That is an extremely useful comparison/run-down maqifrnswa, thank you! How does Basic-Mining BTC-TC compare with all of those by the way?
(
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btt-130982)
It seems interesting to me as it appears to be run by a well known member of the community, be hashing at ~1.4TH/s, paying about 1/10th of LRM dividends at the moment, and trading with a share price ~50% higher... Are they expecting a
huge influx of hardware that they've already paid for? And by huge it would have to be proportionately bigger than the hardware LRM is expecting to explain the enormous difference in both PE ratio and actual shareprice...
BASIC: Managed group buy (like LRM/Nasty) 0% management fee, 25% fee taken out at time of IPO used to pay for management shares in hardware. 30% of net proceeds are retained earnings for reinvestment in hardware (OgNasty does 25%, labrat does 25% minus management fee).
A fundamental difference between BASIC and LRM is that you actually own the hardware in BASIC, while LRM owns the hardware for LRM. Since hardware essentially depreciates to 0 in two years, it's not too much of a difference. It's hard to compare future deals since we don't know what's on order or who will actually deliver (on time), but the market seems to show equal confidence in both securities to secure hashrate.
basic has extremely transparent accounting of expenses and hardware, balance sheets and income statements are readily available.
Dividends are paid daily, so they are about the same as labrat's (basic: ~0.0007/week, LRM: ~.0011), and the shares cost about the same as labrats (basic: ~0.12, LRM: ~0.17). I think the yield of the two is pretty similar and PE is pretty similar (basic: 0.58%/week, LRM: 0.64%/week)
https://btct.co/security/BASIC-MININGAgain, many thanks for the comprehensive review! I had missed that their dividends are daily, that does indeed account for pretty much the whole discrepancy (and the fact that I somehow got their shareprice wrong by a factor of around 2!)
As you say, the difference in owning the hardware is pretty much moot as it dwindles to nothing, plus, although bond holders don't "own" the hardware in LRM, the company is obliged to keep mining with it on behalf of investors pretty much indefinitely, so it's virtually the same.
Looks like the valuations are pretty similar as it stands then, which is good as it shows some consistency in the market. This should mean though, that unless BASIC have a whole load of hardware on order and paid for then it's hard to imagine LRM's valuation increasing a lot when the big delivery of hardware comes in. What I mean by this is that because BASIC is a long standing proposition, and thus has had plenty of time to find an equilibrium/"true valuation", and given that LRM is performing similarly and is valued similarly, this shows that its valuation is approximately based on
current performance (i.e. hashrate) and not on
forecasted performance, and so once it's shown that LRM is achieving what is promised then the value should move to reflect that.
And yes, I had noticed that the transparency of BASIC is exemplary. I think we can expect more of that once the BitFury hardware is delivered.