I wish all these ponzi schemes would die in a fire. I hope they all get delisted.
This asset should have not passed the smell test imo.
The sad thing is, real companies shares or bonds can never really materialize on GLBSE or other exchanges until these ponzi scams are removed. When comparing between a return of 10% a year or one that gives 10% in one month, the temptation of greed is too much. Then when the security collapses and the person learned their lesson, they don't have any money to invest in a realistic security. But good investors should be able to see through this. When offered one share with 30% return per month, or another at 10% return per year, the good investor should realize there is a difference in the risk of the two offerings. Not everybody is stupid enough to dump all their money into the highest risk place. Those people who go into the less risky ventures will continue investing, because they have not lost their principal like those who jumped at the shiniest scam. The problem with that argument is that not all scammers offer 30% per month (just using your figures for simplicity). A smarter scammer can offer the 10% per year - knowing that not only will he have to pay out less as the scam proceeds, but also there's a category of investor he can target that the 30%/month one can't. |
|
|
|
I wish all these ponzi schemes would die in a fire. I hope they all get delisted.
This asset should have not passed the smell test imo.
The sad thing is, real companies shares or bonds can never really materialize on GLBSE or other exchanges until these ponzi scams are removed. When comparing between a return of 10% a year or one that gives 10% in one month, the temptation of greed is too much. Then when the security collapses and the person learned their lesson, they don't have any money to invest in a realistic security. Yeah - totally agree. |
|
|
|
The price of OBSI.HRPT has dropped immensly. Obsi is buying back shares, seems to be market price. The way the price is dropping, it is just making it easier and easier for Obsi to walk away with everybodies money.
Asset should be locked and any buyback from the issuer should be done with the function that GLBSE allows issuers to force a buyback. All locking the asset would do is prevent anyone trading the shares. It wouldn't magically move money into obsi's account to be sent to shareholders. If that happened it's pretty much a given that noone would ever get anything other than whatever loose change happens to be in obsi's account. I do hope you don't believe he actually keeps all his BTC sitting on GLBSE. Plus: how has he broken his contract? No buy-back option was ever offered. No dividends were ever guaranteed. No reporting requirements were ever defined. Before taking an action, consider what benefits that action could have. Locking obsi's account on GLBSE would achieve what? Do you propose that GLBSE should FORCE a buyback on all obsi investors (at less than they could get selling on the market)? That would go down really well if obsi then showed up and said "doh - sorry guys, I just got back our funds from the pass-through and was going to reimburse them but GLBSE just made you sell out at 0.00001 per share.". If you want to sell out - use the market. If you want to wait, wait. If you believe obsi's broken his contract then go make a thread in scammer's forum. |
|
|
|
The price of OBSI.HRPT has dropped immensly. Obsi is buying back shares, seems to be market price. The way the price is dropping, it is just making it easier and easier for Obsi to walk away with everybodies money.
Indeed - it's actually highly amusing the way he's manipulating the price without actually obviously doing anything to do so. People need to consider WHY did he buy out all his other companies at fair prices? In what scenarios does that actually make any sense? I'd explain further, except I now actually hold OBSI.HRPT shares (bought today when they finally fell below the price-point where I believe the risk/reward ratio is right to buy) - so it's in my interest for the price to stay nice and low so he can buy back a ton of them. Then it's fingers crossed time for me - to see if the price does rebound when what I expect to happen actually happens (and, of course, to see IF what I expect to happen actually happens). |
|
|
|
I think having a piece of satoshidice is pretty cool, being they are currently the most popular addresses, etc. Big part of bitcoin culture.
I think ASICMINER is an interesting gamble. I like the way Flying Dutchman Bitcoin Fund is run.
BTC-Mining/Namjies's fund is prolly worth the mention along with the Dutchman. They yield 5% / month
Actually there's no fixed limit on what they yield, it's an auction-based model (sort of like how Treasuries are sold). That aside, the yield has sort of stuck around 5%. then the price should be rising in relation to the lost opportunity cost of just holding those shares during that period.
In practice the opposite is more likely I'd think. We may be talking at cross-purposes. Consider ASICMINER as something which starts with value X (IPO price) then at some future date will suddenly become worth Y. The point at which it becomes worth Y is when the chips begin mining. Now for the purpose of evaluating Y you have to look at the different possible outcomes and the chance of each then calculate the EV at that point (which includes the chance of zero value due to the chips never working). For ASICMINER to be a viable investment at all, that value Y (the EV of all outcomes at some future point) has to be higher than X. If you believe it lower than X then obviously the share only has value if you short it. My point about value rising was on the assumption that Y is higher than X (that's my assessment and we'll NEVER know if I was right or not - as we'll only know what actually happens, not what the likelihood of that particular outcome actually was). If we take as a given that Y is higher than X then my argument is that the value of the share should gradually rise from X to Y until the instant when the outcome is known when it'll either drop or rise based on the actual results. The alternative argument is that the value stays at X until the outcome is known then changes all at once. My argument in essence relies on two points: 1. Money not making a profit is an opportunity cost. I can't see any valid argument against this other than if the contention is that there's no way to make profit from money. So if the value of the share doesn't rise then there's zero incentive to buy it at the start rather than use your money to make profit and buy into it later. 2. If it has an expected value Y in the future then its value to you NOW is Y less the profit you could reasonably otherwise make from employing your funds elsewhere in the meantime (to be pedantic that also has to be adjusted to account for your tolerance of risk/variance). Irrespective of which pricing model you use, as time passes and more information becomes available, you should become better able to estimate what Y is (and adjust your pricing accordingly). My argument also relied on the fact that so far no news has emerged about ASIC or BFL or any other competitor that changes anything significantly. BFL have upped their specs as expected - but the key issue is who delivers first. Your argument hinges on the (unproven) theory that market participants act rationally. The scenario I envisage goes something like this: guy invests, waits two weeks or two hours, nothing happens, gets bored, divests. Seems to be borne by the facts so far. Nah, my argument doesn't hinge on that at all. As I thought, we're talking at cross-purposes. I was talking about how I (rationally, I hope) value the share. You're talking about how the market (irrationally) value it. For accounting I obviously use market values - but for investment decisions I use a more rational valuation. I aim to make money FROM the irrational behaviour of both investors and asset issuers (pretty sure I told you that already in a different thread where you asked why I still use GLBSE). So I'm about the last person who would claim the GLBSE market acts rationally. |
|
|
|
|
I don't believe you can just shut CPA down easily. I assume you still have some insurance policies out (not just the BMF one that you refuse to discuss or honour). Do all those policies HAVE clauses in allowing you to just cancel without reparation?
If they all can be ended without breach of contract (including if the all the insured will reach settlement for closure where they aren't obligated to) then you CAN close - and probably should.
Otherwise you're obligated to maintain sufficient capital (properly segregated by sector as per CPA's contract) to cover all outstanding policies until they expire. Anything else would be a default. Remember, you can change CPA's own contract (with its investors) at any time you like - they agreed to that (last item of the contract). But you can't unilaterally change any contracts you've signed with insurees (other than with BMF - where you're both sides of the contract and neither side has honoured it anyway).
So I vote : YES if you can without default. Otherwise struggle on until all contracts have expired - or default if you prefer.
|
|
|
|
The motion system is now live. Please note that you'll want to make sure you have your account timezone set properly when scheduling votes.
I built it pretty fast. Please let me know if you run into any issues!
Cheers.
Am testing it now with a motion on LTC-ATF. The motion was essentially that my investors believe that the motion system is working. I then voted "NO" with the actual asset-issuing account. If the 99,000 unissued units get to vote then it obviously is NOT working. If the vote from them is ignored (as it should be) then the motion might pass  |
|
|
|
|
Exchange rate at .00412
NAV/U at 10.36764959
Bid up at 10.2, Ask up at 10.5
There's some volume slowly building up around the .004-.0042 range, so with any luck the exchange-rate will settle in that area for a while.
I've also raised a motion on LTC-ATF. The text of it is:
"
This motion is advisory in nature and the asset issuer is not obligated to
commit (or not commit) any action in response to it.
Proposition : The unit-holders of this fund believe that the motion system on
LTC-GLOBAL is functioning properly.
Vote Yes if you agree with the proposition.
Vote No if disagree or would prefer to press the No button (IF there's a NO
button - which I don't know yet)"
The motion shows up on the LTC-ATF page (near bottom). I'd encourage all investors to vote (doesn't matter which way) so we can see if/how well the system works.
|
|
|
|
What happens to LTCI? It was going to invest into LTC-ATF according to contract.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as there is no contract violation (i.e. if fund said it won't invest into other funds it shouldn't).
there's been more discussion on it on the litecoin forums: http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.0.htmltowards end of that thread. |
|
|
|
The recent price slumps were 100% due to a large investor dumping to all orders above 1.0 every day or two. I actually watched it happen one day - he obviously put all his shares up on Ask at a low price then cancelled what was left after he'd cleared the orders. I saw his 3,600 shares up on ask briefly. What I don't know is if it was only one investor - but the same pattern was repeated most days: bids slowly rose then one person wiped them out down to somewhere in the 0.1 to 0.105 range. Doing it over a lengthy period like that is the act of someone who needs to cash out (but not desperately enough to sell at a loss) - not the act of someone who knows the project has gone horribly wrong (the latter would need to shift the shares faster before others found out the secret information).
I wouldn't say there's been NO updates - there was a brief update which indicated proto run would be done in 3x - 5x days time : putting arrival of the first small batch (for testing and mining) at late october - mid november. That doesn't really change anything - BFL's update was actually less specific on dates (but did give higher specs than previously) and only talked about October/November for a potential manufacturing-site inspection.
Essentially all we've learned is that both operations haven't had any significant delays that they're willing to admit to and that neither is yet able to commit to a firm delivery date. That's no different to when ASICMINER launched.
This may have been ABMO winding down. The second half maybe. There was someone else doing it before you did it (it started before you put your 5k up to debunk my theory). |
|
|
|
Consider ASICMINER as something which starts with value X (IPO price) then at some future date will suddenly become worth Y. The point at which it becomes worth Y is when the chips begin mining. Now for the purpose of evaluating Y you have to look at the different possible outcomes and the chance of each then calculate the EV at that point (which includes the chance of zero value due to the chips never working).
For ASICMINER to be a viable investment at all, that value Y (the EV of all outcomes at some future point) has to be higher than X. If you believe it lower than X then obviously the share only has value if you short it.
My point about value rising was on the assumption that Y is higher than X (that's my assessment and we'll NEVER know if I was right or not - as we'll only know what actually happens, not what the likelihood of that particular outcome actually was).
If we take as a given that Y is higher than X then my argument is that the value of the share should gradually rise from X to Y until the instant when the outcome is known when it'll either drop or rise based on the actual results. The alternative argument is that the value stays at X until the outcome is known then changes all at once.
My argument in essence relies on two points:
1. Money not making a profit is an opportunity cost. I can't see any valid argument against this other than if the contention is that there's no way to make profit from money. So if the value of the share doesn't rise then there's zero incentive to buy it at the start rather than use your money to make profit and buy into it later.
2. If it has an expected value Y in the future then its value to you NOW is Y less the profit you could reasonably otherwise make from employing your funds elsewhere in the meantime (to be pedantic that also has to be adjusted to account for your tolerance of risk/variance).
Irrespective of which pricing model you use, as time passes and more information becomes available, you should become better able to estimate what Y is (and adjust your pricing accordingly). My argument also relied on the fact that so far no news has emerged about ASIC or BFL or any other competitor that changes anything significantly. BFL have upped their specs as expected - but the key issue is who delivers first.
Perhaps the waiting time with no updates has weakened the investors' confidence. It may also be as you suggested earlier, a few of the initial investors needed their money for other things (like paying back money they lost on Pirate). The recent price slumps were 100% due to a large investor dumping to all orders above 1.0 every day or two. I actually watched it happen one day - he obviously put all his shares up on Ask at a low price then cancelled what was left after he'd cleared the orders. I saw his 3,600 shares up on ask briefly. What I don't know is if it was only one investor - but the same pattern was repeated most days: bids slowly rose then one person wiped them out down to somewhere in the 0.1 to 0.105 range. Doing it over a lengthy period like that is the act of someone who needs to cash out (but not desperately enough to sell at a loss) - not the act of someone who knows the project has gone horribly wrong (the latter would need to shift the shares faster before others found out the secret information). I wouldn't say there's been NO updates - there was a brief update which indicated proto run would be done in 3x - 5x days time : putting arrival of the first small batch (for testing and mining) at late october - mid november. That doesn't really change anything - BFL's update was actually less specific on dates (but did give higher specs than previously) and only talked about October/November for a potential manufacturing-site inspection. Essentially all we've learned is that both operations haven't had any significant delays that they're willing to admit to and that neither is yet able to commit to a firm delivery date. That's no different to when ASICMINER launched. |
|
|
|
|
Totally forgot my original point - of why we may be talking at cross-purposes.
I was talking about how the share SHOULD be valued. You may well have been talking about what's likely to happen to its value on GLBSE. In which case we have no fundamental disagreement - I owuld not be at all surprised if ASICMINER shares took a big dip for reasons totally unrelated to the likely success (or otherwise) of their project.
But as, in my model, that wouldn't change Y - the POSSIBILITY of it happening isn't a reason not to invest (as success would still deliver the same benefits - given how the payout structure is setup). In fact my original post's point was that it's likely its current price is depressed for reasons unrelated to the project itself.
|
|
|
|
I think having a piece of satoshidice is pretty cool, being they are currently the most popular addresses, etc. Big part of bitcoin culture.
I think ASICMINER is an interesting gamble. I like the way Flying Dutchman Bitcoin Fund is run.
BTC-Mining/Namjies's fund is prolly worth the mention along with the Dutchman. They yield 5% / month
Actually there's no fixed limit on what they yield, it's an auction-based model (sort of like how Treasuries are sold). That aside, the yield has sort of stuck around 5%. then the price should be rising in relation to the lost opportunity cost of just holding those shares during that period.
In practice the opposite is more likely I'd think. We may be talking at cross-purposes. Consider ASICMINER as something which starts with value X (IPO price) then at some future date will suddenly become worth Y. The point at which it becomes worth Y is when the chips begin mining. Now for the purpose of evaluating Y you have to look at the different possible outcomes and the chance of each then calculate the EV at that point (which includes the chance of zero value due to the chips never working). For ASICMINER to be a viable investment at all, that value Y (the EV of all outcomes at some future point) has to be higher than X. If you believe it lower than X then obviously the share only has value if you short it. My point about value rising was on the assumption that Y is higher than X (that's my assessment and we'll NEVER know if I was right or not - as we'll only know what actually happens, not what the likelihood of that particular outcome actually was). If we take as a given that Y is higher than X then my argument is that the value of the share should gradually rise from X to Y until the instant when the outcome is known when it'll either drop or rise based on the actual results. The alternative argument is that the value stays at X until the outcome is known then changes all at once. My argument in essence relies on two points: 1. Money not making a profit is an opportunity cost. I can't see any valid argument against this other than if the contention is that there's no way to make profit from money. So if the value of the share doesn't rise then there's zero incentive to buy it at the start rather than use your money to make profit and buy into it later. 2. If it has an expected value Y in the future then its value to you NOW is Y less the profit you could reasonably otherwise make from employing your funds elsewhere in the meantime (to be pedantic that also has to be adjusted to account for your tolerance of risk/variance). Irrespective of which pricing model you use, as time passes and more information becomes available, you should become better able to estimate what Y is (and adjust your pricing accordingly). My argument also relied on the fact that so far no news has emerged about ASIC or BFL or any other competitor that changes anything significantly. BFL have upped their specs as expected - but the key issue is who delivers first. |
|
|
|
I think having a piece of satoshidice is pretty cool, being they are currently the most popular addresses, etc. Big part of bitcoin culture.
I think ASICMINER is an interesting gamble. I like the way Flying Dutchman Bitcoin Fund is run.
I agree with you on ASICMINER - it's a gamble, but an interesting one. It has a chance of a VERY high upside (if their chips work well and they get them out before competitors' ones are around). It also has a fall-back position if they don't get to the party first but also don't arrive too late (even if they miss being first to mine with ASICs then can still join the mining AND sell chips/rigs - leveraging the relatively cheap Chinese production costs). And a risk of heavy loss if their chips just don't work. (all those options are heavily simplified). For me it's a decent gamble to take - and due to a few large initial investors having to offload their shares in a rush the price hasn't risen as much as it maybe should have. The reason the price should have risen is simple: IF you assume the initial investment was a valid one and decent value then the plan was ALWAYS that there'd be a lengthy period of no dividends before any revenue was generated. As that period passes without any significant news (for better or for worse) or deviation from the plan then the price should be rising in relation to the lost opportunity cost of just holding those shares during that period. I'm not convinced that Satoshidice is a good long-term investment - it doesn't seem to have the sort of growth I'd be looking for from a product that was first-to-market with an easily reproducible product. Basically my concern is that it's a short-term fad that in a year or two will have neglibigle use without ever having repaid the investment (and with no assets of any worth to dispose of). I'm not SURE it's a bad investment - just not seeing enough to make me convinced it's a good one. I like the way LDBF is run (nice and transparent) - not quite so convinced that they'll actually make any sort of long-term profit. Also they have the problem of ANY transparent investment fund - anyone with significant funds can pretty much just mirror their investments and save themselves the management fee. |
|
|
|
That's a nice graph, I'm really loving the new ltc-charts.com site.
Yeah, the site's very nice. You can also buy shares in the site on LTC-GLOBAL (they're starting to monetarise the site with adverts) and get a share of any future revenue it brings in, plus support the developer. Obviously not saying that for YOUR benefit burnside as you already know |
|
|
|
|
Here's a few:
Any of usagi's companies - they can double the value of a security just by buying it. Which is like printing money. And their OBSI.HRPT shares are worth 0.1 when everyone else's are worth <0.02. They also have a sophisticated currency-exchange system which can always be used to find SOME currency in which you made a profit by investing in them (though there could be problems actually converting your shares into monopoly money).
DMC - the guy running that can spot value in deals that everyone else would think was just burning money.
Pirate Debt - you'd lose less money buying this than buying most other securities. And wouldn't have to damage your brain reading retarded weekly reports about how well your investment is doing.
|
|
|
|
"Holders of NYAN.B are guaranteed second claim (after holders of NYAN.A) to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN."
You can't shut down B without wiping out C first and giving B all of it's assets.
After which you will NOT screw the people that were not first to read your post. You will SPLIT THE ASSETS EVENLY.
Well according to usagi's spreadsheet nyan.b actually HAS a nav of 1.0 already. But that's using usgai's "real value" numbers - not actual market prices. Irrespective of whether using usagi's own (in my view imaginary) numbers is valid during operation - it's definitely NOT valid at close-down when only realisable value matters. e.g. valuing OBSI.HRPT at 0.1 when it trades around 0.02 isn't appropriate if the fund's shutting down. Obviously at this stage the question of how usagi values securities becomes VERY important. If those values are deliberately inflated then it would no longer just be misleading the bond-holders, it would be attempting to scam them by giving them assets worth less than what they were entitled to (which potentially includes all the assets of nyan.c and the holdings of nyan itself - at present 160 nyan.a shares and 67 BMF shares). If any investor in nyan.b has serious doubts about usagi's valuation of assets then you really should go make a scam thread about it before the assets start disappearing/getting handed out. It's usagi's obligation to ensure that nyan.b assets either have a value of 1.0 or more OR have a nav lower than that having received all assets from nyan.c and nyan. Valuations such as OBSI.HRPT at 0.1 (the price it was SOLD for when it paid interest and updates were given) are clearly ludicrous. Same for the valuation of MOVE.TO (where it's valued at more than it's being liquidated for). Also, given MOVE.TO is being liquidated by sharing assets, shouldnt usgai be reclaiming assets for the MOVE.TO shares BEFORE announcing what nyan.b has at the end? It all smells to me like the house of cards is collapsing and usagi is just trying to bail out as fast as possible without even a token effort to honour its obligations to its investors. One thing which IS right - is that the contract only entitles holders of nyan.b to assets, there's no commitment to any sort of orderly closing down method. That's the fault of investors who don't bother reading contracts - like the poor sods invested in CPA who agreed to a contract which specifically states that usagi can change the contract however it wants and make those changes binding without any need for a shareholder vote. |
|
|
|
For each share of MOVETO.FUND that you return, I will transfer to you:
Believe you may have forgotten to change MOVETO.FUND to NYAN.B when you copy-pasted/edited cyclo's post. |
|
|
|
1. We need a motion system! For now, the notification system should work ok. You can send a notification asking everyone to reply using your email address, then you can use their return email addresses to tally votes.
I didn't address this in my earlier post. The notification system works far from OK for motions. It DOES allow the asset issuer to see the results of a vote but noone else can confirm that unless the asset issuer posts a list of all email addresses and votes cast by that address. This is bad because: The asset lister posting such a list is (I would hope) obviously not a good idea - as it exposes the email addresses and number of shares held of people who may have just wanted to invest anonymously without their email addresses being published. Without such a list, there's zero way to tell if the asset issuer is honestly passing on the results. If we're going to assume that asset issuers will always act in good faith then we may as well not bother with motions and just let them change their contracts however and whenever they want. It also means that noone can vote anonymously - there are circumstances where this can cause someone to vote other than they otherwise would have (or not vote) because of unrelated issues linking them with the asset issuer. I'm an asset issuer myself AND an investor. In both roles I want transparency on any motions without revealing who voted which way. As an investor I want confidence that my vote was counted the way I actually voted. As an asset issuer I want investors to be able to vote honestly without trying to suck up to me or being unduly influenced by others who would see how they voted were their email address (which is often traceable to a forum identity) exposed. I am IN FAVOUR, however, of an addition - that in any motion the number of shares the asset issuer voted with (and how they voted) should be exposed. This would ideally include any shares they voted with on their personal account. |
|
|
|
There is some hope in the clowns camp for you. At least you can write silly little poems about yourself.
As a portfolio manager, you must be the worst that BTC world has ever seen. Even defaulting PPT's held the value better than coin in your portfolio.
LOL. And this is a fact. No matter how you whine here.
Lol EskimoBob is weak and he cannot hurt me. I can beat EskimoBob. Lol. GIGAMINING [ 1@0.9BTC] (since: 2012-08-05) paid: 0.132775 BTC. Last price: 0.60499997 BTC. Capital gain: -0.29500003 BTC. Total: -0.16222503 BTC. (-18%) YABMC [ 1@0.14BTC] (since: 2012-08-05) paid: 0.02337128 BTC. Last price: 0.07034002 BTC. Capital gain: -0.06965998 BTC. Total: -0.0462887 BTC. (-33.1%) ABM [ 1@0.45BTC] (since: 2012-08-05) paid: 0.015011 BTC. Last price: 0.10000001 BTC. Capital gain: -0.34999999 BTC. Total: -0.33498899 BTC. (-74.4%) NASTY [ 1@0.8BTC] (since: 2012-08-05) paid: 0.01422903 BTC. Last price: 0.4539 BTC. Capital gain: -0.3461 BTC. Total: -0.33187097 BTC. (-41.5%) DMC [ 1@0.45BTC] (since: 2012-08-05) paid: 0 BTC. Last price: 0.055 BTC. Capital gain: -0.395 BTC. Total: -0.395 BTC. (-87.8%) BMMO [ 1@0.14BTC] (since: 2012-08-05) paid: 0.01673604 BTC. Last price: 0.04 BTC. Capital gain: -0.1 BTC. Total: -0.08326396 BTC. (-59.5%) Wow so looks like everything in mining lost ~50% in the last couple of months. How did usagi's stocks do? NYAN.A [1@1BTC] paid: 0.09 BTC. Last price: 0.99 BTC. Capital gain: -0.01 BTC. Total: 0.08 BTC. (8%) Wow, 8%. Cool. Ok. NYAN.B [1@1BTC] (since: 2012-08-05) paid: 0.16081227 BTC. Last price: 0.96999999 BTC. Capital gain: -0.03000001 BTC. Total: 0.13081226 BTC. (13.1%) Wow! 13% Not bad, not bad. How about BMF, a mining sector fund? One would expect it to lose about 50% just like every other miner in the world. BMF [ 1@0.5BTC] (since: 2012-08-05) paid: 0.07135279 BTC. Last price: 0.49 BTC. Capital gain: -0.1 BTC. Total: -0.0286472 BTC. (-0.06%) Wow. So basically anyone who invested in mining in the last 2 months lost money. Unless, of course, you invested in usagi's mining fund BMF.Sort of an inconvenient truth, isn't it, EskimoBob? It does however raise an interesting question (if we assume for the purpose of argument that your reasoning above is correct - rather than that you picked a sample of companies and a time-frame that happened to produce the results you wanted). If your investment companies are outperforming mining companies - and all mining companies are losing money. Then WHY, WHY, WHY would you be trying to convert an investment company into a mining company? Shouldn't you just be getting out of the sector totally? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
