Exchange-rate : 0.00494
Adjust NAV/U : 14.21786
Bid up at 14.26 (Still buying back above NAV/U due to the change to the contract)
One update on the GLBSE situation. As you may recall, our holdings when GLBSE closed were some ASICMINER (10-16, currently valued as 10 but almost certainly 16), some BITBOND (3, valued at about half last traded price) and some OBSI.HRPT (written off).
I registered a claim with friedcat for our ASICMINER ages ago (maybe a month?) - that'll be pretty irrelevant now that nefario is actually sending out lists. But we were in posion to get them back even if he hadn't.
I did also PM Amazingrando (issuer of BITBOND) making our claim (as requested by him) but had receved no reply. Today I received the following email from Amazingrando:
"Dear BITBOND bondholder-
GLBSE has recently sent me a list of BITBOND bondholders and their holdings at the time of its closure. This email is to notify you of the information I have received. Please reply to this email and confirm that this information is correct.
Wallet address: (REMOVED)
Bonds held: 3
While I await confirmations, I have started the process of migrating all bonds to Cryptostocks. I hope to relaunch the security soon. Additionally I will be providing more information about buyback and upgrade programs once they are finalized.
Thank you for your patience"
So it looks like that asset will soon be liquid again (and likely at a price over what it's valued at on our books). It also bodes well for us being included on the list sent to ASICMINER - I'd been concerned that we wouldn't be included as I never received any emails from nefario about the return of our funds (though we did get the funds back obviously).
Dependent on what is offered in terms of buyback we'll likely NOT take a buyback. If a buyback is offered to all investors then the one thing we can be sure about is that it'll trade at a higher price than that buyback - so selling on the market will probably make more sense. I'll announce when we create a cryptostocks account (and update spreadsheet) - so investors are aware of the point at which we begin to have assets (and hence exposure) there.
Topic: [LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF - page 10. (Read 25457 times)
WEEKLY REPORT
Another solidly profitable week. Most of the profit was made in the first half of the week - towards the end of the week activity on LTC-GLOBAL seemed to drop off a bit.
I've delayed creating the bond asset (and updating the spreadsheet etc) until after this report - that way I have a week to iron out any glitches in the spreadsheet and can include this week's report in the new first post so I dont have to redo it later.
LTC seems to have started to rise vc BTC - it dipped pretty lkow during during the week but is now back to (very) slightly over what it was at last report. So I won't be rushing to get assets into BTC just yet - as obviously if LTC rises we want to be holding as little BTC as possible.
The section of the spreadsheet calculating adjustment to management fee for exchange-rate movement has been removed per the passed motion. It wouldn't have been used this week anyway - as LTC hasn't dropped.
Management fee this is week is 5 units (rounded down from 5.2) which will be taken after this is posted. HWM will then be updated.
Bid is at 13.889 (above NAV/U due to my offer to buy back at above NAV/U for a week due to a change being made to the contract).
Another solidly profitable week. Most of the profit was made in the first half of the week - towards the end of the week activity on LTC-GLOBAL seemed to drop off a bit.
I've delayed creating the bond asset (and updating the spreadsheet etc) until after this report - that way I have a week to iron out any glitches in the spreadsheet and can include this week's report in the new first post so I dont have to redo it later.
LTC seems to have started to rise vc BTC - it dipped pretty lkow during during the week but is now back to (very) slightly over what it was at last report. So I won't be rushing to get assets into BTC just yet - as obviously if LTC rises we want to be holding as little BTC as possible.
The section of the spreadsheet calculating adjustment to management fee for exchange-rate movement has been removed per the passed motion. It wouldn't have been used this week anyway - as LTC hasn't dropped.
Management fee this is week is 5 units (rounded down from 5.2) which will be taken after this is posted. HWM will then be updated.
Bid is at 13.889 (above NAV/U due to my offer to buy back at above NAV/U for a week due to a change being made to the contract).
Exchange-rate : .00511
Adjust Nav/U : 13.8419
Bid at 13.63
The motion allowing issuing of Bonds was passed. As promised there will be an exit route provided for anyone wanting to sell out at full NAV/U because they disagree with us issuing bonds. I WAS going to do this by messing around with transfers, verifying emails (to make sure it was an owner at the time of this offer) etc - but that's far too much like hard work. Instead I'll be doing the following:
BUYBACK OFFER FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO GET OUT OF THE FUND
For the next week I'll be placing Bids at 100.3% of current NAV/U - yes, buying back units at more than their actual (book) value. For units sold back in this fashion I'll do one of the following (at my discretion) :
1. Buy them (via transfers) with my private account from the asset issuing account at 100.1% of the cost the fund paid for them,
2. Transfer 0.4% of amount the fund paid from my private account to the asset issuing account. Units bought back in this manner will NOT be sold on the market until after this buyback offer ends.
This ensures that remaining investors get a (very tiny) increase in NAV/U if/when such sell-backs occur whilst ensuring anyone who disagrees with the direction we're taking can exit without loss. And I'm fine with personally paying a small premium to get back some units and/or decrease the outstanding units which increases my share of profits.
If I haven't updated bid price for a while you MAY want to PM me first - so I can update it to reflect any profits (or losses) from recent trading before you sell.
If anyone believes this is in any way unfair please DO let me know.
Obviously if there's higher bids on the market already you may choose to sell to those.
This offer will last until 23:59:59 GMT on 30th November 2012
As a result of this policy, bid is now at 13.884
NEXT STEPS TODAY
Here's what I intend to be doing today on the fund:
1. Update the copy of contract in second post of this thread to reflect the changes passed in the recent motion.
2. Edit the first post of this thread to give general information about LTC-ATF and to show a spreadsheet of past results (already done - just needs to be posted).
3. Create an asset for the bonds on LTC-GLOBAL and write up its contract etc.
4. Create thread in relation to the bond asset on litecoin and bitcoin forums for feedback.
5. Update my spreadsheet to properly account for bonds in fund valuation - and also for depreciation of the cost of creating the asset.
I'm creating the asset now so as to get the (potentially lengthy) process of getting 5 moderator votes started. As yet there's nothing to actively trade on BTC.CO, so no immediate need for funds. But it's best to get everything ready now than, down the road, sit here twiddling our thumbs and missing bargains because the asset hasn't been approved. My intent is to release the first batch of bonds BEFORE we can use the funds anyway - as that way we increase our chance of being able to sell them at lower rate of interest (this will be explained in more detail later - after I've done the list of tasks above).
Adjust Nav/U : 13.8419
Bid at 13.63
The motion allowing issuing of Bonds was passed. As promised there will be an exit route provided for anyone wanting to sell out at full NAV/U because they disagree with us issuing bonds. I WAS going to do this by messing around with transfers, verifying emails (to make sure it was an owner at the time of this offer) etc - but that's far too much like hard work. Instead I'll be doing the following:
BUYBACK OFFER FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO GET OUT OF THE FUND
For the next week I'll be placing Bids at 100.3% of current NAV/U - yes, buying back units at more than their actual (book) value. For units sold back in this fashion I'll do one of the following (at my discretion) :
1. Buy them (via transfers) with my private account from the asset issuing account at 100.1% of the cost the fund paid for them,
2. Transfer 0.4% of amount the fund paid from my private account to the asset issuing account. Units bought back in this manner will NOT be sold on the market until after this buyback offer ends.
This ensures that remaining investors get a (very tiny) increase in NAV/U if/when such sell-backs occur whilst ensuring anyone who disagrees with the direction we're taking can exit without loss. And I'm fine with personally paying a small premium to get back some units and/or decrease the outstanding units which increases my share of profits.
If I haven't updated bid price for a while you MAY want to PM me first - so I can update it to reflect any profits (or losses) from recent trading before you sell.
If anyone believes this is in any way unfair please DO let me know.
Obviously if there's higher bids on the market already you may choose to sell to those.
This offer will last until 23:59:59 GMT on 30th November 2012
As a result of this policy, bid is now at 13.884
NEXT STEPS TODAY
Here's what I intend to be doing today on the fund:
1. Update the copy of contract in second post of this thread to reflect the changes passed in the recent motion.
2. Edit the first post of this thread to give general information about LTC-ATF and to show a spreadsheet of past results (already done - just needs to be posted).
3. Create an asset for the bonds on LTC-GLOBAL and write up its contract etc.
4. Create thread in relation to the bond asset on litecoin and bitcoin forums for feedback.
5. Update my spreadsheet to properly account for bonds in fund valuation - and also for depreciation of the cost of creating the asset.
I'm creating the asset now so as to get the (potentially lengthy) process of getting 5 moderator votes started. As yet there's nothing to actively trade on BTC.CO, so no immediate need for funds. But it's best to get everything ready now than, down the road, sit here twiddling our thumbs and missing bargains because the asset hasn't been approved. My intent is to release the first batch of bonds BEFORE we can use the funds anyway - as that way we increase our chance of being able to sell them at lower rate of interest (this will be explained in more detail later - after I've done the list of tasks above).
The following motion is being put up to vote on :
--- MOTION BELOW THIS LINE ---
This motion is to make two changes to the contract:
1. The section of the contract headed "MANAGEMENT FEES" to be amended to:
MANAGEMENT FEES
At least once per fortnight (with the goal being to do it weekly) a report will
be prepared and posted in the forum thread linked above. This will include a
current valuation of the NAV and NAV/U for the fund. This valuation will be in
LTC (a BTC valuation will also be posted).
When that valuation is above the current HWM then the excess is considered to be
profit. The manager is entitled to receive 10% of that profit as a management
fee, paid in LTC-ATF units at the calculated adjusted NAV/U.
2. A new section to be added to the contract as follows:
BOND ISSUING
The fund manager is authorised to issue interest-paying bonds with a face value denominated in BTC. These bonds may be issued on ones or more trading platforms of Manager's choice. Costs associated with creating these bonds will be charged to the fund and treated as an non-realisable asset depreciated to zero over a period not exceeding 20 weeks. No additional management fee may be taken for administering these bonds and the manager's fee must be taken on profits AFTER payment of interest due on the bonds. For accounting purposes bonds are treated as a liability at their face value. Although face value must be in BTC, the bonds may be transacted (and dividends paid) in any currency of manager's choosing.
The following restrictions are placed in respect of these bonds:
Bonds may not be issued with a total value greater than 1.5 times the NAV of the fund. If, through exchange-rate movement or trading loss, NAV falls below this requirement then either more units must be sold or bonds redeemed.
The fund must maintain BTC-denominated assets such that outstanding bonds amount to a liability of no more than 90% of such assets. When this ratio is not met (such as after issue of new bonds transacted in a currency other than BTC or after significant BTC-denominated trading losses) it must be promptly restored.
The interest offered on new bonds issued may not exceed 1/3 of the estimated average trading profit (excluding exchange-rate caused elements) of the fund for the previous 26 weeks (or since the start of the fund if it hasn't been running for 26 weeks).
No risks associated with normal trading may be passed on to the bonds - all loss from trading is applied against the value of fund units. The risk of trading-platform failure may, at manager's discretion, be fully or partially shared with the bonds.
Manager has authority to define the detail of how bonds will be managed as he sees fit within the above parameters.
--- END OF MOTION TEXT ---
EXPLANATORY NOTES
Hopefully most of this is pretty straight-forward.
The first change deletes all the section addressing modification of management fees to deal with changes caused mainly/solely by exchange-rate fluctuation. One of the main point of the bonds is to massively reduce the impact such movement has - and make the mechanism being deleted irrelevant. In practice this will have two effects:
1. If LTC falls more than 5% against BTC then my fee will be slightly larger than it would have been before.
2. If LTC rises more than 5% against BTC then I no longer have the ability to reset the HWM downwards - and get zero management fees until the fund grows back over the previous HWM. This actually a pretty huge improvement for investors in theory - as on the old system if I had a whole bunch of genuine trading losses (or one big one) HWM would still get reset next time currency moved up by more than 5%, allowing me to claim management fees on making back previous trading losses I'd incurred. Had that situation ever arisen I would not, of course, have claimed such fees - but this formalises that in addition to removing my ability to reset HWM when previously I could perfectly legitimately do so.
I believe that, on balance (and excluding the loophole - which I wouldn't have exploited, so removing it doesn't actually gain anything) this change has no overall theoretical impact on management fee (I get slightly more when LTC falls and less when it rises than under old system).
The second change introduces the ability to offer bonds to raise funds as an alternative to selling more units. The reasons for this (and the benefits/risks) are detailed in the following thread:
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html
I'll just address a few specific parts of the proposed change whose purpose may not be immediately clear.
"Costs associated with creating these bonds will be charged to the fund and treated as an non-realisable asset depreciated to zero over a period not exceeding 20 weeks. "
This is to prevent a sharp(ish) drop in NAV/U if a registration fee is paid to create a bond asset. Having the ability to issue the bonds DOES have a value (or we wouldn't be doing it) so it's not an unreasonable method, More to the point, it removes any incentive for people to sell out before we do so then buy back in lower afterwards (though it's pretty unlikely the opportunity to get back in would exist). So if (as is likely to be the case) there's a 250 LTC fee to list the bonds then that will be written down over up to 20 weeks rather than deducted in full from NAV immediately.
"Although face value must be in BTC, the bonds may be transacted (and dividends paid) in any currency of manager's choosing."
This is pretty important. I'd previosuly mentioned that we couldn't justify a 5 BTC fee to list the bonds on btc.co - and was considering manually managing them in a forum thread. Since then, the obvious has occurred to me - why not just list them in LTC? Although their FACE value is in BTC, all transactions can still be done in LTC. That way, not only does it serve as a bond - but also as a means by which investors can speculate (or hedge on) the LTC/BTC exchange-rate without having to take funds off of LTC-GLOBAL. The only area where this causes any real inconvenience is that I wouldn't be able to leave a bid-wall up on them unattended (as their price should swing round as exchange-rate moves). But I can still do buybacks by arrangement with no difficulty.
"Bonds may not be issued with a total value greater than 1.5 times the NAV of the fund. If, through exchange-rate movement or trading loss, NAV falls below this requirement then either more units must be sold or bonds redeemed."
When reading this statement bear in mind that NAV is Assets - Liabilities (The N stands for Net - i.e. not gross). If we have 5k LTC of assets and issue 5K LTC worth of bonds then our NAV remains 5k (10K Assets - 5K liabilities).
I'll do the spreadsheet for historical trading profits tomorrow.
After this motion passes, I will offer for a week the opportunity for anyone who wants out of the fund to get out at very slightly over NAV (either by purchasing their units myself or by the fund repurchasing them and me repaying the fund the fees element so NAV/U doesn't drop). I strongly believe that if there's any non-trivial change to the contract of a bond/unit then all investors should be given the option to exit at a price no less than what they would receive if the bonds were recalled/fund closed. It may well be the case that you can sell direct to market for more anyway - but, if not, then that offer WILL be in place.
I'd recommend you vote yes - but if you have any questions or a reason why this is a bad idea PLEASE speak up. If I'm missing something I'd like to know - and will happily cancel or alter the motion if necessary.
--- MOTION BELOW THIS LINE ---
This motion is to make two changes to the contract:
1. The section of the contract headed "MANAGEMENT FEES" to be amended to:
MANAGEMENT FEES
At least once per fortnight (with the goal being to do it weekly) a report will
be prepared and posted in the forum thread linked above. This will include a
current valuation of the NAV and NAV/U for the fund. This valuation will be in
LTC (a BTC valuation will also be posted).
When that valuation is above the current HWM then the excess is considered to be
profit. The manager is entitled to receive 10% of that profit as a management
fee, paid in LTC-ATF units at the calculated adjusted NAV/U.
2. A new section to be added to the contract as follows:
BOND ISSUING
The fund manager is authorised to issue interest-paying bonds with a face value denominated in BTC. These bonds may be issued on ones or more trading platforms of Manager's choice. Costs associated with creating these bonds will be charged to the fund and treated as an non-realisable asset depreciated to zero over a period not exceeding 20 weeks. No additional management fee may be taken for administering these bonds and the manager's fee must be taken on profits AFTER payment of interest due on the bonds. For accounting purposes bonds are treated as a liability at their face value. Although face value must be in BTC, the bonds may be transacted (and dividends paid) in any currency of manager's choosing.
The following restrictions are placed in respect of these bonds:
Bonds may not be issued with a total value greater than 1.5 times the NAV of the fund. If, through exchange-rate movement or trading loss, NAV falls below this requirement then either more units must be sold or bonds redeemed.
The fund must maintain BTC-denominated assets such that outstanding bonds amount to a liability of no more than 90% of such assets. When this ratio is not met (such as after issue of new bonds transacted in a currency other than BTC or after significant BTC-denominated trading losses) it must be promptly restored.
The interest offered on new bonds issued may not exceed 1/3 of the estimated average trading profit (excluding exchange-rate caused elements) of the fund for the previous 26 weeks (or since the start of the fund if it hasn't been running for 26 weeks).
No risks associated with normal trading may be passed on to the bonds - all loss from trading is applied against the value of fund units. The risk of trading-platform failure may, at manager's discretion, be fully or partially shared with the bonds.
Manager has authority to define the detail of how bonds will be managed as he sees fit within the above parameters.
--- END OF MOTION TEXT ---
EXPLANATORY NOTES
Hopefully most of this is pretty straight-forward.
The first change deletes all the section addressing modification of management fees to deal with changes caused mainly/solely by exchange-rate fluctuation. One of the main point of the bonds is to massively reduce the impact such movement has - and make the mechanism being deleted irrelevant. In practice this will have two effects:
1. If LTC falls more than 5% against BTC then my fee will be slightly larger than it would have been before.
2. If LTC rises more than 5% against BTC then I no longer have the ability to reset the HWM downwards - and get zero management fees until the fund grows back over the previous HWM. This actually a pretty huge improvement for investors in theory - as on the old system if I had a whole bunch of genuine trading losses (or one big one) HWM would still get reset next time currency moved up by more than 5%, allowing me to claim management fees on making back previous trading losses I'd incurred. Had that situation ever arisen I would not, of course, have claimed such fees - but this formalises that in addition to removing my ability to reset HWM when previously I could perfectly legitimately do so.
I believe that, on balance (and excluding the loophole - which I wouldn't have exploited, so removing it doesn't actually gain anything) this change has no overall theoretical impact on management fee (I get slightly more when LTC falls and less when it rises than under old system).
The second change introduces the ability to offer bonds to raise funds as an alternative to selling more units. The reasons for this (and the benefits/risks) are detailed in the following thread:
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html
I'll just address a few specific parts of the proposed change whose purpose may not be immediately clear.
"Costs associated with creating these bonds will be charged to the fund and treated as an non-realisable asset depreciated to zero over a period not exceeding 20 weeks. "
This is to prevent a sharp(ish) drop in NAV/U if a registration fee is paid to create a bond asset. Having the ability to issue the bonds DOES have a value (or we wouldn't be doing it) so it's not an unreasonable method, More to the point, it removes any incentive for people to sell out before we do so then buy back in lower afterwards (though it's pretty unlikely the opportunity to get back in would exist). So if (as is likely to be the case) there's a 250 LTC fee to list the bonds then that will be written down over up to 20 weeks rather than deducted in full from NAV immediately.
"Although face value must be in BTC, the bonds may be transacted (and dividends paid) in any currency of manager's choosing."
This is pretty important. I'd previosuly mentioned that we couldn't justify a 5 BTC fee to list the bonds on btc.co - and was considering manually managing them in a forum thread. Since then, the obvious has occurred to me - why not just list them in LTC? Although their FACE value is in BTC, all transactions can still be done in LTC. That way, not only does it serve as a bond - but also as a means by which investors can speculate (or hedge on) the LTC/BTC exchange-rate without having to take funds off of LTC-GLOBAL. The only area where this causes any real inconvenience is that I wouldn't be able to leave a bid-wall up on them unattended (as their price should swing round as exchange-rate moves). But I can still do buybacks by arrangement with no difficulty.
"Bonds may not be issued with a total value greater than 1.5 times the NAV of the fund. If, through exchange-rate movement or trading loss, NAV falls below this requirement then either more units must be sold or bonds redeemed."
When reading this statement bear in mind that NAV is Assets - Liabilities (The N stands for Net - i.e. not gross). If we have 5k LTC of assets and issue 5K LTC worth of bonds then our NAV remains 5k (10K Assets - 5K liabilities).
I'll do the spreadsheet for historical trading profits tomorrow.
After this motion passes, I will offer for a week the opportunity for anyone who wants out of the fund to get out at very slightly over NAV (either by purchasing their units myself or by the fund repurchasing them and me repaying the fund the fees element so NAV/U doesn't drop). I strongly believe that if there's any non-trivial change to the contract of a bond/unit then all investors should be given the option to exit at a price no less than what they would receive if the bonds were recalled/fund closed. It may well be the case that you can sell direct to market for more anyway - but, if not, then that offer WILL be in place.
I'd recommend you vote yes - but if you have any questions or a reason why this is a bad idea PLEASE speak up. If I'm missing something I'd like to know - and will happily cancel or alter the motion if necessary.
Exchange-rate : .00534
Adjusted NAV/U : 13.63996
Bid at 13.4
Got up to about 30% of funds invested in LTC assets then they all sold and we were back to 100% cash again (more cash than last time of course). Only stayed all cash briefly this time. Getting back to all cash is nice in a way - every time we do it I (and you) can be absolutely confident that at that stage my valuation is totally accurate (ignoring the few GLBSE shares - which are under 5% of our value) and there's nothing toxic we're left stuck with.
Will be putting up a motion today to address issuing BTC-denominated bonds and the necessary changes in our contract to accomodate that. A means of getting out at full NAV/U (including reimbursement of the 0.2% fees) WILL be provided for anyone who disagrees: so if you happen to think it's a bad idea DON'T panic and sell into my bid - you'll have a means to sell for full NAV/U (which should hopefully be up around 14 by the time motion passes).
I'll also be updating one of the early posts in this thread with a spreasheet showing TRADING profit for each week of operation of the fund (that's profit BEFORE fees and excluding changes caused by exchange-rate changes). That's needed as one of the restrictions on my ability to issue bonds will be that the rate offered is no more than 1/3 long-term trading performance - so clearly that has to be estimated/calculated. Exchange-rate changes will be ignored - as one of the main purpose of the bonds is to make us pretty immune to them, so as they won't have any great impact once bonds are in play they can be ignored when calculating what we can afford to pay for bonds. More on that when I write the motion up later today.
Adjusted NAV/U : 13.63996
Bid at 13.4
Got up to about 30% of funds invested in LTC assets then they all sold and we were back to 100% cash again (more cash than last time of course). Only stayed all cash briefly this time. Getting back to all cash is nice in a way - every time we do it I (and you) can be absolutely confident that at that stage my valuation is totally accurate (ignoring the few GLBSE shares - which are under 5% of our value) and there's nothing toxic we're left stuck with.
Will be putting up a motion today to address issuing BTC-denominated bonds and the necessary changes in our contract to accomodate that. A means of getting out at full NAV/U (including reimbursement of the 0.2% fees) WILL be provided for anyone who disagrees: so if you happen to think it's a bad idea DON'T panic and sell into my bid - you'll have a means to sell for full NAV/U (which should hopefully be up around 14 by the time motion passes).
I'll also be updating one of the early posts in this thread with a spreasheet showing TRADING profit for each week of operation of the fund (that's profit BEFORE fees and excluding changes caused by exchange-rate changes). That's needed as one of the restrictions on my ability to issue bonds will be that the rate offered is no more than 1/3 long-term trading performance - so clearly that has to be estimated/calculated. Exchange-rate changes will be ignored - as one of the main purpose of the bonds is to make us pretty immune to them, so as they won't have any great impact once bonds are in play they can be ignored when calculating what we can afford to pay for bonds. More on that when I write the motion up later today.
Not much happening - but at least no longer 100% in cash.
Exchange-rate : 0.005
Adj NAV/U : 13.14996427
Bid at 12.95
Exchange-rate : 0.005
Adj NAV/U : 13.14996427
Bid at 12.95
Exchange-rate 0.0053
Current Adjusted NAV/U : 13.0082307
Bid at : 12.85
Overnight we temporarily went to a position of holding zero securities (other than the handful locked on GLBSE) - i.e. we were entirely holding cash. Pretty sure that's the first time we've been that in position since launch (when we started we already a few shares that I transferred in - and had bought more before those were sold). We're no longer all cash now (just mostly).
There's various pretty crude attempts at price maniluplation occurring at moment on LTC-GLOBAL - essentially someone buys up most of the Asks for a share, places a high bid themselves then hopes others will overbid them. Right now the obvious two are esecurity.sa2 and ltc-gaming.
Esecurity.sa2 is interesting - as yesterday the actual asset issuer was manipulating the price. Basically he was putting up bids himself at 5.2, then selling NEW shares to anyone who overbid him. Obviously once I spotted this pattern I made us some profit off it (would guess about 3% gain before weekly results and another 3% after) - by bidding just over 5.2, waiting until he did next dump (KNEW it was him as outstanding shares would rise after each dump) then selling them back off at 5.4-5.9 via Asks. A LOT of the massive volume last few days in esecurity.sa2 was through this - with a pretty big chunk of it having me on one side or the other of trades (I was happy to take smaller profits on larger volume - as the asset-issuer, through his market manipulation, was setting a floor for me so risk was low).
I don't agree with asset issuers manipulating their own share price - sales policy should be transparent. The last statement from the asset issuer was that he wasn't selling more shares (this was because LTC/USD rate had risen to the extent he could no longer sell without undercutting previous sales). Now, unannounced, he's selling back onto the market - and doing so whilst attempting to manipulate the price.
Now someone bought all the way up to 10+ - and there's an Ask at 6.0 which is almost certainly going to be whoever's trying to mess with the price. I've no evidence to suggest this is still the asset issuer - could well be someone who saw the massive traded volume last few days and thought they could push the price up and resell for a big profit. If so, they're in for a pretty epic fail - as a whole lot of that volume didn't represent demand at all (for starters, volume is pretty much doubled by me picking them up cheap and reselling for modest markup - and my belief is a lot more of the volume is false as wel for a slightly different reason).
Same thing (attempted price raise) is happening on LTC-GAMING. Someone's bought the market out - and now there's an isolated big Bid up. I'm even less clear on what's happening here. Esecurity.sa2 at least pays good dividends and has a defined, credible, model by which those profits are being delivered - so if you believe they're doing what they say they are they offer good value as an investment. LTC-GAMING, on the other hand, was set up as a website to develop games yet appears to have completely failed to develop anything of note - but has kept ticking over due to its policy of paying out miniscule dividends every day (which would amount to an annual return of 1-2% that isnt even profit as the site generates no revenue other than donations).
It's hard to see how this price rise could be genuine given that the contract states:
"50000 shares will be issued at 1 LTC per share
Funds raised will be invested into the rapid and agile development of original
intellectual property and games."
Only 11000 shares have been sold so far, so to actually keep the price over 1 LTC you need to soak up the other 40,000. And there's zero sign of any "rapid and agile" development going on - just a third--party solitaire game on the site which looks like it was written in an afternoon by someone as an exercise whilst they were learning to program. Though there IS an announcement of unspecified major developments - so maybe it's someone speculating who didn't realise there are still 40,000 shares to be sold at 1 LTC each.
I post the above, as much as anything, to explain why - at times - we HAVE to sit on mainly cash for a while. When a few securities are in artificial bubbles I have to stay clear of them until the bubble bursts - as it's not worth the risk of trading a security when you KNOW it's in a bubble that will collapse (probably sooner, rather than later). And with only a small range of available investments in the first place, losing the ability to trade a few DOES restrict overall ability to trade.
Note that whether I view a security as a good investment or not is pretty much totally irrelevant to WHETHER I trade it - I'll trade any old junk (NOT saying either of the 2 securities above IS junk) if I can make a profit doing so. The quality of it (and, more importantly, how I perceive the market as perceiving it) just alter what % of funds I'll risk on it, how big the likely profit margin has to be to trade it and what degree of credibility I'll give to any apparent moves in its market value.
Current Adjusted NAV/U : 13.0082307
Bid at : 12.85
Overnight we temporarily went to a position of holding zero securities (other than the handful locked on GLBSE) - i.e. we were entirely holding cash. Pretty sure that's the first time we've been that in position since launch (when we started we already a few shares that I transferred in - and had bought more before those were sold). We're no longer all cash now (just mostly).
There's various pretty crude attempts at price maniluplation occurring at moment on LTC-GLOBAL - essentially someone buys up most of the Asks for a share, places a high bid themselves then hopes others will overbid them. Right now the obvious two are esecurity.sa2 and ltc-gaming.
Esecurity.sa2 is interesting - as yesterday the actual asset issuer was manipulating the price. Basically he was putting up bids himself at 5.2, then selling NEW shares to anyone who overbid him. Obviously once I spotted this pattern I made us some profit off it (would guess about 3% gain before weekly results and another 3% after) - by bidding just over 5.2, waiting until he did next dump (KNEW it was him as outstanding shares would rise after each dump) then selling them back off at 5.4-5.9 via Asks. A LOT of the massive volume last few days in esecurity.sa2 was through this - with a pretty big chunk of it having me on one side or the other of trades (I was happy to take smaller profits on larger volume - as the asset-issuer, through his market manipulation, was setting a floor for me so risk was low).
I don't agree with asset issuers manipulating their own share price - sales policy should be transparent. The last statement from the asset issuer was that he wasn't selling more shares (this was because LTC/USD rate had risen to the extent he could no longer sell without undercutting previous sales). Now, unannounced, he's selling back onto the market - and doing so whilst attempting to manipulate the price.
Now someone bought all the way up to 10+ - and there's an Ask at 6.0 which is almost certainly going to be whoever's trying to mess with the price. I've no evidence to suggest this is still the asset issuer - could well be someone who saw the massive traded volume last few days and thought they could push the price up and resell for a big profit. If so, they're in for a pretty epic fail - as a whole lot of that volume didn't represent demand at all (for starters, volume is pretty much doubled by me picking them up cheap and reselling for modest markup - and my belief is a lot more of the volume is false as wel for a slightly different reason).
Same thing (attempted price raise) is happening on LTC-GAMING. Someone's bought the market out - and now there's an isolated big Bid up. I'm even less clear on what's happening here. Esecurity.sa2 at least pays good dividends and has a defined, credible, model by which those profits are being delivered - so if you believe they're doing what they say they are they offer good value as an investment. LTC-GAMING, on the other hand, was set up as a website to develop games yet appears to have completely failed to develop anything of note - but has kept ticking over due to its policy of paying out miniscule dividends every day (which would amount to an annual return of 1-2% that isnt even profit as the site generates no revenue other than donations).
It's hard to see how this price rise could be genuine given that the contract states:
"50000 shares will be issued at 1 LTC per share
Funds raised will be invested into the rapid and agile development of original
intellectual property and games."
Only 11000 shares have been sold so far, so to actually keep the price over 1 LTC you need to soak up the other 40,000. And there's zero sign of any "rapid and agile" development going on - just a third--party solitaire game on the site which looks like it was written in an afternoon by someone as an exercise whilst they were learning to program. Though there IS an announcement of unspecified major developments - so maybe it's someone speculating who didn't realise there are still 40,000 shares to be sold at 1 LTC each.
I post the above, as much as anything, to explain why - at times - we HAVE to sit on mainly cash for a while. When a few securities are in artificial bubbles I have to stay clear of them until the bubble bursts - as it's not worth the risk of trading a security when you KNOW it's in a bubble that will collapse (probably sooner, rather than later). And with only a small range of available investments in the first place, losing the ability to trade a few DOES restrict overall ability to trade.
Note that whether I view a security as a good investment or not is pretty much totally irrelevant to WHETHER I trade it - I'll trade any old junk (NOT saying either of the 2 securities above IS junk) if I can make a profit doing so. The quality of it (and, more importantly, how I perceive the market as perceiving it) just alter what % of funds I'll risk on it, how big the likely profit margin has to be to trade it and what degree of credibility I'll give to any apparent moves in its market value.
I see well i had a few from a while back so they must have been from the fund,
Thanks i guess its a long term investment, but i dont mind i can see how much work you put into it so i thought id like to help you out if it did in any way
Thanks i guess its a long term investment, but i dont mind i can see how much work you put into it so i thought id like to help you out if it did in any way
Just bought 60 Shares
Heh, well it's gonna take a while for the price to rise to what you paid for the last of them. But welcome aboard.
You weren't buying direct from the fund - but from sellers by the way. Only new units in last few weeks have been the ones I've taken for management fee. Can't see any new units being sold by the fund for quite a while - so at least you don't have to worry about me selling new ones for less than you just paid.
Just bought 60 Shares
UPDATE AND REPORT
It's been a good week for trading - pretty steady throughout then very busy last few days. There's definitely some new investors into LTC-GLOBAL, at least one of whom is buying up whole chunks of assets at stupidly high prices.
Although we're, as usual, mainly cash that definitely hasn't been consistently the case last few days. To give some idea, we currently hold ~1000 LTC worth of (non-cash) assets. My last 30 trades (which is all that's easily viewable) were all in the last 10 hours and have a total value over 3200 LTC. If half of those were buys and half sells (which is about right - cash was around same 10 hours ago) then we've turned over 1600 LTC worth of securities in that period: or over 25% of total fund value.
LTC dived heavily this week - but is now showing first signs of recovering (though the upward movement is small it's actually against arbitrage pressure).
Management fee due is 6.6 0 recalced at 6.2 to exclude the small impact our GLBSE assets have from exchange-range change. That gets rounded down to 6 - which units will be transferred to my personal account (and HWM updated) after posting this.
Earlier in the week I made a post here : http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html
This explained a proposal to issue BTC-denominated bonds to raise new capital rather than selling more units. Feedback on it was pretty much zero (which was expected tbh). I will NOT be creating a bond asset on BTCTC in the near future to issue bonds - I can't justify the 5 BTC listing fee when initially we'd only be looking to sell 5-10 BTC worth of bonds anyway. I still like the idea of removing currency risk and leveraging our capital - so may consider private bond sales (i.e. just handled through a forum thread rather than on a trading platform) in the short-term. Will probably put up a motion authorising this later in the week - so I can move on it when securities to trade in actually get listed on BTCTC.
Bid at : 12.2 for now. Might be able to move it up slightly after I've had a proper look at the BTC-E currency markets.
It's been a good week for trading - pretty steady throughout then very busy last few days. There's definitely some new investors into LTC-GLOBAL, at least one of whom is buying up whole chunks of assets at stupidly high prices.
Although we're, as usual, mainly cash that definitely hasn't been consistently the case last few days. To give some idea, we currently hold ~1000 LTC worth of (non-cash) assets. My last 30 trades (which is all that's easily viewable) were all in the last 10 hours and have a total value over 3200 LTC. If half of those were buys and half sells (which is about right - cash was around same 10 hours ago) then we've turned over 1600 LTC worth of securities in that period: or over 25% of total fund value.
LTC dived heavily this week - but is now showing first signs of recovering (though the upward movement is small it's actually against arbitrage pressure).
Management fee due is 6.6 0 recalced at 6.2 to exclude the small impact our GLBSE assets have from exchange-range change. That gets rounded down to 6 - which units will be transferred to my personal account (and HWM updated) after posting this.
Earlier in the week I made a post here : http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html
This explained a proposal to issue BTC-denominated bonds to raise new capital rather than selling more units. Feedback on it was pretty much zero (which was expected tbh). I will NOT be creating a bond asset on BTCTC in the near future to issue bonds - I can't justify the 5 BTC listing fee when initially we'd only be looking to sell 5-10 BTC worth of bonds anyway. I still like the idea of removing currency risk and leveraging our capital - so may consider private bond sales (i.e. just handled through a forum thread rather than on a trading platform) in the short-term. Will probably put up a motion authorising this later in the week - so I can move on it when securities to trade in actually get listed on BTCTC.
Bid at : 12.2 for now. Might be able to move it up slightly after I've had a proper look at the BTC-E currency markets.
Exchange-rate : 0.00545
Adjusted NAV/U : 11.79257
Bid at : 11.6
Have had a few decent trades last few days. In the meantime LTC keeps falling vs BTC - if we'd still had significant BTC-denominated assets we'd be up a whole ton more.
Adjusted NAV/U : 11.79257
Bid at : 11.6
Have had a few decent trades last few days. In the meantime LTC keeps falling vs BTC - if we'd still had significant BTC-denominated assets we'd be up a whole ton more.
Exchange-rate : 0.0064
Adjusted NAV/U : 11.37739
Bid at : 11.23
Seems like there's some active buyers around at moment - at the rate our assets have been selling so far today we'll be entirely in cash by the end of it (if that happened, NAV/U would be at around 12 at a guess). Every single asset on LTC-GLOBAL is either up or unchanged - definitely some buying happening (which makes it harder to get more assets cheaply, but great for realising profits - have relisted some of our last stuff at higher prices).
I've posted (a rather hefty) proposal in the litecoin forums:
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html
If you're reading this post on BTC forums (I post all my updates to both forums) then sorry for only posting it on the other forum - but I'd prefer all discussion (if anyone actually reads it all) in one place. Here's the CN for the thread - so you can decide if it's of interest before visiting:
SUMMARY (CN)
I am proposing that when LTC-ATF begins trading on BTC-GLOBAL, we raise funds for it by issuing bonds paying a fixed-rate of interest rather by issuing more units. This would greatly reduce NAV/U volatility caused by exchange-rate fluctuations and would keep the bulk of profits for existing unit-holders rather than giving them to new investors. This comes with the risk that if we make a loss trading we lose more than we would do if additional capital was raised by issuing more units.[/b]
Adjusted NAV/U : 11.37739
Bid at : 11.23
Seems like there's some active buyers around at moment - at the rate our assets have been selling so far today we'll be entirely in cash by the end of it (if that happened, NAV/U would be at around 12 at a guess). Every single asset on LTC-GLOBAL is either up or unchanged - definitely some buying happening (which makes it harder to get more assets cheaply, but great for realising profits - have relisted some of our last stuff at higher prices).
I've posted (a rather hefty) proposal in the litecoin forums:
http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html
If you're reading this post on BTC forums (I post all my updates to both forums) then sorry for only posting it on the other forum - but I'd prefer all discussion (if anyone actually reads it all) in one place. Here's the CN for the thread - so you can decide if it's of interest before visiting:
SUMMARY (CN)
I am proposing that when LTC-ATF begins trading on BTC-GLOBAL, we raise funds for it by issuing bonds paying a fixed-rate of interest rather by issuing more units. This would greatly reduce NAV/U volatility caused by exchange-rate fluctuations and would keep the bulk of profits for existing unit-holders rather than giving them to new investors. This comes with the risk that if we make a loss trading we lose more than we would do if additional capital was raised by issuing more units.[/b]
Note that the above quote is from our thread in the Litecoin forums - if you click it here it'll take you to some entirely unrelated post. If there's a query on one thread which I respond to in any length then I tend to cross-post on both to give context to my comments and save me having to answer the same question again later.
Seems to be a glitch on litecoinglobal and its reporting the 7 day average as 0.0 
Not a glitch - just none have been traded in the last 7 days. I'm not selling new units at the moment and seems noone wants to sell theirs back to me (or to other bidders who have put buys up at just over NAV/U, overbidding my buyback). Haven't seen an Ask up that's within 20% of NAV/U - so seems like existing investors don't want to sell and new ones can't get in at a reasonable price, hence no trades.
Would suggest you just manually value LTC-ATF shares at my quoted NAV/U - most of our holdings are usually in cash (as you can see in the report) and the shares we hold are all valued at or below their 7-day average, so my official NAV/U is a slightly pessimistic one compared to most valuations. As I've mentioned before, other than investments I expect to take a while to sell (due to pricing typically) I generally value everything at what I paid for them until I sell them. As volume's so low, 7-day average for most securities jumps around all over the place - so if I used that, my NAV/U would jump all over the place without reflecting any real change in the value of our assets.
Exchange-rate : .0064
Adjusted NAV/U : 11.0238
Bid up at 10.87
We've remained solidly holding LTC - so haven't gained or lost anything significant from LTC dropping below .006 then rebounding back up to where it now is.
UPDATE AND REPORT
Trade picked up this week - in conjunction with LTC falling vs BTC. That's actually a pretty common pattern - when LTC is strong investors sell shares to get LTC, when LTC weakens investors buy more shares as they see it as a way to protect against LTC falling in value. That's not actually as irrational as it may sound - as many shares' value (either capital or revenue) is effectively denominated in fiat so rises (in LTC) when LTC falls.
We've been solidly in LTC all week - so, unfortunately, haven't gained from holding BTC in the way we would have before GLBSE shut down.
You may have noticed a new section in the bottom right of the spread-sheet - this shows the calculation adjusting my management fee for currency fluctuation (only applies when LTC weakens). The calculation done there is actually slightly different to that prescribed in the contract - when convering recalculated profit from BTC to LTC I used the OLD rather than the NEW exchange-rate. Had I used the old rate (as per contract) it would actually have increased my management fee. The method in the ocntract was devised on the basis that most of our portfolio would be in BTC - as such it's actually pretty irrelevant now we're almost entirely in LTC. Just about all profits are from trading (just a tiny amount from appreciation of the assets stuck on GLBSE). In fact the fairest calculation would use the mid-point between old and new rates - to reflect that (typically) profits were made throughout the week as the exchange-rate moved rather than all at either the beginning or the end.
I'm not proposing to update the contract in respect of this calculation - as I hope that, before too long, some decent market for BTC-denominated securities will emerge and we'll be back to having a chunk of assets in BTC and the calculation will become relevant again. For now I'll just use the least favourable (to me - most favourable to investors) of the formula detailed in the contract and what I consider a common-sense/logical calculation.
I expect our position to remain largely cash until LTC next rises. There's absolutely no reason to panic buy - I try to only buy when I'm confident I can sell for a profit and would far rather hold cash (LTC) than securities I bought at a fair price. So, for now at least, I won't be putting more units up for sale - that can, of course, change very rapidly if market conditions change and/or a significant number of our orders get filled.
HWM will be updated and 2 units transferred to my personal account as this week's management fee.
Bid at : 10.7
Trade picked up this week - in conjunction with LTC falling vs BTC. That's actually a pretty common pattern - when LTC is strong investors sell shares to get LTC, when LTC weakens investors buy more shares as they see it as a way to protect against LTC falling in value. That's not actually as irrational as it may sound - as many shares' value (either capital or revenue) is effectively denominated in fiat so rises (in LTC) when LTC falls.
We've been solidly in LTC all week - so, unfortunately, haven't gained from holding BTC in the way we would have before GLBSE shut down.
You may have noticed a new section in the bottom right of the spread-sheet - this shows the calculation adjusting my management fee for currency fluctuation (only applies when LTC weakens). The calculation done there is actually slightly different to that prescribed in the contract - when convering recalculated profit from BTC to LTC I used the OLD rather than the NEW exchange-rate. Had I used the old rate (as per contract) it would actually have increased my management fee. The method in the ocntract was devised on the basis that most of our portfolio would be in BTC - as such it's actually pretty irrelevant now we're almost entirely in LTC. Just about all profits are from trading (just a tiny amount from appreciation of the assets stuck on GLBSE). In fact the fairest calculation would use the mid-point between old and new rates - to reflect that (typically) profits were made throughout the week as the exchange-rate moved rather than all at either the beginning or the end.
I'm not proposing to update the contract in respect of this calculation - as I hope that, before too long, some decent market for BTC-denominated securities will emerge and we'll be back to having a chunk of assets in BTC and the calculation will become relevant again. For now I'll just use the least favourable (to me - most favourable to investors) of the formula detailed in the contract and what I consider a common-sense/logical calculation.
I expect our position to remain largely cash until LTC next rises. There's absolutely no reason to panic buy - I try to only buy when I'm confident I can sell for a profit and would far rather hold cash (LTC) than securities I bought at a fair price. So, for now at least, I won't be putting more units up for sale - that can, of course, change very rapidly if market conditions change and/or a significant number of our orders get filled.
HWM will be updated and 2 units transferred to my personal account as this week's management fee.
Bid at : 10.7
Exchange-rate : 0.00689
Adjusted NAV/U : 10.565177
Bid at 10.43
Adjusted NAV/U : 10.565177
Bid at 10.43
Exchange-rate : .00691
Adjusted NAV/U : 10.538823
Bid at 10.4
Making slow but steady profit. Not having much luck picking up assets cheaply at moment, just selling off ones we've held for a while for a profit. So still no plans to issue more units as we still have plenty of cash on hand.
Adjusted NAV/U : 10.538823
Bid at 10.4
Making slow but steady profit. Not having much luck picking up assets cheaply at moment, just selling off ones we've held for a while for a profit. So still no plans to issue more units as we still have plenty of cash on hand.
Exchange-rate 0.00692
Adjusted NAV/U : 10.452992
Bid at 10.34
Adjusted NAV/U : 10.452992
Bid at 10.34
Exchange-rate .00712
Adj NAV/U : 10.340024
Bid at 10.23
For now I'm keeping us totally in LTC (other than the odds and ends stuck on GLBSE) so exchange-rate changes have a negligible impact on fund value and I can continue to offer a decent buy-back rate.
Adj NAV/U : 10.340024
Bid at 10.23
For now I'm keeping us totally in LTC (other than the odds and ends stuck on GLBSE) so exchange-rate changes have a negligible impact on fund value and I can continue to offer a decent buy-back rate.
Jump to: