Topic: [LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF - page 5. (Read 25457 times)

WEEKLY REPORT




We had overall growth this week of 7.73% with the bulk of it (over 6%) from trading with the last 1.5% resulting from a small decline in LTC vs BTC.  That was sufficient to take us past our previous HWM and into new (price) territory.

We repurchased a few thousand bonds on request this week - but sold enough afterwards to get us back to around where we were at the start of the week.  At present my expectation is to sell more into orders up to around 180 BTC face-value total.  This is down slightly on what I'd expected to need in last week's report - as we've stopped trading a few securities.

Profits this week were boosted a bit (compared to where they'd otherwise have been) from some activity on S.DICE.  There was a bit of a panic about it mid-week when the domain for it appeared to expire.  Bets continued to be processed (the website isn't needed for that) and all seems well again with it.  A few people panic-sold very cheaply which we obviously took full advantage of.  This has left us with more cash on CoinBR than usual - which will be corrected this week.

Trading has become very slow in the latter half of the week - with BTC recovering (and dragging LTC up vs USD with it) there's been the usual slow-down of people investing in securities as they pile into the actual currencies.  I'm by no means convinced of the wisdom of that strategy but it definitely happens.

Management fee of 1 unit will be transferred shortly (much lower than would be usual for ~8% growth due to management fee only being paid on the excess over previous HWM).
Bid at : 64.0

Learn to read. I said I'd allow your accusations in my thread once, so they can be answered. It's the whole "I will pretend I can't read" BS that I won't allow (like what you just posted).

Not sure what problem it is you think I have with my security BTW.  Sure - silver didn't get back to the HWM we started with - but so what?  We made a decent profit nearly getting back to where we were before mtgoxusd's massive rise vs BTC.  Which means a much higher dollar value.

NAV/U is still almost exactly same as at last report (well, up 15%) - despite silver falling a fair bit.  So we've made 20% or so trading this week so far which will probably be paid out to shareholders with another massive distribution payment this friday. There's nothing wrong, nothing broken and nothing to fix.

The reason I don't post in moderated threads is ... wait for it .. because they're moderated and my effort is likely to be wasted by the post being deleted.  There's nothing brave about posting in a moderated thread to make it worthy of a dare.

Not sure what problem it is you think I have with my security BTW.  Sure - I didn't get back to the HWM last week - but so what?  We made a decent profit nearly getting back to where we were before LTC's massive rise vs BTC.  Which means same LTC value and a much higher BTC one.

NAV/U is still almost exactly same as at last report (down 0.01%) - despite LTC rising a fair bit.  So we've made 2% or so trading this week so far which has been wiped out by exchange-rate rise.  Nothing I can do about that - nor am I unhappy about it.  As the fund has explicit exposure to BTC of around 15% that sort of thing is inevitable.  There's nothing wrong, nothing broken and nothing to fix.

No, YOU read the fucking contract, and stop wasting my time.


Try me. I will allow your bullshit ONCE, where it will be ANSWERED.

The reason I made a moderated thread is precisely because I am not going to tolerate your bullshit anymore. You are the type of idiotic, hypocritical liar that demands I release my books despite them being public for months and updated daily -- while at the same time refusing to release your own books. And, trying to stick it to me by stealing (yes, stealing) access to my own company's records and posting them in full knowledge it was against company policy.

The truth is you wouldn't DARE post an accusation in a moderated thread because you know you are full of shit.

Wow, deprived is so mad he's trolling the securities forum saying I am a liar. Deprived, you're pathetic. Why don't you go fix your own problems in your own security before you launch random, off-topic threads in the securities forum?

Thanks for confirming it wasn't me (not that it would have mattered even if it was me - I can sell mine back same as anyone else).  Would have maybe preferred if you hadn't as it's always amusing to read usagi's deluded accusations when I'm a bit bored.

You got back into BTC better than me.  Other than the 35 BTC I used to buy your bonds (which was my hedge against the chance BTC would just rise straight up fast) I only got in at about 58 (was out when the bottom was hit).  Sold at 74 then got back in at 64.  Looking like might be time to sell again soon.

To be clear: the BTC trading I refer to above has nothing to do with the fund - I don't do currency-trading on BTC/USD for the fund (fund never holds USD other than for a second when I do the occasional manual arbitrage on BTC-E  - but haven't done that for ages as too many bots doing it now).

The person selling the bonds back to Deprived and the fund was me.

I am very grateful he made himself available quickly, and made good on fulfilling their value with no hiccups whatsoever.

This enabled me to sell the BTC at market rate and buy during the dip to 51 last night, just as planned.

As I told Deprived, his assets are probably my favorite in all of cryptocoin investing, and I WILL be back for more. I just wanted to have as much loose btc as possible to play against the current volatility.

You really are full of shit.

An investor asked to sell back a bunch of bonds yesterday.

I bought 3500 from him personally and the fund bought back 2200-odd.  I don't have the right to release his identity to you without his agreement.

The 2200 odd were paid for by me transferring BTC to him on BTC.CO (at 99% of face value as per the contract).  The 3500 I bought personally were paid for by a BTC transfer from me to an address he provided.

2013-04-15 21:42:03    Internal Transfer To XXXXXX
txid: TXFR-Deprived-1366058523    22.28490000 BTC

There's the transaction, with recipient's name blacked out.  Complete with transaction ID.  Feel free to ask burnside if that transaction exists and matches in time 2200-odd shares being sent back by someone with the same account name on LTC.CO (he actually returned to my personal account by mistake and I promptly sent them on to the issuing account).

Incidentally, even someone as retarded as yourself should have realised that your claim that of me "issuing yourself 2,218 shares when it was time to pay the dividend and then cancelling them without placing a market order to buy them back." wasn't correct.  You just needed to look at the number of shares outstanding at time of each dividend and now.  And it would have been apparent that what happened was someone sold back.  Now that COULD have been me - but as it happens it wasn't.  And if it had been - so what.

READ THE FUCKING CONTRACT.

ANY investor can just send shares to me without placing a market order.  And I'll sell the relevant quantity of BTC and transfer them 99% of the received LTC.  It's in the contract.

Your level of retardedness is reaching new levels - which is one hell of an achievement.

I'm not that interested in wasting my time discussing your various failed/failing "businesses" in this thread.  If you ever have an unopened unmoderated thread about them we can continue the discussion there.  I'm assuming if I posted in your silver thread explaining how what you do doesn't match the contract my post would just get moderated.  If I'm feeling bored and have some spare time I'll make a seperate discussion thread for it one day.

I will however respond to the most obvious and blatant lie in a thread of its own - as it deserves a bit more publicity than it would get here.

It's a lie because you are not telling the truth. I did not delete posts germaine to outstanding contracts or the CPA liquidity loan. I also remained active and I posted during the timeframe where I was deleting my other posts. That is why it's a lie -- because you lied.


It's a lie because you said "won't respond (locked the thread)". Here you re-arrange the order in which you give your excuse, dealing with "(locked the thread)" as if it were a sole statement of fact. It was not, you used the fact that I locked my thread to show that I was refusing to respond. Your lie is even more ridiculous due to the fact that the thread in question was locked after giving a response to your puerile accusations. You were fully aware of the fact I was responding. you just decided to lie about it.


Sorry, not up to date or not providing updates? Sure, there's some out of date info in the thread. I'm not a machine. But you didn't say that, you said I "won't provide updated information," -- in short, you lied.


No, this is a load of horseshit. You are making it sound like there is a line of angry shareholders demanding payment. Sorry jack, that's a lie. I've made it very clear for months that I had not wished to shut down BMF and some of my other companies. You in particular suggested a liquidation auction which I did on the condition that you said you thought it would help me get listed. Well it didn't, and the companies still have assets. I've made it very clear how we will proceed with the companies. You are not running my companies. I don't have to pay anyone anything. I least of all have to buy anything back. Please show me where it states in my contract that I am forced to buy back or pay anything out to shareholders. Go ahead, the posts were un-deleted with my permission.


Done. See the final claims thread esp. the spreadsheets showing the payment of all funds refunded by BFL to shareholders.
There is still one BFL single for which BFL has ignored multiple requests to provide a shipping number. I think they walked off with it. Now it's your turn, please release the holdings of your company or stop running a LTC-GLOBAL moderated fund. I'm sure your shareholders would love to know more about how you committed securities fraud by issuing yourself 2,218 shares when it was time to pay the dividend and then cancelling them without placing a market order to buy them back. I'm sure you will claim they were sold back to the fund. Okay then, show us the books.

Oh, you don't want to show us the books? Well then don't ask me to show you my books either. You're a hypocritical liar. I published the books for BMF and they were updated almost every single day for months. Who do you think you are to ask me to publish my books like I have been hiding something? You're the one who refuses to publish his books.


Another lie. It was insured by CPA. There's a big difference. What I actually said has been posted on the forums since pretty much November.


Who are you to say what my companies are worth? If you have any sort of weight here at all, then get my securities listed like you said you would try to help me do if I ran an asset liquidation auction.


You are clueless. You have no idea what CPA's priorities are, what assets it holds/held, or anything. I've been in contact with the relevant people (for the most part). You? You're a tard, you know nothing because you are not involved in any of what we are doing. That is a fact. Here's a big hint. If CPA owed someone on a contract they signed, CPA's first priority would be to pay out on that contract, not liquidate it's assets and pay shareholders. And their second priority would be fufilling any other terms of their contracts before randomly liquidating all assets and paying out to shareholders. Seriously, are you retarded? Stop telling me how to run my companies.


You need to read our audited and approved financial reports and stop being a dink.


Done, thanks. You can get back to managing your own fund now. It has serious problems. You can't even beat your own HWM so I would suggest you go look after your own chickens before trying to tell me how to run my cattle ranch.

WEEKLY REPORT




Not much change in the NAV/U since my previous post - we made a few percent more trading profit but LTC rose over 20% vs BTC and pretty much cancelled that out.  So we haven't quite got back to the previous HWM yet (we're still about 3% or so below it).  We ended the week with 8.16% growth with LTC only falling slightly vs BTC over the week as whole - so trading profits were over 7%.  A very good week in my opinion.

We're back to 85% cash - having dropped as low as 60% during the week.  The percentage of cash we have at the time of a report should not be misinterpreted as meaning we don't actually use the rest of the capital.  The easiest site to show this isn't the case on is actually Bitfunder - as it's very easy to get an estimate of total trade volume there.  This report shows we only have 14.6 BTC worth of securities on Bitfunder and 88 BTC in cash - but how much do we actually trade there in a week?  Well, Bitfunder fees are charged based on your volume of sales in the last 60 days - the more you sell the lower the rate you get.  Here's our stats:

Pricing tier's are by last 60 day sales.
This period you have sold: ฿350 worth.
Bonus Discounts: 0.00%
Actual Trading Fee: 0.80%

We need 500 BTC of sales in last 60 days to drop to next tier.  But from this we can estimate what we sell on average - and it's 350/60 or slightly under 6 BTC worth of sales per day.  So in a week we, on average, have been selling about 40 BTC worth of shares (and obviously we have to buy those as well - which is maybe 30 BTC worth of buys).  And our volume is increasing - at the start of the month our average for last 60 days was almost exactly 300.  So although we currently only hold 14.6 BTC of securities we can estimate we've actually bought and sold around three times that much during the week.  Which hopefully is a useful illustration of how misleading it can be if you look at the spreadsheet and then start interpreting the results as if we were an investment fund rather than a trading fund.

If LTC stays around current range and BTC settles down a bit (i.e. Gox starts actually working for more than a few hours at a time) then I'll probably release some more bonds this week.  We've been tight on liqudity on specific sites at times - the worst instance being running out of BTC on BTC-E after one of the sales back to the fund.  Why do we need BTC on BTC-E when that happens?  Because when someone sells back to the fund that reduces our LTC - and hence the percentage of the fund that is in LTC.  I then buy LTC on BTC-E to get us back to around the 15% LTC mark (I tend to act when it dips below 12% or gos over 18%).  If I don't rebalance immediately then we end up gambling on the exchange-rate with the funds that should have been converted - and can end up either making a significant profit or loss on the repurchase of the units.  Which isn't what I want to do.  In this particular instance I had funds of my own on BTC-E at the time - so just lent 20 BTC to the fund whilst I waited for funds to arrive there from elsewhere.

I'm not sure yet just how many bonds I'll sell - but we won't go over the 200 BTC face-value mark this week unless something unforeseen occurs (like a whole bunch of new securities being released somewhere).  I have no intention of issuing new units this week - that won't change unless LTC falls under .015 vs BTC (which is where I'd start considering it - though it would have to go a fair bit lower than that for there to be any great need to sell more units).

Why do I try to keep us at 15% BTC exposure?  Well that's actually two questions in one - here's the answer to both.  I'll assume everyone already knows we have to keep SOME BTC exposure to ensure the safety of our bondholders in the event of a collapse in the LTC price.

Why do we keep a fixed percent?  I try to keep a fixed percent so investors (including myself) can plan the exposure of their own investment portfolio KNOWING that they can estimate the extent to which LTC-ATF value will be impacted by sharp changes in the exchange-rate.  If I let the rato fluctuate (for example keeping us near the minimum to keep bond-holders happy) then it would be very hard to work out what BTC exposure LTC-ATF had after any change in the exchange-rate.  As it stands, investors can be confident that LTC-ATF will always stay in the vicinity of 15% BTC exposure - and that LTC doubling vs BTC will mean somewher in the area of a 10% fall in LTC-ATF NAV/U and LTC halving vs BTC a 10% rise.

Why is the fixed percent 15% rather than, say 10% or 20%?  When managing our BTC exposure there's three main requirements I face:

1.  That exposure remains fairly constant.
2.  That bond-holders are always protected in line with their contract.
3.  That I minimise our exposure without breaking points 1 and 2.

15% happens to be the lowest round number that meets all those requirements.  If I set the target any lower then, in the event of LTC falling a lot, I'd end up unable to keep us at 15% exposure without breaking our commitment to bondholders BEFORE we even reached the point at which we hit the requirement to recall bonds or issue new units.  If I set the target any higher then we'd be gaining unnecessary exposure.  I won't bother running through the math - but it's pretty simple to do if anyone wants to check it out.

As always, if anyone has any questions about why I do things the way I do - or why seemingly random values set by me are where they are (as with the 15%) then feel free to ask.

No management fee this week - as we haven't yet got back over the old HWM.

Exchange-rate : 0.02
NAV/U : 61.617
Bid : 60 (lower if I'm AFK)

NAV/U is likely slightly wrong - Bitfunder is down for maintenance at present so can't check our holdings there.  No big deal as this isn't an end of week report.

It's turning into a respectable week - we're up just over 8% with abouth alf that from trading and the other half resulting from LTC's drop against BTC.  LTC has been incredibly stable vs BTC around hte 0.02 area for the last day or two - with the LTC/USD rate swinging around wildly in time with the BTC/USD one.  That's not too surprising - as the volume traded on LTC/USD is generally a LOT lower than on LTC/BTC, so moves in BTC/USD tend to get arbitraged into the LTC/USD rate with a much smaller impact on the LTC/BTC one.

The fall in LTC/USD has caused trading to resume a bit on LTC-Global - so some of the securities I'd had to mark down heavily in the last weeks have started selling again.  Some are being sold for less than we bought them for (inevitable with USD-valued securities - even at current price of $1.5, LTC is still a lot higher than it was when they were bought) but at least they're selling for more than we have them on the books for.  And some are selling for an actual profit (a few for very good profits).

Non-LTC trading has been going well on both Bitfunder and BTC.CO (with a bit from trading S.DICE/S.BBET on CoinBR as well).

If LTC stays where it is then it'll be close whether we manage to totally recover last week's losses.  But if we can get anywhere near - with LTC still over double what it was 2 weeks back - then I'll be happy.  Of course LTC will probably make its next big move before the end of week (in which direction I have absolutely no clue - I could make a case for either direction) and that will end up having a large say in where we end up.

19 units have been sold back to the fund.  The second 10 were sold back by me (at about 57-59 from memory) however about an hour later I personally bought 10 units at 75 off the market.  That may seem strange behaviour but there's a method in my madness:

I had no personal holdings on BTC-E at the time (they were elsewhere making me profit) - and BTC was just going into a crazy spell.
So I sold back 10 units on LTC-Global then traded the LTC with the fund for LTC on BTC-E (I use a seperate account there, as well as on LTC-GLobal, but DO do swaps with the fund - so as to minimise delays in transfers and also avoid the 0.5 LTC withdrawal fee on BTC-E).
I then used those funds to trade an easy profit on BTC-E (not something I could do with the fund - as it involved taking on a USD position which I never do with the fund unless for an instant arbitrage opportunity).
I then swapped 750 LTC back via the fund to LTC-GLobal and bought the 10 shares on the market - leaving me with a few hundred LTC profit.

So everyone won out of it:

I ended up with same LTC-ATF shares but a few hundred extra LTC.
The seller got their units bought at 20-25% over NAV/U.
The fund got to buy back 10 units reducing capital (which, with the rate stable, is what we want to do) meaning profits get shares over less units - so more gain/week for remaining investors.

In general I keep private funds and LTC-ATF funds seperate - I have my own private accounts on LTC-GLobal and BTC-E and have never done private trades (or held balances) on the other sites we trade on.  There are only two areas in which they sometimes overlap:

1.  Trades - such as above.  There's no confusion on these at all.  I send (e.g.) 750 LTC from LTC-ATF to my personal account on LTC-GLobal then (or other way round - order obviously doesn't matter) move 750 LTC using a BTC-E code between accounts in the opposite direction on BTC.E.  I do these for the benefit of either party (myself or the fund).

2.  Liquidity loans.  These only ever occur very short-term and only ever happen with me lending funds to LTC-ATF, not the other way round.  These aren't because LTC-ATF has run out of funds, just because the funds are in the wrong place and can't be moved quickly.  LTC-ATF rebalances funds on BTC-E to maintain the correct ratio of LTC:BTC.  If the rate moves fast then occasionally the fund can end up without sufficient funds of the right denomination to convert.  This can also happen if someone sells back a bunch of shares or if we sell a large amount in a pass-through.  In that situation, if I have funds of my own sitting idle on BTC-E, I'll lend a bunch to the fund so the fund can convert whilst waiting for its own funds to arrive from wherever (Bitfunder is only quick source - and that's an hour - BTC.CO/LTC-Global/CoinBR all need manual approval for the sort of amounts I usually move nowadays).  That transfer is done by 0-cost BTC-E code and repaid (with no interest of course) as soon as the fund's own coins arrive.

I'd hope everyone agrees that neither of the above two scenarios is at all dodgy or against the interests of the fund (the 1st is sometimes benefical - the 2nd always beneficial as it allows the fund to lock in a rate removing exposure to exchange-rate movements).  Right now there's no chance of me doing #2 as all the personal funds I had on BTC-E were converted to fiat when BTC was at 200+ and are making profit elsewhere (though will be moving some back into BTC/LTC today probably).

Well dealing with the 4 statements in order:

1.  Deleted all posts.  TRUE - after GLBSE vanished you deleted the vast majority of ALL your posts not just BMF ones.  How is that a lie?
2.  Locking thread.  TRUE - you admit so yourself.  That you did it because you didn't want to reply to what you viewed as me trolling is the reason WHY it's locked not evidence of it NOT being locked.
3.  Won't provide updated information.  TRUE.  My post that you believe was trolling pointed out that, contrary to your previous post, the information in OP was NOT up to date.  Have you updated it? No.
4.  Refuses to pay out to shareholders.  TRUE.  You HAD stated you weren't going to pay out more funds until your securities were approved for trading.  That appears to have been deleted from your contract on BTC.CO now.

What do I want you to do?  Pretty simple:

BMF:  Produce a proper accounting of what happened to all assets, ESPECIALLY the mining hardware and the funds raised from them.  If there's still significant assets left then, with proper info on what assets the shares have, I don't personally object to BMF being traded provided you dividend out further funds as they're received.  Right now I (and others) believe there's some very dubious crap going on over the hardware - and that some hardware listed as belonging to the company before GLBSE shutdown has vanished without trace.

NYAN.A: You promised to repay this in full personally.  Now you seem to want to weasel out of this. I wouldn't personally hold you to that promise (provided you acknowledge no longer keeping it) but if you don't intend to pay in full then you need to properly account for its assets.  And that also gos for whatever assets CPA and NYAN had - as those should go to NYAN.A investors.

NYAN.B/C: These have zero value - and should either be closed or left dormant indefinitely (in case obsi evr shows up).

NYAN/CPA: CPA had some assets - specifically BMF shares at least. Proceeds from this need to go to NYAN.A unless you're honouring your previous promise to repay NYAN.A in full.  Not sure if Nyan had assets or not.  If not then no reason to keep it open.  If it did then they should go to Nyan.A (and nyan.b if any overflow - unlikely) then it should be closed down.

TU.SILVER: You need to decide what it actually is and amend contract to reflect that.  If only a minority of the price of shares is silver then it is NOT a silver shop and any claim that is is just a plain lie.  If it's an investment fund that guarantees holding at least 1 unit of silver per share then cool - make that plain the contract - and stop lieing about it being in any way an economical or competitive way to purchase silver.

KONGZI: No issues with this one - other than that you're yet again asking for new investment without having properly closed down the old ones.

Basically sort out the mess on the old companies and decide what the new one is and stick to it (and have a contract that reflects what it IS not what is was, presumably, originally intended to be).  All the time you leave BMF/NYAN.A lieing around festering for no reason and with no clear accounting you can rely on me regularly raising it.  If you look at my last post in your TU.SILVER thread I believe I have a slightly less hostile than usual explanation there of what the problem is with what you're trying to do - selling options on shares than are 75% effectively just BTC is near worthless and dishonest when you portray them as being options on silver.

Fine, it's your agenda. What do you want me to do for you to stop your agenda? I asked you what you want me to do, not what think I did to deserve it. There's plenty of things you think I might have done to deserve it. For example, you might be connected to the R.M-A crowd who likes to shit on me because I like Kung Fu more than MMA. So go ahead and explain yourself, and let us all know what I need to do for you to stop.

With TU.SILVER for example. You've been told over and over to contact DeaDTerra who oversees our finances. But you have not done this. So it's obvious you haven't bothered to do any due diligence at all -- your comments are not made out of honesty -- but to cause financial damage to me and my companies. Example:


The books are fine, Deprived, it's you -- you're wrong. You're wrong on pretty much everything you say about me and my companies, but you won't stop and you won't check your facts.

So I want to know what you want me to do here, for you to stop your agenda.

Deprived, I am really sick of your continuous stream of lies and trolls regarding me and my businesses. It's time you start doing some research before running your mouth and spouting lies like we have refused to make payments from BMF. You've lost ALL your credibility on this and I am asking you, seriously, what do you want me to do? It's obvious to pretty much everyone you are lying about me, and that you're not going to stop. If you are not going to tell me what you want, would you prefer I start responding to your trolls here in your asset thread? Perahaps your shareholders would appreciate knowing the obvious kinds of lies you are trolling people's threads with?

For example in the Ian bakewell thread, why did you state that



All four of the above statements are complete fabrications you are fully aware of, especially as the thread was locked due to your own trolling on our April 4th update. Seriously, explain yourself. This is not logical. You need to stop trolling the Ian bakewell thread because you are derailing a serious investigation.

I am late for work and don't have time to respond to your other ridiculous lies, I'll just post this and ask you what you want me to do specifically to get you to stop lying about me, and see what you have to say.

Not unless LTC falls back a lot further vs BTC.  The rise in LTC vs BTC meant our LTC-Denominated cash/assets increased massively in BTC value - so even after buying a back of units we're still very safely covering our bond exposure (bonds currently equal under 40% of NAV - with 150% the maximum we're allowed).  When that gets over about 75% is when I'd think about selling more units - which would need LTC falling to fairly near .01 vs BTC.  At present it looks like LTC may manage to stay well above that - at least for a while - though I still expect it to crash back below that eventually.  But if it delays crashing back then we may well have made enough profit by then not to need to sell more units anyway.

On a seperate point there's an absolute howler of a mistake in this week's spreadsheet.

If you look at the LTC cash on LTC-GLobal it says 8048 LTC then reports that as being worth 8100 BTC!  Obviously what happened is that at some point I typed the LTC balance into the BTC-value field and never noticed.  The mistake has no ramifications other than being embarassing - the BTC-value there isn't used in any calculations of significance and doesn't impact on the final NAV.  If (and it HAS happened) I enter a wrong figure into a cell that actually matters then I tend to notice it immediately as it causes a massive unexpected move in NAV/U - which lets me know I just made a cockup.

Before submitting the report one of things I do is check all holdings/balances match ones on the actual sites - that doesn't, of course, mean I'll notice changes in values that are calculated for display only and not otherwise used.

Thanks for the update, any plans to put some LTC-ATF up for sale again?

WEEKLY REPORT




I'm sure it will come as no surprise that we made a loss this week.  LTC rose massively vs BTC before moving back down but has ended the week (at least at the point when I prepared this) at .00258.  That's still nearly three times what it was at last week.

We've finished up with a 10.8% reduction in NAV/U (at one stage during the week we were at -20%).  Typically I'd expect a doubling of exchange-rate to result in a drop of NAV/U of around 10-12%.  That we've kept the drop down to 10.8% indicates some reasonable trading profits.  In fact trading profits were pretty good - it's hard to be exact but I'd guess around 10-12% before writing down prices.  Because the exchange-rate movement was so extreme it managed to hit with a double-whammy.  Not only did we lose value on the BTC part of our portfolio but a lot of our LTC-denominated investments had to be significantly written down.

Of course it's not all bad news.  The value of our units if expressed in BTC or USD rose enormously.  Whilst the units ARE denominated in LTC and DID make a loss I'm pretty confident most investors would happily take a 10% or so hair-cut on unit value in LTC in return for LTC trebling vs BTC and quadrupling or more vs USD.  A month of it doing that every week and anyone holding a decent number of units would never need to work again.

ZigGap is proceeding largely as predicted last week.  The asset issuer showed up, gave a totally unconvincing and vague explanation plus the obligatory assurance that everything would be OK.  Reaction in the market wasn't as good as I'd hoped - but it WAS a pretty piss-poor explanation which only the most blinkered of optimists would take seriously.  It does actually appear like the issuer may well try to struggle on - presumably having begged, borrowed or stole some cash from somewhere.  We picked up a nice bunch more of the shares absolutely dirt cheap and have since since sold a fair few at more than we paid.  So at the end of the week we own more shares with a total book value significantly lower than it was last week AND have taken some profit from it.  Our holdings there are now cheap enough that it's no longer a significant issue.  I haven't marked them down further (just averaged cost as usual) as right now I could sell them into Bids for more than they're on the books for anyway - but I'm holding off as I'm confident an opportunity to sell for more will show up at some point.

This week also saw significant sale of unit back to the fund - with a good chunk of them being my own.  Speaking for myself I sold to lock in exchange-rate gains - with the intent to buy back into the fund if necessary (i.e. if the rate plunged back down).  That works out well for both the fund and myself if it happens - I get good profit from exchange-rate movement and the fund gets to buy shares off me then sell them back at a pretty hefty markup.  When the rate was high the fund obviously didn't need the capital.  In fact there's still absolutely need for the fund to resell any of the units that were sold back.  The exchange-rate would need to drop to close to 0.01 before I'd have to start selling the units again.

If anyone else wants to sell units please feel free to do so : if the exchange-rate stays where it is I'd love to see another 50-60 units sold back and would sell back half of those myself if someone else sells back the rest (I'd like to keep my personal holding at around 50% of all units).

Looking ahead, I see a pretty dry period for us on LTC-Global.  The price of nearly all securities there has crashed.  There's three seperate, but linked, reasons for this:

1.  Most shares are effectively fully or largely valued in either BTC or USD.  So LTC's rise in exchange-rates has naturally lowered their price.  That means even if the same volume of shares changes hands the volume of LTC traded will be much smaller.
2.  The sharp price in value of lTC has, in my view, prompted a change in the view-point of many investors.  Suddenly they're thinking of it as "money" rather than as "LTC".  And that means they're more careful/cautious about investing it.
3.  There's been dodgy goings on and shoddy/non-existent accounting in a number of securities (that's not an exclusive to LTC-GLobal).  THis is in part due to the rise in LTC/BTC vs USD - whereby those who borrowed denominated in Crypto to spend in Fiat are a little bit screwed when it comes time to repay.

With the LTC exchange-rate madness I've had little time recently to work on our software.  I'll try to put some time aside for this week - and also for the other new projects I have lined up for us.

Management fee of 0 units is due this week.  HWM stays as it was - no management fee for me until I get NAV/U back over where it was at the start of this week.
WIll check exchange-rate and put up a suitable Bid after posting this.

Well it's pretty crazy at the moment - with LTC now at over 0.04 vs BTC and at over $4.

I've sold back 30 more of my shares - and someone else sold back 20.  Mine has been converted to BTC - and will buy back in if necessary (at 25% markup to a much higher NAV/U than I sold at) should (as I expect) LTC crash right back down.  It may well rise a bunch further before final collapse - but I can't see this price (or anything near it) being sustainable at present.  If I'm wrong then I just lost out on some equity in the fund (plus on further growth of LTC).

I still won over half the fund.  I don't plan to sell any more unless LTC hits about $10 when I'd sell another small batch (and STILL have ~50% of the fund).

With this big rise we're obviously not short of backing for our bonds (at present bonds are 20% of NAV/U and our safe limit is 150%).  Main impact of the sell-backs (mine and others) is to reduce our LTC cash position - which is no big deal when we don't use it.  It doesn't impact LTC position per share - as after any sell-back I readjust to a 15% holdings in BTC position.  Those adjustments (which I do even without buybacks) mean we DO take more NAV/U loss when LTC rises (and more profit when it falls) than you may expect from a 15% BTC position.  Here's why:

Consider if we start with 15% assets BTC and LTC doubles.  First instinct is to think we lose 7.5% of NAV/U (as the 15% in BTC loses half its value) - but in fact we lose more.  That's because at various times during that currency movement I'll be adjusting our currency balance to get us back to 15% BTC again.  That increases our NAV/U change when movement is sustained in one direction - especially when it's slow and steady.  I can't just leave the balance alone - or no investor would ever be able to estimate what exposure they had to BTC.  Plus we could end up not properly covering bonds (the balance changes due to trading as well as from exchange-rate movement of course).

I would estimate that if LTC doubles vs BTC we'll usually lose somewhere in the 10-12% of NAV area before mitigation from trading.  WHere the change is sudden and huge that will lower (as I don't have a chance to rebalance).

RIght now with LTC at .042 vs BTC (more than 4 times what it was at start of week) we're at about 51.15 NAV/U - which is a bit under 20% down on the week (or day).  I'll try to keep bids up in case anyone wants to sell - but sometimes LTC changes by 25% in a few minutes to I'm having to be pretty cautious.

Just a quick note as I believe this should be disclosed.

Today there have been two sell-backs of LTC-ATF shares (both partially filled by other orders, rest bought back by the fund).  The second one (a few minutes ago) was by me - of 50 units.  I haven't lost confidence in the fund or anything (I still own over half) - I just believe that LTC was nearing the top of a bubble so am protecting my own investment position as it was becoming too heavily LTC-based.

If LTC stays high then I'll have missed out on some profit but will have maintained a safer (for me) invetsment balance.  If LTC stays high then the fund benefits from the sell-backs anyway - as with a high LTC we still have more LTC-denominated capital than we need to cover out bonds.

If LTC falls to the extent that the fund needs to sell new units then I'll buy back in at the same rate as anyone else (likely NAV/U+25% again) and the fund will have gained a NAV/U increase (and I'd still personally be well ahead from having moved funds over to BTC during the fall).   Pretty sure the other person selling is planning exactly the same.

The fund DOES have liquidity to allow this sort of thing - so if anyone else thinks LTC is bubbling then feel free to try the same.

My sales back were done same as anyone else's - I sold into market and the fund's Bid was placed at NAV/U -2% (anyone other than myself would have got NAV/U -1%).

At present fund is down about 6% NAV/U on the week (would have been ~10% from the exchange-rate move but trading/profits on sell-backs have made around 4%).

The owners of ZigGap have shown up on IRC by the way - claiming the site was just down from hardware problems for a few days and everything will be back to fine soon.  If so, we'll make an absolute killing on this - as I actually bought MORE of them overnight at about 1.5% of what trading price was.  Figured in for a penny, in for a pound - and well worth risking 2 BTC for the chance to make 50-100 profit.