Exchange-Rate : .00524
Adjusted NAV/U : 19.026466
Bid at : 18.6 (put it at 18.5999 as someone already had a bid at 18.6)
The week continues to be very profitable - only need a small bit more profit for a 10%+ trading on the week. In fact we've already made over 10% profit trading as I wrote off rest of the ticker cost.
I don't expect a huge amount more profit this week - as we're currently back to a mainly cash position (all cash other than the ASICMINER and some assets of LTC-GLOBAL).
ASICMINER's chips arrived from the foundry, passed initial tests and are now being packaged ready to place on boards and start mining. Unless something gos hugely wrong at that point, our tiny holding in ASICMINER is likely to increase greatly in value. I still haven't received final confirmation of how many we hold (spreadsheet shows 10 - but it could be a bit more) and at present they're not tradable. They should be available for trading shortly.
I wouldn't be surprised to see significant price drops on other mining securities once ASICMINER starts hashing - and have almost entirely cleared our positions in mining securities. There's a few reasons why a drop is likely:
1. A large chunk of new mining power obviously reduces the immediate output of all other mining companies.
2. Companies with pre-orders in at BFL etc are going to have to have a serious rethink about their plans. It's now extremely unlikely they'll gain an advantage from being first to mine with ASICs - so there's no longer any justification to pay premium prices for being in first batch of ordered ASICs.
Pretty obviously BFL hiked up the price of its first batch to recover development costs. This is clear from them offering a full refund on their FPGA gear against the price of their ASICs. That returned hardware will be of little value to them - and obviously reflects that the price they're quoting for ASICs has a huge enough markup to soak up that discount. Anyone ordering ASICs who is NOT trading in should likely immediately request a refund - the mining revenue they'll miss out on by waiting for hardware is likely to be more than compensated for by significantly cheaper hardware.
With ASICMINER's development costs being recouped via mining, they'll be able to start selling hardware at far more competitive rates - though likely not for a few months. Friedcat has given out some information on costs of chips - and it's pretty obvious they could sell at around 1/3 BFLs cost (in GH/s per $) and still make a very good margin. So I'd expect ASIC prices to head in that direction fairly rapidly - once the other ASIC manufacturers have got back their development costs from the first batch of purchasers. The issue thus becomes for miners upgrading whether buying at first-batch ASIC prices from BFL/etc is going to make back 2/3 of the cost in a few months from mining. That seems VERY unlikely if ASICMINER will already be mining 0 along with all the other people with pre-orders.
My expectation is that most other mining companies will actually STICK to their current plans - even though doing so likely condemns them to loss (remember - in mining companies, the operators typically make THEIR profit on mining: so they make most profit by mining as much/as soon as possible even if doing so makes less profit/more loss for the investors). That won't change unless/until mining companies beging paying operators based on profit rather than turnover - which is highly unlikely given how few mining companies actually make any profit at all.
Getting back to the point - at a minimum there's going to be uncertainty over the value of mining companies. And that uncertainty can only be over whether/by how much the ASICMINER news devalues them - there's very few for whom it's good news (debatably ones with no commitments to pre-orders + MOORE). So for now I'm not trading MOST mining companies unless I can buy at a much lower price than I'd previously have required.
Topic: [LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF - page 9. (Read 25457 times)
Exchange-rate : .00527
Adjusted NAV/U : 18.243257
Bid at : 18.0
Trade was almost non-existent News Year's Eve/New Year's day - but since then we've had a few very profitable trades meaning we're up a decent amount already this week. As majority of this was BTC denominated there's no longer any great need to sell all of the 400 bonds I'd planned to this week. Got 41 left on market at moment, which would take us to 1800 total - then won't btoher with other 200 this week unless some great deal shows up. No point raising capital just for the sake of it - even though the interest we pay IS pretty minimal compared to the profit we make using the capital (consider we pay just over .1 BTC to service our current bonds and have made over 2.5 BTC profit on bond-raised capital THIS week - i.e. half a year's interest on them) and made similar last week. Can definitely say the bonds are a great success for us so far (though a week of heavy losses and the bond-holders would be the ones with the smug grin on their faces as they got interest and we got losses).
Oh - and the increase in NAV/U doesn't tell the whole story. As we had a big jump in one go I went ahea and wrote off the remainder of the ticker cost (150 LTC). So we actually made nearly 2% more profit than this update reflects. So no more depreciation of ticker to do - that's reduced our apparent profits for the last month as we'd been gradually writing it off.
Adjusted NAV/U : 18.243257
Bid at : 18.0
Trade was almost non-existent News Year's Eve/New Year's day - but since then we've had a few very profitable trades meaning we're up a decent amount already this week. As majority of this was BTC denominated there's no longer any great need to sell all of the 400 bonds I'd planned to this week. Got 41 left on market at moment, which would take us to 1800 total - then won't btoher with other 200 this week unless some great deal shows up. No point raising capital just for the sake of it - even though the interest we pay IS pretty minimal compared to the profit we make using the capital (consider we pay just over .1 BTC to service our current bonds and have made over 2.5 BTC profit on bond-raised capital THIS week - i.e. half a year's interest on them) and made similar last week. Can definitely say the bonds are a great success for us so far (though a week of heavy losses and the bond-holders would be the ones with the smug grin on their faces as they got interest and we got losses).
Oh - and the increase in NAV/U doesn't tell the whole story. As we had a big jump in one go I went ahea and wrote off the remainder of the ticker cost (150 LTC). So we actually made nearly 2% more profit than this update reflects. So no more depreciation of ticker to do - that's reduced our apparent profits for the last month as we'd been gradually writing it off.
WEEKLY REPORT
I'd been expecting a very quiet week over Christmas - in the end we made a pretty healthy profit of a it over 7%. LTC fell vs BTC significantly - but even discounting that we made a trading profit of just over 6%.
Of the BTC exchanges we trade on:
BTC.CO is picking up nicely - we're going to need more capital there as the range of securities expands (at one stage this week we had almost all our funds there invested in assets).
Bitfunder is picking up more slowly - I DO expect us to need more capital there eventually, but not in the short-term.
CRYPTO - there's very few assets with any liquidity there. There ARE a few good opportunities there but I'm not expecting to need more capital there in the foreseeable future (it would take some large asset relocating to there - which I'd say is fairly unlikely given how horrible the platform is to use).
This week we'll be releasing 400 more bonds (taking BTC bond-capital to 20 BTC) with that being moved to BTC.CO for use there.
At the moment we still have a fairly significant percentage of Net assets in BTC - in fact it rose this week (I did no fund movements - the rise is due to us making a higher percentage profit in BTC trades than LTC ones plus the fact that bond interest and the continuing depreciation of the ticker cost are both charged in LTC). There's three ways to lower that:
1. Convert some BTC back to LTC.
2. Sell more units in the fund.
3. Sell more bonds and don't convert the proceeds to BTC.
All of these are unacceptable for the same reason - we don't need more LTC-denominated capital. So for now we'll just accept slightly higher BTC exposure than ideally I'd like. If the LTC-GLOBAL market stays with some assets market-manipulated (into artifical trading ranges - where a collapse any time is possible), others totally illiquid and others totally unreliable then we can reconsider down the line. At least the bonds have got our exposure more than halved from the 38% it would be had the capital been raised from selling more units.
We've now passed 3 months of operation - and despite losing over a quart of NAV due to GLBSE closing, we're up over 75% from where we started. Not a bad start - hopefully we can build on it next year.
I've updated the historical results table in OP of this thread.
Bid at : 17.1 (a bit wider than usual as the exchange-rate is currently moving quite quickly).
Management fee of 3 units will be transferred shortly after posting this.
I'd been expecting a very quiet week over Christmas - in the end we made a pretty healthy profit of a it over 7%. LTC fell vs BTC significantly - but even discounting that we made a trading profit of just over 6%.
Of the BTC exchanges we trade on:
BTC.CO is picking up nicely - we're going to need more capital there as the range of securities expands (at one stage this week we had almost all our funds there invested in assets).
Bitfunder is picking up more slowly - I DO expect us to need more capital there eventually, but not in the short-term.
CRYPTO - there's very few assets with any liquidity there. There ARE a few good opportunities there but I'm not expecting to need more capital there in the foreseeable future (it would take some large asset relocating to there - which I'd say is fairly unlikely given how horrible the platform is to use).
This week we'll be releasing 400 more bonds (taking BTC bond-capital to 20 BTC) with that being moved to BTC.CO for use there.
At the moment we still have a fairly significant percentage of Net assets in BTC - in fact it rose this week (I did no fund movements - the rise is due to us making a higher percentage profit in BTC trades than LTC ones plus the fact that bond interest and the continuing depreciation of the ticker cost are both charged in LTC). There's three ways to lower that:
1. Convert some BTC back to LTC.
2. Sell more units in the fund.
3. Sell more bonds and don't convert the proceeds to BTC.
All of these are unacceptable for the same reason - we don't need more LTC-denominated capital. So for now we'll just accept slightly higher BTC exposure than ideally I'd like. If the LTC-GLOBAL market stays with some assets market-manipulated (into artifical trading ranges - where a collapse any time is possible), others totally illiquid and others totally unreliable then we can reconsider down the line. At least the bonds have got our exposure more than halved from the 38% it would be had the capital been raised from selling more units.
We've now passed 3 months of operation - and despite losing over a quart of NAV due to GLBSE closing, we're up over 75% from where we started. Not a bad start - hopefully we can build on it next year.
I've updated the historical results table in OP of this thread.
Bid at : 17.1 (a bit wider than usual as the exchange-rate is currently moving quite quickly).
Management fee of 3 units will be transferred shortly after posting this.
Trading's been fairly slow over Christmas (expected) but we've been lucky enough to manage a few decent trades. All bonds on market have sold out (1600 total released) and there won't be any more sold by us this week (unless someone sells back). I'd expect some more to be issued before too long (for more capital on BTC.CO) so would recommend against buying bonds at any significant markup to face value.
Exchange-rate : .00572
Adjusted NAV/U : 16.8860134
Bid at : 16.55
Exchange-rate : .00572
Adjusted NAV/U : 16.8860134
Bid at : 16.55
WEEKLY RESULTS
Another fairly slow week - we made 2.8% trading profit, up from last week's 2.4% but still well below what we'd been used to previously. Whether this sort of result or previous ones represent the 'norm' is up for debate - I believe the likely average result lies somewhere in between.
We still have fairly significant BTC exposure - due to me moving extra funds over to BTC.CO. I'm not sure whether we need more there permanently yet (I'm certain we'll need significantly more before too long). For now I'm just going finish selling last of current batch of bonds (up to 1600 total) - think that'll do us until another liquid security or two relist there.
We made a profit on all 4 sites we trade on this week - the extra capital from bonds is definitely paying for itself. I'd guesstimate profits this week from LTC-Global only would be around 1.5% - there's a few securities in a slump and others where large-scale market-fixing is going on, making it harder than to usual to trade profitably there (though a slump CAN sometimes deliver slightly longer-term profit when price recovers).
Management fee this week is 1 unit - which will be transferred after posting this. Note that if profits ever fall below about 2% per week I won't get a management fee at all (though I'd still do OK on the ~half of units I personally own of course).
Bid at 16.16
Another fairly slow week - we made 2.8% trading profit, up from last week's 2.4% but still well below what we'd been used to previously. Whether this sort of result or previous ones represent the 'norm' is up for debate - I believe the likely average result lies somewhere in between.
We still have fairly significant BTC exposure - due to me moving extra funds over to BTC.CO. I'm not sure whether we need more there permanently yet (I'm certain we'll need significantly more before too long). For now I'm just going finish selling last of current batch of bonds (up to 1600 total) - think that'll do us until another liquid security or two relist there.
We made a profit on all 4 sites we trade on this week - the extra capital from bonds is definitely paying for itself. I'd guesstimate profits this week from LTC-Global only would be around 1.5% - there's a few securities in a slump and others where large-scale market-fixing is going on, making it harder than to usual to trade profitably there (though a slump CAN sometimes deliver slightly longer-term profit when price recovers).
Management fee this week is 1 unit - which will be transferred after posting this. Note that if profits ever fall below about 2% per week I won't get a management fee at all (though I'd still do OK on the ~half of units I personally own of course).
Bid at 16.16
Exchange-Rate : .00583
Adjusted NAV/U : 16.3288
Bid at 16.06
Over half the new batch of bonds have already sold. I've deployed funds to BitFunder - for now temporarily increasing our own BTC exposure (only up to 13.5%). That will drop to under 8% once remaining bonds are sold.
I've updated the OP with a list of where we trade and rough percent ranges of total capital held on each platform. That gives a bit more information for prospective purchasers of Units or Bonds to assess platform-dependent risk.
Adjusted NAV/U : 16.3288
Bid at 16.06
Over half the new batch of bonds have already sold. I've deployed funds to BitFunder - for now temporarily increasing our own BTC exposure (only up to 13.5%). That will drop to under 8% once remaining bonds are sold.
I've updated the OP with a list of where we trade and rough percent ranges of total capital held on each platform. That gives a bit more information for prospective purchasers of Units or Bonds to assess platform-dependent risk.
Exchange-rate : .00587
Adjusted NAV/U : 16.1744
Bid at : 15.91
With immediate effect the fund is going to begin trading on Bitfunder in addition to the existing sites we trade on. An additional 600 bonds (6 BTC face value) will be placed on the market to raise BTC-denominated capital for this. Trade on the site is picking up nicely - and although some assets listing there are dead/dieing ones there's also some that are definitely alive and kicking. From what I've seen so far it has a similar approach to LTC-Global/BTC.CO (simple interface and responsive developer). Pretty certain that within a few weeks (or even days) it'll have passed Crypto to be in second place for volume (not counting MPex as that's a totally different beast and several orders of magnitude larger in terms of volume).
I've no plans to increase bond interest rate at present - there's no desperate rush to sell this batch (we can temporarily take slightly higher exposure to exchange-rate and use our own funds if necessary) and I'll be taking a decent chunk of them myself (after giving a few hours so others get a chance first).
There's still limited trading opportunities on BTC.CO, but it's definitely picking up. Assets relisted (from GLBSE) on any site tend to have an initial 'exuberance' period after relisting (where everyone's happy operator has relisted and not run with their cash) suring which they trade above (what I believe to be their) real value. I have to be careful not to get sucked in then and end up holding assets when price drops to a more realistic level. Obviously when we actually HAVE some of those assets (as was case with BitBond) it offers a great opportunity to first few to get out at a good price (lowest Ask is already below the cheapest price we sold for and lowest bid way below that).
Although we've had a few weeks of low (by our historical standards) profits, I'm very optimistic about the fund's future. Even if we 'only' made 2% per week (below our worst week other than when GLBSE closed) we'd still be outperforming just about every non-ponzi business that has lasted for any period of time - and the bonds let us leverage 'cheap' capital to increase the profit for holders of actual units in the fund. But nonetheless there WILL undoubtedly be some terrible weeks at some stage - eventually we'll get stuck with holdings in a scam/disaster that collapses- so investors should definitely NOT expect profits every week forever.
Once new bonds have sold and I've moved funds around will update OP with a list of where we currently trade and approximate percent of total controlled capital held on each. That will allow (current or potential) investors in either units or bonds to get a rough idea of how platform-based risk is spread.
Adjusted NAV/U : 16.1744
Bid at : 15.91
With immediate effect the fund is going to begin trading on Bitfunder in addition to the existing sites we trade on. An additional 600 bonds (6 BTC face value) will be placed on the market to raise BTC-denominated capital for this. Trade on the site is picking up nicely - and although some assets listing there are dead/dieing ones there's also some that are definitely alive and kicking. From what I've seen so far it has a similar approach to LTC-Global/BTC.CO (simple interface and responsive developer). Pretty certain that within a few weeks (or even days) it'll have passed Crypto to be in second place for volume (not counting MPex as that's a totally different beast and several orders of magnitude larger in terms of volume).
I've no plans to increase bond interest rate at present - there's no desperate rush to sell this batch (we can temporarily take slightly higher exposure to exchange-rate and use our own funds if necessary) and I'll be taking a decent chunk of them myself (after giving a few hours so others get a chance first).
There's still limited trading opportunities on BTC.CO, but it's definitely picking up. Assets relisted (from GLBSE) on any site tend to have an initial 'exuberance' period after relisting (where everyone's happy operator has relisted and not run with their cash) suring which they trade above (what I believe to be their) real value. I have to be careful not to get sucked in then and end up holding assets when price drops to a more realistic level. Obviously when we actually HAVE some of those assets (as was case with BitBond) it offers a great opportunity to first few to get out at a good price (lowest Ask is already below the cheapest price we sold for and lowest bid way below that).
Although we've had a few weeks of low (by our historical standards) profits, I'm very optimistic about the fund's future. Even if we 'only' made 2% per week (below our worst week other than when GLBSE closed) we'd still be outperforming just about every non-ponzi business that has lasted for any period of time - and the bonds let us leverage 'cheap' capital to increase the profit for holders of actual units in the fund. But nonetheless there WILL undoubtedly be some terrible weeks at some stage - eventually we'll get stuck with holdings in a scam/disaster that collapses- so investors should definitely NOT expect profits every week forever.
Once new bonds have sold and I've moved funds around will update OP with a list of where we currently trade and approximate percent of total controlled capital held on each. That will allow (current or potential) investors in either units or bonds to get a rough idea of how platform-based risk is spread.
WEEKLY REPORT
This week saw the release of our BTC-denominated bonds. 1000 were initially placed on the market with a face value of 0.01 BTC each to raise BTC-denominated capital of 10 BTC. They sold out pretty quickly - and there was still unmet demand left at the end (an order I couldn't fill of ~200 + I wouldn't have minded a few hundred more myself). That bodes well for us being able to sell more when the need arises without having to raise the rate we pay (or at least not by much).
First dividend on the bonds has been paid - I rounded it up to nearest 0.5 LTC so investors got a fairly legible number as their dividend - will do that regularly so its easy for them to add up what they've earned on their bonds. At week's end we have exactly 0 BTC-denominated assets held (other than actual BTC). During the week we did briefly hold some assets - but sold them off making a 0.3 BTC profit. Whilst that sounds (and is) tiny, remember that the total cost of servicing the bonds is only around 0.06 BTC per week (it'll be slightly higher due to my rounding up on dividend + exchange/movement costs of funds). So the capital raised by bonds has already earned its first month's dividends (the trade we did definitely would NOT have occurred before we sold the bonds).
Activity on LTC-GLOBAL has continued to be extremely sluggish - it may well be a seasonal thing (before Christmas people don't tend to do a load of investing). We still made a modest profit for the week. The ticker has been depreciated by a further 15 LTC this week.
There's a new line under "Net Asset Value" towards the bottom of the spreadsheet. This line has the title "% NAV BTC Denominated" and represents the percentage of LTC-ATF NET assets that are BTC denominated. This is AFTER deduction of liabilities in respect of the bonds - and is an accurate measure of the degree to which LTC-ATF units are susceptible to changes in the LTC/BTC exchange-rate. The issuing of bonds has reduced this slightly from last week - even though we've significantly increased the amount of BTC deployed.
Management fee of 1 unit will be taken shortly after posting this.
Bid at : 15.83
This week saw the release of our BTC-denominated bonds. 1000 were initially placed on the market with a face value of 0.01 BTC each to raise BTC-denominated capital of 10 BTC. They sold out pretty quickly - and there was still unmet demand left at the end (an order I couldn't fill of ~200 + I wouldn't have minded a few hundred more myself). That bodes well for us being able to sell more when the need arises without having to raise the rate we pay (or at least not by much).
First dividend on the bonds has been paid - I rounded it up to nearest 0.5 LTC so investors got a fairly legible number as their dividend - will do that regularly so its easy for them to add up what they've earned on their bonds. At week's end we have exactly 0 BTC-denominated assets held (other than actual BTC). During the week we did briefly hold some assets - but sold them off making a 0.3 BTC profit. Whilst that sounds (and is) tiny, remember that the total cost of servicing the bonds is only around 0.06 BTC per week (it'll be slightly higher due to my rounding up on dividend + exchange/movement costs of funds). So the capital raised by bonds has already earned its first month's dividends (the trade we did definitely would NOT have occurred before we sold the bonds).
Activity on LTC-GLOBAL has continued to be extremely sluggish - it may well be a seasonal thing (before Christmas people don't tend to do a load of investing). We still made a modest profit for the week. The ticker has been depreciated by a further 15 LTC this week.
There's a new line under "Net Asset Value" towards the bottom of the spreadsheet. This line has the title "% NAV BTC Denominated" and represents the percentage of LTC-ATF NET assets that are BTC denominated. This is AFTER deduction of liabilities in respect of the bonds - and is an accurate measure of the degree to which LTC-ATF units are susceptible to changes in the LTC/BTC exchange-rate. The issuing of bonds has reduced this slightly from last week - even though we've significantly increased the amount of BTC deployed.
Management fee of 1 unit will be taken shortly after posting this.
Bid at : 15.83
Exchange-Rate : .00596
Adjusted NAV/U : 15.8063
Bid at : 15.5
Our bond has now been approved and first few have been sold. Below is how the accounting spreadsheet has been updated to deal with the bonds. Any suggestions, comments or requests for clarification are gratefully received.
The line after "BTC denom holdings" is now changed to "Gross Assets". This represents the total value of all assets managed by LTC-ATF.
There is then an entirely new section of data entitled "Bonds". Here's a breakdown of what each line here represents :
Outstanding : The number of bonds actually sold.
Face Value per bond : The face value of each bond.
Total Value : The total value (cost) of all outstanding bonds = number outstanding * face value.
Weekly Dividend : The dividend paid each week (as a percentage of face value)
Days since last dividend : The number of days since last dividend was paid. Each day when I first open the spreadsheet I'll update this number. This resets to 0 right after I pay a dividend.
Accrued Dividend : The liability the fund currently has in due but unpaid dividends. This is equal to Total Value * Weekly Dividend (%) * (Days Since Last Dividend / 7). This allows the cost of paying dividends to be built up over the week (for purposes of calculating current value) rather than all taken off in one hit at the end.
Ratio Bonds : Total BTC - This measures total percentage of total bond liability as a percentage of liquid BTC denominated assets. This value has to be kept under 90% - in practice, once bond sales are largely complete, I'll be aiming to keep it in the 80-85% zone. Bond liability is face value of bonds + accrued dividend. Liquid BTC denominated assets is total BTC denominated assets less illiquid ones (currently only ASICMINER shares which are untradable).
Ratio Bonds : NAV - This is the percentage total bond face value is to total liquid NET assets. Liquid Net assets is total NAV for the fund less illiquid assets (ASICMINER shares and Bond Ticker value at present). This isn't allowed to exceed 150% - but there's no intention of getting too near to that anyway (and in short term it's not going to go over 20-25% depending on exchange-rate).
Net Asset Value is then calculated - which is Gross Asset Value less (Bond Face Value + Accrued Dividend).
The remainder of spreadsheet is unchanged - though obviously uses the new NAV row rather than the old row it used to use.
Adjusted NAV/U : 15.8063
Bid at : 15.5
Our bond has now been approved and first few have been sold. Below is how the accounting spreadsheet has been updated to deal with the bonds. Any suggestions, comments or requests for clarification are gratefully received.
The line after "BTC denom holdings" is now changed to "Gross Assets". This represents the total value of all assets managed by LTC-ATF.
There is then an entirely new section of data entitled "Bonds". Here's a breakdown of what each line here represents :
Outstanding : The number of bonds actually sold.
Face Value per bond : The face value of each bond.
Total Value : The total value (cost) of all outstanding bonds = number outstanding * face value.
Weekly Dividend : The dividend paid each week (as a percentage of face value)
Days since last dividend : The number of days since last dividend was paid. Each day when I first open the spreadsheet I'll update this number. This resets to 0 right after I pay a dividend.
Accrued Dividend : The liability the fund currently has in due but unpaid dividends. This is equal to Total Value * Weekly Dividend (%) * (Days Since Last Dividend / 7). This allows the cost of paying dividends to be built up over the week (for purposes of calculating current value) rather than all taken off in one hit at the end.
Ratio Bonds : Total BTC - This measures total percentage of total bond liability as a percentage of liquid BTC denominated assets. This value has to be kept under 90% - in practice, once bond sales are largely complete, I'll be aiming to keep it in the 80-85% zone. Bond liability is face value of bonds + accrued dividend. Liquid BTC denominated assets is total BTC denominated assets less illiquid ones (currently only ASICMINER shares which are untradable).
Ratio Bonds : NAV - This is the percentage total bond face value is to total liquid NET assets. Liquid Net assets is total NAV for the fund less illiquid assets (ASICMINER shares and Bond Ticker value at present). This isn't allowed to exceed 150% - but there's no intention of getting too near to that anyway (and in short term it's not going to go over 20-25% depending on exchange-rate).
Net Asset Value is then calculated - which is Gross Asset Value less (Bond Face Value + Accrued Dividend).
The remainder of spreadsheet is unchanged - though obviously uses the new NAV row rather than the old row it used to use.
REPORT AND UPDATE
There's a few additions to the above spreadsheet from previous weeks:
BTC balances held at BTC.CO and CRYPTO have been added - as we'll now be trading on those platforms. The spreadsheet also tracks holdings of securities there - but those rows have been hidden as we currently hold no assets (other than BTC) on either.
Towards the bottom of spreadsheet you'll see a section headed "Miscellaneous" with an entry for the LTC-ATC.B1 bond ticker valued at 225 LTC. As previously discussed (and passed by motion) the 250 LTC cost of the ticker is being written off over a period of no more than 20 weeks. As we made respectable profits this week I already wrote the value down by 10% - I intend to write it off far quicker than the maximum 20 weeks if possible. This method is, to a degree, creative accounting - but serves to avoid a sudden drop in unit value when there's been no underlieing loss (the ticker DOES have value or we wouldn't have bought it).
Trading on LTC Global has been extremely sluggish this week - so profits are well down on the previous few weeks.
BITBOND
Since GLBSE's closure we have had 3 units of this asset stuck on GLBSE - these had been marked down on our books from a purchase price of around 0.2 BTC each to 0.1 BTC each. Earlier this week the security was relisted on Crypto and bonds distributed per a list provided by Nefario.
The issuer also made a rather concerning post in the thread for the asset - indicating that he was unable to pay (yet) dividends due for the period whilst the bonds were inaccessible. This was apparently due to some undisclosed arrangement made with some large investors where they had a senior claim on dividend funds. No explanation was offered of why funds weren't at hand to pay ALL due dividends. He also indicated that he would be unable to pay further dividends going forward - obviously totally unacceptable for a supposed fixed-rate bond.
Clearly some individuals either don't read very well, don't do any research or were attempting to manipulate the price - as I was able to sell our three (two at 0.25 BTC and one at 0.3 BTC) for a price higher than what we paid and higher than they were trading at when GLBSE closed.
In theory issuer could make a buy-back offer higher than that - but I'll be shocked if his offer is anywhere near that and/or is available for immediate settlement. We may, of course, trade these bonds once issuer has explained what (and why) is actually happening and the trading range has moved (down) to somewhere sensible.
LTC-ATF.B1
Our BTC-denominated (but transacted in LTC) bond has now been submitted for approval by LTC Global moderators. Initially we will only be looking to sell 10 BTC worth of bonds with a dividend rate of 0.6% per week. The rate may be raised if few sell. As more trading opportunites present themselves, further tranches of bonds will be issued.
ODDS AND ENDS
A management fee of 2 units is due this week (rounded down from 2.08) which will be taken after this post is submitted.
Bid is up at 15.47
The first post of this thread has been updated with some general information about LTC-ATF - at some point in the coming week more information will be added and the formatting tidied up.
There's a few additions to the above spreadsheet from previous weeks:
BTC balances held at BTC.CO and CRYPTO have been added - as we'll now be trading on those platforms. The spreadsheet also tracks holdings of securities there - but those rows have been hidden as we currently hold no assets (other than BTC) on either.
Towards the bottom of spreadsheet you'll see a section headed "Miscellaneous" with an entry for the LTC-ATC.B1 bond ticker valued at 225 LTC. As previously discussed (and passed by motion) the 250 LTC cost of the ticker is being written off over a period of no more than 20 weeks. As we made respectable profits this week I already wrote the value down by 10% - I intend to write it off far quicker than the maximum 20 weeks if possible. This method is, to a degree, creative accounting - but serves to avoid a sudden drop in unit value when there's been no underlieing loss (the ticker DOES have value or we wouldn't have bought it).
Trading on LTC Global has been extremely sluggish this week - so profits are well down on the previous few weeks.
BITBOND
Since GLBSE's closure we have had 3 units of this asset stuck on GLBSE - these had been marked down on our books from a purchase price of around 0.2 BTC each to 0.1 BTC each. Earlier this week the security was relisted on Crypto and bonds distributed per a list provided by Nefario.
The issuer also made a rather concerning post in the thread for the asset - indicating that he was unable to pay (yet) dividends due for the period whilst the bonds were inaccessible. This was apparently due to some undisclosed arrangement made with some large investors where they had a senior claim on dividend funds. No explanation was offered of why funds weren't at hand to pay ALL due dividends. He also indicated that he would be unable to pay further dividends going forward - obviously totally unacceptable for a supposed fixed-rate bond.
Clearly some individuals either don't read very well, don't do any research or were attempting to manipulate the price - as I was able to sell our three (two at 0.25 BTC and one at 0.3 BTC) for a price higher than what we paid and higher than they were trading at when GLBSE closed.
In theory issuer could make a buy-back offer higher than that - but I'll be shocked if his offer is anywhere near that and/or is available for immediate settlement. We may, of course, trade these bonds once issuer has explained what (and why) is actually happening and the trading range has moved (down) to somewhere sensible.
LTC-ATF.B1
Our BTC-denominated (but transacted in LTC) bond has now been submitted for approval by LTC Global moderators. Initially we will only be looking to sell 10 BTC worth of bonds with a dividend rate of 0.6% per week. The rate may be raised if few sell. As more trading opportunites present themselves, further tranches of bonds will be issued.
ODDS AND ENDS
A management fee of 2 units is due this week (rounded down from 2.08) which will be taken after this post is submitted.
Bid is up at 15.47
The first post of this thread has been updated with some general information about LTC-ATF - at some point in the coming week more information will be added and the formatting tidied up.
Basically no change in last day. Been quietest day I can remember on LTC-GLOBAL - only 3 securities have any trade at all in last 24 hours (and 2 of those it's just a 1 unit sell to make last traded price high).
i bought a few more not sure if it was me 
Exchange-rate : .00602
Adjusted NAV/U : 15.60045
Bid at : 15.32
No Ask as no more units left on sale. Been pretty slow trading other than someone (yet again) trying to fix the market on -SA2. Worked out nice for us as we had some profitable Asks up which they bought out whilst clearing the Ask side of order book.
Adjusted NAV/U : 15.60045
Bid at : 15.32
No Ask as no more units left on sale. Been pretty slow trading other than someone (yet again) trying to fix the market on -SA2. Worked out nice for us as we had some profitable Asks up which they bought out whilst clearing the Ask side of order book.
Exchange-rate : 0.006
Adjusted NAV/U : 15.33286
Bid at : 15.05
Ask at : 15.66 (only 3 units left for sale)
So far this week trading has been very sluggish - that may pick up if (as seems to be starting to happen) LTC begins a drop vs BTC. I've now converted a small part of our capital into BTC ready to trade on btc.co - so NAV/U will now be slightly more affected by exchange-rate changes than previously. We still have nearly 90% of assets LTC-denominated, so won't be seeing massive changes. The current amount we have in BTC should be sufficient for any bonds we need in the short-term (we need to keep some of own assets in BTC to ensure that any big swing in LTC price can't impact our ability to service bonds).
Adjusted NAV/U : 15.33286
Bid at : 15.05
Ask at : 15.66 (only 3 units left for sale)
So far this week trading has been very sluggish - that may pick up if (as seems to be starting to happen) LTC begins a drop vs BTC. I've now converted a small part of our capital into BTC ready to trade on btc.co - so NAV/U will now be slightly more affected by exchange-rate changes than previously. We still have nearly 90% of assets LTC-denominated, so won't be seeing massive changes. The current amount we have in BTC should be sufficient for any bonds we need in the short-term (we need to keep some of own assets in BTC to ensure that any big swing in LTC price can't impact our ability to service bonds).
I wonder if there would be any demand for being able to make a simple copy of your portfolio public?
Eg:
https://litecoinglobal.com/portfolio/[username]
Would give a page with the portfolio summary tab populated and nothing else?
You'd toggle it on/off in the account settings.
Eg:
https://litecoinglobal.com/portfolio/[username]
Would give a page with the portfolio summary tab populated and nothing else?
You'd toggle it on/off in the account settings.
I don't publish my current holdings for a good reason - I'm not the only person actively trading on the market. If someone knew (for example) that I already had 15% of fund invested in security X then they'd know I couldn't afford to buy more. That would let them know that any bids I placed I didn't want filled (so was deliberately letting myelf be outbid rather than just not having noticed). They (if they only had a small holding in X) could then remove their own bids, forcing me to remove mine (as I wouldn't want to end up buying more, so couldn't risk being top bidder) and drive the price down.
For a fund that invests, showing current holdings has no big dowside. For a fund that trades it's a disaster. Even ignoring active scenarios (such as the one I just gave) there's the passive information of being able to work out which Asks are mine. That can reveal information such as whether I believe the current low Ask is fair or not, whether I'm trying to sell by Asks or just get the price down to buy more etc.
I'm fine with making some LTC for other people who invest in the fund. I'm not interested in explaining all the details of how I do it (though I'm totally fine with you verifying that I am indeed making the profits I report trading on LTC_GLOBAL).
Unlike an investment fund we tend to be very liquid anyway - the vast majority of time over 2/3 of assets are cash (some is kept cash anyway for maintaing bidwall on LTC-ATF itself and the next chunk is only used for really golden opportunites - which are rare and so far haven't occurred when we were heavily invested already in any event).
So no - I've no interest in exposing my portfolio. It would be of marginal benefit (though maybe a bit more interest) to actual investors but would give way too much useful information to others trading the market. If any investor is concerned that my reports are inaccurate (e.g. I'm just making up valuations - and don't actually trade at all) then there are a couple of solutions:
1. As mentioned in a previous post, I'm fine with them contacting you and you verifying that I did indeed (at the time of the report) hold securities and cash with a value matching that in my report (cash will match to a few decimal places, securities may vary a bit - as my valuation isn't based on current market. Generally my valuation is above highest bid, below 7-day average, well below lowest Ask).
2. If anyone has signficiant holdings in LTC-ATF (say 10% of outstanding units or more) then I'm fne with mailing them an unamended spreadsheet 1 month after the date of a published report (so they can see precisely what I held a month ago when I made a report). Note that I DON'T keep old data like that as a matter of course - but can preserver a spreadsheet at any date (on request) for release a month later. Think that would remove/reduce the risk to me of giving away that info - whilst allowing them to (in retrospect) see how I reached a particular valuation.
I wonder if there would be any demand for being able to make a simple copy of your portfolio public?
Eg:
https://litecoinglobal.com/portfolio/[username]
Would give a page with the portfolio summary tab populated and nothing else?
You'd toggle it on/off in the account settings.
Eg:
https://litecoinglobal.com/portfolio/[username]
Would give a page with the portfolio summary tab populated and nothing else?
You'd toggle it on/off in the account settings.
WEEKLY REPORT
In the middle of the week it didn't look likely that we'd manage another 10%+ week - but we eventually got there thanks to a little burst of activity last night (we'd have got there earlier had LTC not risen to much vs BTC).
Even with the tiny percentage of our fund still denominated in BTC (the GLBSE holdings) the exchange-rate change reduced our trading profit (profit before management fee) from 11.09% to 10.21%. If anyone values their units in BTC rather than LTC then obviously they did massively well this week (gaining from LTC's rise PLUS the profit we made trading).
LTC's rise seems to have stalled and there's the first little bits of trading happening on BTC.CO - so this should be the week we move (slightly) back into BTC-denominated trading.
We've ended the week with only 20% of holdings in non-currency holdings. But it hasn't been that way all week - at one point we had over 60% of assets in LTC-denominated securities and I even moved some funds back over from our BTC-E reserves to make sure the bid-wall could be kept up. In the past week we've traded in about 10 different securities on LTC-GLOBAL, right now we have holdings in only 5.
Management fee this week is 4 units (rounded down from 4.28) which will be transferred after this is posted.
Bid at : 14.9
Ask at : 15.4 (only 11 units left being sold)
Earlier this week I made a post on the Litecoin forums about the issuer of Esecurity.SA and .SA2 trading and market-manipulating his own asset. The post can be found here : http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,915.0.html
It's therefore only fair that I clarify the extent to which I trade LTC-ATF myself.
Fund Account : This only places Bids and Asks in accordance with the policy in the contract. Bids are always slightly below Adjusted NAV/U, Asks (when the fund is actually selling) slightly above the undajusted NAV/U. On bids if there's a bid from someone else at around where the fund would bid I'll Bid slightly lower than them - so their order gets filled first. On Asks I just put them where my spreadsheet tells me to - irrespective of any other Asks in the vicinity.
Personal Account : I usually have some units up for sale from this - at 10% or more above current adjusted NAV/U. I don't try to sell below that. If I want to buy more units I buy from the fund (if it's selling) or put bids up myself that are always at or above adjusted NAV/U. If I buy from the fund I do so AFTER I've done a recalculation of value and updated the fund's Asks - and the valuation at that time is posted to forums: so I never take advantage of an outdated Ask price. My trading on my personal account is minimal - I don't try to manipulate the market price or try to profit from trading across a small spread between the fund's own orders. What I DO do is try to make sure there's always SOME units up for sale if someone wants to buy a small holding at a significant premium.
I personally hold a bit over half of the units in the fund - that should be pretty obvious as the effort I put in would in no way be justified if all I got in return was the small management fee.
Any statements I make about the fund's holdings or trading activities on LTC-GLOBAL/BTC.CO may be verified with burnside at any time without need to ask my permission. So if spreadsheet says we have X LTC then I've no problem with anyone asking whether we actually DO have that (ignoring rounding). Similarly if I say we have Y LTC worth of securities then I've no problem with him verifying that (at the time the statement was made) our holdings had around that value (think ALL our current investments are on my books at below 7-day average - and that will usually be the case). This permission only extends to confirming that things I HAVE said are accurate - not to giving any further information. So if I said "Earlier today we bought around 100 units of a share and sold it within an hour for 50% profit" then it would be fine to ask for confirmation that I had a set of matching trades meeting that description. It would NOT be fine to ask what the share was, what the price was or what the exact quantity was (as the latter two would allow identification of the asset). I'm offering the above just as a way for anyone who is concerned to obtain SOME reassurance that the spreadsheet and my reports aren't just figments of my imagination - but pretty accurately reflect the business actually being conducted by this fund.
In the middle of the week it didn't look likely that we'd manage another 10%+ week - but we eventually got there thanks to a little burst of activity last night (we'd have got there earlier had LTC not risen to much vs BTC).
Even with the tiny percentage of our fund still denominated in BTC (the GLBSE holdings) the exchange-rate change reduced our trading profit (profit before management fee) from 11.09% to 10.21%. If anyone values their units in BTC rather than LTC then obviously they did massively well this week (gaining from LTC's rise PLUS the profit we made trading).
LTC's rise seems to have stalled and there's the first little bits of trading happening on BTC.CO - so this should be the week we move (slightly) back into BTC-denominated trading.
We've ended the week with only 20% of holdings in non-currency holdings. But it hasn't been that way all week - at one point we had over 60% of assets in LTC-denominated securities and I even moved some funds back over from our BTC-E reserves to make sure the bid-wall could be kept up. In the past week we've traded in about 10 different securities on LTC-GLOBAL, right now we have holdings in only 5.
Management fee this week is 4 units (rounded down from 4.28) which will be transferred after this is posted.
Bid at : 14.9
Ask at : 15.4 (only 11 units left being sold)
Earlier this week I made a post on the Litecoin forums about the issuer of Esecurity.SA and .SA2 trading and market-manipulating his own asset. The post can be found here : http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,915.0.html
It's therefore only fair that I clarify the extent to which I trade LTC-ATF myself.
Fund Account : This only places Bids and Asks in accordance with the policy in the contract. Bids are always slightly below Adjusted NAV/U, Asks (when the fund is actually selling) slightly above the undajusted NAV/U. On bids if there's a bid from someone else at around where the fund would bid I'll Bid slightly lower than them - so their order gets filled first. On Asks I just put them where my spreadsheet tells me to - irrespective of any other Asks in the vicinity.
Personal Account : I usually have some units up for sale from this - at 10% or more above current adjusted NAV/U. I don't try to sell below that. If I want to buy more units I buy from the fund (if it's selling) or put bids up myself that are always at or above adjusted NAV/U. If I buy from the fund I do so AFTER I've done a recalculation of value and updated the fund's Asks - and the valuation at that time is posted to forums: so I never take advantage of an outdated Ask price. My trading on my personal account is minimal - I don't try to manipulate the market price or try to profit from trading across a small spread between the fund's own orders. What I DO do is try to make sure there's always SOME units up for sale if someone wants to buy a small holding at a significant premium.
I personally hold a bit over half of the units in the fund - that should be pretty obvious as the effort I put in would in no way be justified if all I got in return was the small management fee.
Any statements I make about the fund's holdings or trading activities on LTC-GLOBAL/BTC.CO may be verified with burnside at any time without need to ask my permission. So if spreadsheet says we have X LTC then I've no problem with anyone asking whether we actually DO have that (ignoring rounding). Similarly if I say we have Y LTC worth of securities then I've no problem with him verifying that (at the time the statement was made) our holdings had around that value (think ALL our current investments are on my books at below 7-day average - and that will usually be the case). This permission only extends to confirming that things I HAVE said are accurate - not to giving any further information. So if I said "Earlier today we bought around 100 units of a share and sold it within an hour for 50% profit" then it would be fine to ask for confirmation that I had a set of matching trades meeting that description. It would NOT be fine to ask what the share was, what the price was or what the exact quantity was (as the latter two would allow identification of the asset). I'm offering the above just as a way for anyone who is concerned to obtain SOME reassurance that the spreadsheet and my reports aren't just figments of my imagination - but pretty accurately reflect the business actually being conducted by this fund.
Exchange-rate : .00682
Adjusted NAV/U : 14.7653763
Bid at : 14.58
Ask at : 15.08
The week of offering to buy back above adjusted NAV/U has finished, so Bids are now dropped down to their more usual level. A few investors did sell back units. The first few I took myself, the last few sells the fund covered (the markup was covered on the larger one by profitable trades having occurred shortly before the buy-back - meaning buyback was actually below NAV/U. And on the later smaller one by us being over 5.24218% in profit for the week meaning that the accrued management fee on repurchased units exceeded the compounded .3% markup and .2% transaction fee, so fund NAV/U gained slightly at the cost of lowering my management fee). If anyone wants the math for how 5.24218% is calculated I can provide it - in practice I just made a note of NAV/U, reduced outstanding shares by 1, updated balance to post-sale and checked NAV/U had risen.
Units outstanding when the buyback offer started were 464. After my management fee of 5 units that rose to 469. Outstanding units is now at 444 - meaning the fund itself acquired back 25 units. I am now going to place those back on the market at around 1% over NAV/U (which is higher than Adjusted NAV/U as it also includes earned management fee). There's no great rush to sell them (at present our holdings are over 60% cash) but with the impending purchase of a ticker for our bonds and us then wanting some cash in BTC (we have to maintain SOME of our own funds in BTC as well as that raised from bonds - to ensure safety vs any massive drop in LTC value) I'd like to get us back to where we were in terms of cash.
Price of those will be adjusted along with bid as normal - for now they're going up at 15.08.
I have no expectation of issuing more units in the foreseeable future other than putting back on the market ones sold into the fund's bid (units outstanding DOES, of course, rise each profitable week due to my management fee being paid in units).
Trade and profits died down a bit towards the end of the week - coinciding with the strong rise in LTC vs BTC. As I've commented before that's pretty typical - when LTC rises, people sell securities to benefit from the growth in LTC. When LTC starts to fall next, they'll be back buying securities again.
Adjusted NAV/U : 14.7653763
Bid at : 14.58
Ask at : 15.08
The week of offering to buy back above adjusted NAV/U has finished, so Bids are now dropped down to their more usual level. A few investors did sell back units. The first few I took myself, the last few sells the fund covered (the markup was covered on the larger one by profitable trades having occurred shortly before the buy-back - meaning buyback was actually below NAV/U. And on the later smaller one by us being over 5.24218% in profit for the week meaning that the accrued management fee on repurchased units exceeded the compounded .3% markup and .2% transaction fee, so fund NAV/U gained slightly at the cost of lowering my management fee). If anyone wants the math for how 5.24218% is calculated I can provide it - in practice I just made a note of NAV/U, reduced outstanding shares by 1, updated balance to post-sale and checked NAV/U had risen.
Units outstanding when the buyback offer started were 464. After my management fee of 5 units that rose to 469. Outstanding units is now at 444 - meaning the fund itself acquired back 25 units. I am now going to place those back on the market at around 1% over NAV/U (which is higher than Adjusted NAV/U as it also includes earned management fee). There's no great rush to sell them (at present our holdings are over 60% cash) but with the impending purchase of a ticker for our bonds and us then wanting some cash in BTC (we have to maintain SOME of our own funds in BTC as well as that raised from bonds - to ensure safety vs any massive drop in LTC value) I'd like to get us back to where we were in terms of cash.
Price of those will be adjusted along with bid as normal - for now they're going up at 15.08.
I have no expectation of issuing more units in the foreseeable future other than putting back on the market ones sold into the fund's bid (units outstanding DOES, of course, rise each profitable week due to my management fee being paid in units).
Trade and profits died down a bit towards the end of the week - coinciding with the strong rise in LTC vs BTC. As I've commented before that's pretty typical - when LTC rises, people sell securities to benefit from the growth in LTC. When LTC starts to fall next, they'll be back buying securities again.
Exchange-rate : .00581
Adjusted NAV/U : 14.45211
Bid at 14.49 (Still offering buyback above NAV/U)
Making slow but steady profit this week - looking unlikely we'll have a 10%+ week like last couple, but should be a 5%+ one. LTC is rising like mad against BTC at the moment - up nearly 20% since last update I made. As we're still nearly all in LTC it's only having a marginal (downward) pressure on our NAV/U (and a big rise in BTC valuation of the fund of course).
Adjusted NAV/U : 14.45211
Bid at 14.49 (Still offering buyback above NAV/U)
Making slow but steady profit this week - looking unlikely we'll have a 10%+ week like last couple, but should be a 5%+ one. LTC is rising like mad against BTC at the moment - up nearly 20% since last update I made. As we're still nearly all in LTC it's only having a marginal (downward) pressure on our NAV/U (and a big rise in BTC valuation of the fund of course).
Jump to: