht more than A" - by refusing to buy it at A then it's kind of dumb (or intentionally deceptive - no way for me to know for sure which) for you to then go and value it at A*1.5 or A*2. 

Sure - on occasion there may be specific reasons why you actually DO have good reason to believe that a stock is seriously over-priced.  But you DON'T at that point start valuing it at over Ask prices.  Instead you value it within the live trading range and mark it up WHEN it gos to your expected price.

1.  That way's honest, transparent and your current valuations are based on information that can be verified.
2.  If you're right, then WHY reveal what stocks you believe are grossly under-priced anyway?
3.  If you're wrong WHY make yourself look even more of an idiot?

You make yourself look good as a manager by buying things when they're cheap then watching their market value rise (to where you thought they'd go when you bought them) and your fund's own valuation rise too.  You make yourself look terrible as a manager by valueing things you buy based on 'knowledge' that only exists in your own imagination - then having to spin bullshit stories blaming it on everyone/thing else when the scenario you dreamed up ends up never becoming reality.

Dont forget to check FZB.A, ABM, obsi.hrpt, etc  ....
eg
FZB.A 5 day average  0.02  'real value' 0.2

It also pays off to dig a little deeper and see if even the market price of for instance ABM is at all warranted, and not artificially inflated by someone, say Usagi, buying 5 shares at obscene prices, as he did. ABM mines with 3/4 of a BFL single, offers no ASIC upgrade and Usagi's valuation for that company is 350 BTC.


Ahm no. Unless usagi already owns all the extra shipping labels (and you think a potential future buyer would pay $150 for shipping), then shipping costs are not an asset. A future buyer would pay for them, but usagi would have to spend that money. Costs (past or future) are not assets.

Ok. Great to see you come back to calm 
I sure won't miss this opportunity... I'll try to summarize those that in my opinion are the reasonable concerns, before they are asked by people you like even less.

I see you introduced a 'real value' column. And that this is often the only value shown; in BMF almost all of the market value column shows 'Thinking', and the same happens for most of the entries in Nyan.

1) Question: even where you provide the market value information, or if you provided it where you don't, I see it is calculated with
Dont't you think this is a bit optimistic to use 'max'? As you are basically assuming every movement downward will be temporary (ignored in favour of the higher long-term value), and that every movement upward will be permanent (used in lieu of the lower long-term value).

2) Question: even using your method, it is not difficult to see that your 'real' values are almost always quite above market price

GIGAMINING:      5 day average 0.578 | 24h average 0.553 | 'real' value 0.63
JTME:                  5 day average 0.725 | 24h average 0.703  | 'real' value 0.85
MOVETO.FUND: 5 day average 0.799 | 24h average 0.745  | 'real' value 1.08
TEEK.A               5 day average 0.874 | 24h average .......... | 'real' value 1.00

do you think the market is really this wrong?
And even if it was, don't you think it is quite misleading? How can a share be worth more than X bitcoins, if that much bitcoins could get you one now? A careful investor will find out he can  create the same portfolio by himself for sensibly less than buying your shares. Of course then he wouldn't have your awesome management or any other bonus that comes with them, but that should be priced as how much more than NAV he is willing to pay for your shares, and not in then NAV itself -as you say, NAV is far from the only measure a clever investor should consider; but it's a starting point and it's important to get it right.
Additionally, doesn't pricing your shares above market price render buyback only falsely convenient? If you value the shares in say NYAN.B at 1, but you could get them for 0.9 on the market, then every NYAN.B share you buy back for 0.98 seems to be a 0.02 gain when it's in fact a 0.08 loss for the fund.

Funny is, I was about to include a question about the value of mining gear, but writing question #2 I realized you are actually right about them The value should be counted as the price you would pay for them, shipping included; as this is what counts in buying your shares vs. buying the gear and mining directly.
As long as that value is less than what you will earn from them, of course, but then if that was the case it wouldn't make sense to buy them in the first place.

3) FPGAMINING: so you say you never bought shares in the open market in the latest days, and the increase in BMF is due to transfers from NYAN.*? This is of importance for FPGAMINING shareholders -but again, then to BMF: as it would indicate a buyback is in fact taking place and ther's hope it is not worth nothing.

4) OBSI.HRPT: I'd be very interested in what private informations you have from Obsi; I hope "there has been no public news from Obsi" is not your only reason to put its price to 0.1.
But anyway, the point is, for anyone not having privilegiate informations this is a very high risk investment. How can holders of NYAN.B not worry when (considering also the shares in BMF) you count the OBSI.HRPT in your possession to be worth 900BTC? NYAN.C is only 600BTC at the moment; it follows that should OBSI.HRPT it become worth nothing, in addition to NYAN.C going to 0 NYAN.B would be short around 300BTC, that is 20% of its value.

Thanks in advance for your answers! 

I havent checked or assessed all of them; only the red one's have a manually estimated NAV. If I am going to have to assess all those assets, someone will actually have to pay me for it (as usagi claims).

That said, there is another clear error in my table that someone pointed out to me; I accidentally put JAH at 0.3934 in the red colum; it hasnt been that high since May. I dont know this company, but its average price is 0.12. This boosted Nyan.A estimated NAV by ~85BTC. The correct estimated NAV for Nyan.A would therefore be 0.662 instead of 0.72

somewhat?
I would urge you to read this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1228551

Before deciding to buy BMF (or CPA or any usagi asset for that matter).

I was just thinking about buying a chunk of BMF - but based on my beliefs, it's currently somewhat overvalued. I remember seeing the loan thread too, I wonder what came of it.

I am starting to fear at this point Usagi is like a gambler hoping to cover for his losses by gambling more and more... buying back shares above their value, and the various other tricks, will give a false sense of security to ingenuous investors, but will only make their losses harder when they can no longer be delayed.

(did you just buy back NYAN.C up to 0.35, almost 4 times the price they were previously traded?)

Well, we'll see how the dividend looks like this weekend.

It isnt an attempt to value them, its an attempt to calculate the NAV and show what you are exposed to.
Because of the contractual obligations, and assuming you would honor them,  if I wanted to valuate it, NYAN.C would be worth zero, Nyan.B significanlty under current market price, Nyan.A would probably still be good for ~1 BTC, although Im getting increasingly concerned your business is not sustainable and you might even be running a scam.

Your constant short term and expensive actions that serve only  to push up share prices temporarily should be worrying to investors. For instance, I noticed you bought back 100's of Nyan.Bs at ~1 BTC. That is substantially above their expected NAV and value by any reasonable measure. OF course its very good for Nyan.B shareholders wanting to get out, but it doesnt make any sense and increases the risk for all other existing shareholders (particularly CPA) as you become less and less solvent. The same goes for CPA and BMF on which you spent a lot of money just to push prices over what the market thinks it worth. And that loan you took out recently, I cant find it in your books. Where did you put it? Your books also still show you hold 1000s of DMC shares, though you said you sold them. It cant be both. Where did the coins come from to repurchase the BMF and Nyan,B assets? You only had a handful on your books, and there is no change,  so who is paying?  Every day there is a new red flag going up.