Topic: [LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF - page 3. (Read 25460 times)

WEEKLY REPORT




Not much to report this week - it was a slow but steady week with no great excitement.  LTC fell vs BTC (as BTC made a bit of a recovery) and we ended with 4.73% growth (before management fee) of which ~2.41% was from trading and the rest due to the exchange-rate movement.

Our initial batch of 5000 LTC-ATF.B2 sold out in an hour and I sold a further 2000 into bids at a bit over face value - as we'll need more before long and it works out cheaper to sell now whilst orders were available and give (some of) the extra back in dividends.

My website's not ready yet - I got a LOT less done this week than I planned to.  Main reason was the start of the Ashes (that's cricket between England and Australia for those who don't know).  I promised myself only to watch the interesting stages - but that turned out to be most of the 5 days.  I'm looking into displaying our accounts live when I get everything done - so you'd be able to check on the status of it at any point in the week.  It would show same information as now, hopefully along with some pie-charts showing how funds were split between sites etc.

Management fee of 131 units will be transferred after posting this.
The fund's own bid is at : .594

Well, I'm interested in buying early, and I'd rather pay passthrough premium then pay monthly fee on CoinBr (fuck that shit).

WEEKLY REPORT

As usual all figures represent the status as of Sunday (yesterday) evening.




Another good week for the fund with growth of 6.27% before management fee.  Growth would have been higher (just under 9%) except LTC rose significantly vs BTC as BTC fell vs USD.

The 100:1 split went through smoothly and I only needed to change three numbers in my spreadsheet (outstanding shares, authorised shares and HWM).  The spread on the market has tightened and a few shares are already changing hands - so clearly the change has benefitted some current investors (who can sell partial old units) and some new ones (who can actually buy now).

We sold all our Ciphermine - so they don't appear in long-term holdings (which I'd said was likely).  With the release of a 3rd batch of shares I judged it better to divest totally of them rather than end up stuck below a ceiling if the third release failed or was slow to sell out (which appears to be the case).  A significant chunk of our high profits this week and last came from these - expect profits to drop back to more normal levels (my expectation is for weekly profits of 1-3% ignoring exchange-rate impact but that should NOT be taken as any sort of guarantee).

Our LTC-ATF.B2 bond is up for moderator approval on BTC-TC now.  Currently it has 4 YES votes and noone has raised any issues/complaints about it so it will hopefully be approved before long.  That will reduce the cost to us of future capital from 0.6% per week to 0.35% (assuming we can sell at that rate).  As has been previously stated I won't be recalling LTC-ATF.B1 - even though it would likely make financial sense for us to do.  I'd always (honestly) given the impression the bond would run for a long time and do not intend to forcibly change that.  I will, however (assuming LTC-ATF.B2 sells decently) offer buy-back at 100% rather than 99% on it as a small incentive for holders to sell back to the fund if/when they choose to divest.

Initially I'll be selling 50 BTC-worth of LTC-ATF.B2 - which can be used for current activities.  I'll then sell a second batch when our next security (a fractional ASICMINER pass-through on LTC-GLobal) is launched - to ease cash--flow for that.  Further sales will be as and when necessary as usual.

For now I'm holding off on releasing dividends - the recent rise in LTC's price vs BTC is by no means solid : occurring as a reaction to BTC falling vs USD.  Last night we clearly saw that when BTC started to make a recovery LTC lost back some of that ground.  As ever I want to avoid the scenario where I dividend out capital then have to sell more units - I'm firmly convinced that diluting  by selling more units is something ALL investors should want avoided and will remain as cautious as I need to be to keep the risk of that to a minimum.

My website's coming along fine - and is on schedule for public release at the end of this week.  There may still be one more weekly reportd published here before they're moved to the site (it'll take me a bit of time to produce a decent template for the financial details).  Links will still be posted here weekly.

Management Fee : 171 units - sounds a lot until you realise its less than the 2 old units I got last week.
Bid at : 0.575 (we're slightly up since the report was frozen yesterday)

Yeah - I don't expect a lot of trade on S.MG yet but down the road it could well become pretty active.

I'll probably end up doing a pass-through on LTC-Global eventually - but it's low in my priority list unless I get multiple requests for it.  I have no intention, at present, of LTC-ATF moving into running pass-throughs on BTC-denominated platforms.

Since you mentioned it, I will likely be offering a S.MG PT sometime soon. I know it won't be popular, but I think it could turn that way eventually.

No pass-through planned to S.MG - I'm not expecting enough market activity to be worth running one.  The S.MG we hold are just for LTC-ATF to make a profit from (we've sold some off at 50%+ profit but aren't really in a rush to sell the rest).

What's your plan with S.MG PT?

WEEKLY REPORT




This was undoubtedly a good week for LTC-ATF : we achieved growth of 8.94% despite LTC rising by 10% vs BTC.  Had the exchange-rate not changed we would have grown by over 10%.

There have been no significant developments to report since my update in the middle of the week.  We've now divested ourselves of most of our CIPHERMINE holdings at a significant profit - some of that won't show up until next week's report.  The price of it rose above what I'd anticipated in the short-term (largely because whoever bought the bulk suppressed supply by not listing his for sale) so I was happy to sell more ours than I'd initially intended.  I'll happily take the profit now rather than over the year it would take with their optimistic projections (or the far longer period it would take with any more realistic model).

My focus over the last days and coming weeks has been on my website.  The name has been chose and domains registered (same name with a bunch of different TLDs) plus hosting acquired.  By the end of this week logo and styling should largely be complete and I'll then spend probably most of a week writing initial content so it launches with enough on it to make it worth visiting.  Once the site is complete I'll move to releasing weekly reports there (though with a link to each one posted here).  Discussion can still continue here - but reports will then be more clearly laid out and it'll be far easier to find past ones.   The website should help LTC-ATF by increasing awareness of our various products (including, of course, future ones that don't yet exist).

The vote on whether to conduct a 100:1 split passed with no votes against.  I will be contacting burnside after making this post and asking him to implement it at his convenience.  He now has a script to it which will modify all market orders - so the order book will NOT need to cleared.  I will, however, be reducing LTC-ATF's own buy-back bid until after it just to be on the safe side (so you'll see a bid for 25 units rather than 100).  Once the split is complete I'll post an update of current NAV/U and also make a news post.

I hope to get our new bond listed for moderator on BTC-TC today.  I'll be looking to sell 50 BTC-worth initially - opportunities for trade have increased so we can use slightly more capital.  There'll likely be more sold in the near future - I'm looking to expand trading to Havelock and also launch a new pass-through operated by LTC-ATF, both of which will require a bit more capital.  With the recent rise in LTC vs BTC there's no problem at all covering that - but it means there'll likely be no dividend for a while.  Dividends are, of course, only good news for those of you who can outperform LTC-ATF in your own trading.  For those of you who prefer dividends based on some principle you'll be able to simulate them by selling off a percentage of your holdings each week - the stock split makes that possible.  If you can sell at above NAV/U (very likely) then it'll work out better for you than if dividends had been paid.

Bid is at 54 (spreadsheet above would suggest lower but we've made profit since the report - even after a firther 10% rise in LTC vs BTC).
2 units are paid as Management fee this week.

Vote passed??
If so, what's the ETA for the split? Thursday? Friday?

Exchange-Rate : .028
Adjusted NAV/U : 53.514
Bid at : 52.4

LTC has risen slightly verus BTC so far this week, but we're still up about 5% on the week so far.

WEEKLY REPORT

Apologies for this being late.  The spreadsheet below DOES represent the status as of Sunday.  I'll make a seperate post updating for the current situation (as it's changed significantly since Sunday - for the better).  Some of the new in this relates to activity THIS week - seemed silly to make a new post for it.  There's quite a bit of news this time (none of it bad) - so hopefully it was worth the wait.




We ended this week with a slight loss of NAV/U (down 1.22%).  This was entirely due to a surge in the exchange-rate of LTC/BTC - if that were discounted then we'd have been looking at growth of just under 3.5%.  As I always say when this happens, it's the sort of bad news I'd like to have every week - a small reduction in number of LTC/unit in return for a massive increase in the purchasing power of those LTC.

CIPHERMINE

This news actually applies to this week - but seems pointless to wait until the next report to mention it.

One of the things I frequently do is buy on IPOs then flip the shares for a profit.  There are a few factors that absolutely MUST be in place for me to do this - and this one met all of the criteria comfortably (sorry for not listing them - but it obviously isn't something I want to give too much education on).

The first batch of 10,000 shares sold out very quickly at 0.67 each - with, as I'd expect, the bulk bought up by one person (7000+).  We were second largest purchaser with 2000 of them.  I flipped some of these at over 1.0 each before the second batch came out at 0.9 each - and replenished stock from that.

Generally when I buy on IPOs my intention is to flip fast for a reasonable markup - and I never mention it at all specifically in news.  On this one I intend to hold a significant chunk longer - as I believe the share price growth has a LONG way to go upwards.  Specifically I'll be looking to get rid of half of them at a reasonable markup (50%+) and hold the rest a bit longer for some more.  Were it not for my caution in terms of exposure per asset I'd have grabbed a LOT more of these.  Expect these to show up on long-term holdings in the next but one report (I won't be certain I'm holding them long-term until probably early next week).

When I post an updated current valuation after this post, about half the growth is from the trade we've already done in these this week - we've had some other decent trades as well.

S.DICE / S.BBET

I've taken the decision to keep our exposure to these low (we need some exposure for the pass-throughs).  There'll be no more end of week reports with 5000-10000 S.DICE held by the fund (above those needed to cover outstanding pass-through units).

WIth S.DICE there's a couple of reasons.  Evorhees, the asset issuer, has appeared increasongly disinterested in the asset and increasingly keen to pass costs on to investors even where it's dubious whether the contract allows it.  Just-Dice has emerged as, in my view, a very credible alternative to S.DICE for gamblers.  S.DICE looks like having a good dividend this month - so I don't expect any sudden massive fall in its value - and it will almost certainly continue to have a good market-share of gambling.  But I no longer have sufficient confidence it its price stability to maintain high exposure to it.  Were we an investment fund then I MAY still hold it - but we aren't and what few longer term investments we hold need to be significantly more stable (and significantly more profitable) than S.DICE.

With S.BBET there's no sign of it gaining any traction.  My view is that it targetted the wrong market from the start - gamblers who don't mind not getting defined odds.  That market's tiny compared to the fixed-odds market.  It may still end up doing well - but I'm not confident enough of that to carry significant exposure.

S.MPOE I have no problems maintaining larger exposure on.  It's price continues to slowly grow and its model is such that profits are inevitable (though a pretty piss-poor ROI).

Just-Dice

This has emerged as a credible competitor to S.DICE - with a model allowing fast investment and divestment.  I will be seeking clarification on withdrawal speed from it.  If withdrawals are near-instant (other than confirms) then I'll use this to hold mobile BTC reserves rather than BTC-E.  That's BTC that I hold ready to move where needed.  We'd still have some BTC on BTC-E - backing LTC buys to rebalance currencies automatically if the exchange-rate moves - but the reserve portion (typically 25-50 BTC) would sit in Just-Dice earning profit.  I would ONLY be depositing there what would otherwise sit inactive (and we HAVE to hold some totally idle BTC to allow fast movement when opportunities present themself). I would NOT be raising bond capital with the purpose of investing in Just-Dice - even if it made slightly more than we paid in interest (we won't know whether it does for a while) the CP risk would be unjustifiable for meagre returns.

This policy will incur no extra debt, generate some small additional profit and distribute our idle-capital risk between BTC-E and Just-Dice rather than having it all focussed on BTC-E.  BTC in Just-Dice would be listed explicitly in weekly reports along with our other cash holdings.

If withdrawals aren't near-instant then this will NOT happen at all : I need to be able to withdraw from there to exchanges in the same way that I can from BTC-E at present.

SHARE-SPLIT

A motion to conduct a 100:1 split on LTC-ATF will be raised shortly after this is posted.  This motion will be for two things to happen:

1.  All outstanding units of LTC-ATF to be multiplied by 100 (the split itself).
2.  The units authorised to be muliplied by 50 - increasing from 2500 to 125000.

Without number 2 we'd be in a situation where there were more units issued than were authorised - and where, without a contract modification, I couldn't correct that in any reasonable time-scale if we ever needed to sell more.

I'm confident I've easily proven that I have no propensity to sell units just for the sake of it - not only is it horrible practice but it harms me personally by diluting my own holdings.  I've only ever sold units when there was a sound case to do so - and will continue doing so (heavy losses, massive fall of LTC vs BTC and massive increase in LTC-denominated investment/trading options remain the scenarios in which it would occur).  By multiplying by 50 rather than 100 I still maintain the ability to sell more if needed - but actually halve the amount (in value) I can sell - so even if you don't trust my judgement I'd be reducing my ability.

No change to the contract is proposed - my ability to authorise (as opposed to issue) more units would be massively reduced but I don't believe that likely to be a problem.

The vote will run until midday Sunday and any split, if approved, would occur AFTER the next weekly report (and AFTER payment of any management fee).  All market orders would be cleared during the process - so no need to be concerned if you have Bids up.


WEBSITE

Work has commenced on a website that will cover all my investments (DMS and well as LTC-ATF) as well as being a general port for cypto-currency securities.  Initially, at least, the majority of content will be written by me.  A professional developer is doing all of the artistic/design/implementation work.  All costs of this are (and will continue to be) paid by me personally.

This is still some time away from launch - at present the focus is on branding/logos/style issues - but my hope is that this will give far greater exposure to LTC-ATF and LTC-ATF's securities (and also to DMS of course).  This, together with the share-split (if approved) willl hopefully add liquidity to LTC-ATF on the market as well as significantly raising the price at which it trades (with its strong historical results it could easily be trading a lot higher than it is - the high unit price and low visibility of LTC securities are, in my view, what has hampered this).  That can only be good news for current investors - as would any increased activity on LTC-ATF's secondary securities (which I fully intend there to be more of).


LTC-ATF.B2

In the next few days I intend to launch a second bond.  This will be on BTC-TC and paying a lower rate than LTC-ATF.B1.  As LTC-ATF can now get listing fees refunded, this becomes feasible.

No further capital would be raised via LTC-ATF.B1 (unless it proved impossible to do so on LTC-ATF.B2) but there would be no forced recall on LTC-ATF.B1 as that would be unfair on investors who bought it at well over face value.  Voluntary sell-backs of LTC-ATF.B1 would gradually reduce the capital raised by it.

The advantages of it are:

1.  Lower capital cost.
2.  Easier maintenance for me - I can leave Asks and Bids up without having to worry about exchange-rate moves causing them to generate a loss for us.

I'd initially only be selling 50 BTC worth (we could use that now) and would issue more, as previously, when we either needed more capital or managed to buy-back LTC-ATF.B1


ODDS AND ENDS

No management fee and HWM remains unchanged (as we made a loss).
Will post Bid in a new post with update for current valuation.

Just a brief note.  You may have noticed LTC has had a fairly significant jump vs BTC.  The drop in NAV/U that caused has been cancelled out almost entirely by trading profits - so NAV/U at present is pretty much unchanged (under half a % change) from where it started the week.  i.e. we've made a bit over 3% so far from trading this week but lost it (more accurately, it isn't reflected in NAV/U) due to the ~25% rise in LTC.

WEEKLY REPORT




A slightly slower week than the previous two but still respectable profits.  NAV/U grew by 3.86% (before management fee) of which 2.36% is estimated to be from trading and the other 1.5% from LTC's small drop vs BTC.

S.DICE

There was some debate on S.DICE recently - with the issuer attempting to get investors to replace the betting pool with funds from the next dividend.  This has now been resolved.  S.DICE is having a very good month so far - both in terms of trunover and also in terms of luck (the house is performing better than expectation - compared to last month where it performed worse).  With the fickle short-term nature of BTC investors I therefore think it likely the price will rise as dividend day gets nearer (unless luck changes for the worse).  We're therefore holding slightly more than usual of them (other times we hold extra its usually with the intent to sell immediately - this time I'm not in such a rush).

S.MG

At the beginning of the week S.MG was IPOed on MPEx - it's highly speculative investment being a games company with hardly any disclosed detail so far.  We took a small position at IPO - I'm expecting a chance to sell for a decent profit at some point, but maybe not for a while.  As it may well be a longish-term investment and is also on CoinBR I've listed it with the pass-throughs.  I'm not planning to run a pass-through to it as I expect very little market activity on it for a while.  It would be pointless me NOT disclosing it anyway - as it's the only stock on MPEx we don't have a pass-through to, so it would be kind of obvious what we had.

ODDS AND ENDS

Holdings on BTC-TC are higher than usual this week.  They are NOT in any of my new DMS securities (I'd love to invest a chunk of LTC-ATF capital in it - but it would be against the spirit of the rules preventing cross-investment into funds/securities from same issuer.  DMS does holds LTC-ATF.B1 but that's debt not equity so not an issue with the spirit of the rules - there's no issues over voting rights or valuation.)

Bid is at 50.45

A management fee of 1 unit is due and will be transferred after I click the Post button.

I'll see about getting the split issue progressed this week - and also something else of benefit to the fund.

It may well make dividend reinvestment easier (right now, people with small holdings can't sell a small part of their holdings - e.g. if someone has 2 shares they can't sell 5% or 10%, they can only sell 0%, 50% or 100%).

But it wouldn't change growth significantly - as LTC-ATF wouldn't be selling new units just because they were cheaper.  The only scenario in which new units would be sold is if more LTC-capital were needed, and that needs 1 or more of the following to happen:

1.  LTC to fall a lot vs BTC, so we need more capital to secure our bonds.
2.  LTC-ATF to make heavy losses trading.
3.  Significantly more opportunities to trade to appear.

I'd like to think #2 is unlikely.  #1 is sort of happening (LTC is steadily falling vs BTC for approaching 2 months now) but at a rate where the profits we make are outweighing its impact.  #3 is slowly happening as well - we'll quite probably sell more bonds soon - but nowhere near fast enough to require selling more units (there just wouldn't be another dividend for a while is all).

If I thought there was any real likelihood of us needing to sell more units of LTC-ATF in the next few months then I wouldn't have paid a dividend last week.

I am for 1:100 split. This might make dividend reinvestment easier.

In theory LTC-ATF growth is exponential (i.e. profit is proportional to NAV), but if dividends are paid regularly it is linear. Dividend reinvestment can make it exponential again if there is some liquidity on market.

Yeah - it was never my intent that I'd miss out on a chunk of the management fee.  That happened because shortly after the start GLBSE closing happened - totally destroying all confidence in the market.  By the time confidence recovered, LTC-ATF had made good profits.  The closure of GLBSE also totally reduced the amount of trading available - meaning there was less scope for expansion by selling more units (raising capital I can't use effectively from investors would be stupid - though a lot of crypto-securities do it).

The other reason why volume of units sold never increased much was the decision by me to raise BTC-denominated capital by selling bonds rather than by selling more LTC-denominated units.  That retained far more of profit for LTC-ATF investors AND allowed them to keep the majority of gains made by LTC's surge vs BTC and USD.  In delivering those benefits to investors I did, however, penalise myself in terms of management fee - but that was a trade-off I accepted (as I hold over half of units of LTC-ATF anyway - so the benefit I gained on those far outwieghed a small loss in my effective management fee).

And yes - on reflection I agree that if a split is done a 100:1 one would make more sense, i navoiding the need for another one down the line.

Have updated spreadsheet for the dividend etc.  Right now status is:

Exchange-rate : .0234
Adjusted NAV/U : 49.902
Bid at : 48.9

I'm not a share holder, largely because there are no shares for sale. A lowest ask of almost 100% above NAV/U is just silly. I'm not sure why you think that a split would in any way entice these people to part with their shares if they are unwilling to do so at all. However, if you are considering a plit, a 1:100 sounds more reasonable, otherwise you'd just be back in the same situation in a year or so.

I don't care, in general, that the manager receives a higher payment when that higher payment is clearly indicated by the contract and has been kept down by artificial means. The intent of the contract is clear but its lettering may not have taken into account the low liquidity and high prices.

.b

WEEKLY REPORT

Report represents status as of the evening of 9th June.




After the great start to the week we didn't go anywhere - some more profit was made trading but LTC rising vs BTC cancelled that out.  This is the first week in quite a while that LTC has ended higher vs BTC than it started.  Interestingly the rise was caused by arbitrage of a fall in BTC vs USD - but the gains (by LTC) were kept when BTC rose back up.

We ended the week with 4.53% - with an estimated  5.69% growth from trading and the difference being due to LTC rising vs BTC.

DIVIDEND PAYMENT

With LTC holding nicely vs BTC - and two weeks in a row of solid profit I'm issuing a dividend of 5 LTC per share immediately after posting this report (part of the reason for the report being slightly later than usual was that I wanted to make sure LTC didn't go into dive when BTC recovered 0 if it had then there'd be no dividend).  I'm erring on the side of caution here - we could easily afford a 10 LTC dividend without impacting our activities - but, as before, I do NOT want to pay dividends then have to sell more shares if LTC drops rapidly.

DEPRIVED MINING SPECULATION

Some of you may have noticed that I've launched three new securities - and wonder why they aren't being run by LTC-ATF.  There's two reasons for this:

1.  There was no guarantee of profit from running them - if noone wanted to buy PURCHASE then potentially a loss of up to 15 BTC could be realised.
2.  LTC-ATF has nothing to bring to the table in managing them.  With the pass-throughs, issuing them by LTC-ATF gave the benefit of capital in place.  The new securities required no capital at all (other than the 15 BTC for listing fees).

Interaction between LTC-ATF and these new securities will be minimal.  As shares in the new securities DO represent equity (they own rights to assets) my interpretation of the SPIRIT of LTC-Global rules is that LTC-ATF cannot trade or hold them (by the letter of the rules we could).  In the other direction it's fine for the new assets to hold LTC-ATF.B1 (by the letter it's definitely clear - in spirit it's also fine as LTC-ATF.B1 is debt not equity and the rules were designed to prevent equity holdings).

POSSIBLE SPLIT OF LTC-ATF SHARES

This is an issue which has been raised a few times with me (by PM).  It's been raised again in the last week - so I'll discuss it here.

At present there's a significant barrier to ownership of LTC-ATF units - the price.  Not only is it a lot higher (in LTC) than when the fund started (even after dividends) it's now massively higher if viewed in either BTC or USD.  A split (of say 10:1) would reduce this barrier to entry and (in theoiry at least) increase liquidity and narrow the spread - in particular encouraging Bids above the fund's own buy-back offers.

I've held back from suggesting this in the past- as I MUST be clear that there is a not insignifcant financial benefit to me personally should a split occur.  If anyone isn't clear what a split is - in a 10:1 split every unit you hold of LTC-ATF would become 10 units and the NAV/U would drop to 1/10th current value - leaving you with exactly same value of holdings, but able to buy or sell in smaller quantities than is previously the case.  The benefit to me personally is that my management fee is paid in units - a split would mean I lost less on this being rounded down to the nearest whole unit (for example this week I'd receive 12 of the new units instead of the 1 old unit I'll currently receive - meaning 20% more management fee).

You may or may not believe me when I say that is NOT the reason for me suggesting it - but you MUST be aware that there IS a benefit for me (and a loss for everyone else) in that respect.  If you sell your units then that MAY be compensated for by increased liquidity at the bid side - from people who previously couldn't afford to bid doing so (and possibly causing over-bidding by others).

I'd be interested in feed-back on this - it would definitely help smaller investors not in.  It would help existing ivnestors who wanted to sell less than 1 unit.  It would increase liquidity in general.  But does that out-weigh the fact that effective management would increase?  If there's no clear opposition then I'll put it up for a vote - if that happens then I'll vote NO myself if more than 10% of units vote NO.  As always I won't push through ANY motion if there's any significant opposition.

No change to the contract would be needed - only other thing which would happen is I'd use my existing right to authorise new units so as to get them above the new total outstanding.

ODDS AND ENDS

Market will be briefly closed and orders cleared prior to paying the dividend - so as the existing bids don't end up being a higher markup to the post-dividend NAV/U than purchasers intended.

Management fee of 1 unit (rounded down from 1.24) will be transferred after posting this but before paying the dividend.

HWM will be set to the adjusted NAV/U in the above report minus 5 LTC.  NAV/U post-dividend will also be that.

usagi, you seriously do not sound like a sane person. Can you please stop spamming this thread? I don't think you'll get anything from it, more people will see that you aren't sane. Seek help.

Deprived, on the other hand, always does things quite professionally... That's rare in bitcoin world now.

Is that why you delete posts containing a view contrary to your own delusions?

]quote author="Bitcoin Forum"]
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

]quote]Please change the title of this thread, it is exactly the same as my own.

I've said before that you can say whatever you want, just don't troll in my threads.

Please differentiate it to avoid confusion.]/quote]
]/quote]


The discussion is relevant because it shows you are a hypocrite and a liar and anyone who invests in your securities should be warned. In your latest lie, you turn a requirement for a request to access the books into a horror story where I am charging people money and attempting to facilitate insider trading. Are you on drugs, or are you intentionally committing malicious criminal libel?

You have been harassing me for over 10 months. You lie, and lie, and lie. You blow smoke. You attempt to confuse people, and you are an asshole about it the whole way through. People have a right to know what kind of person you are before they invest with you.