I have to agree that the idea of valuing mining gear assets based on BTC/USD exchange rate is not the best approach.  Here's how I believe they should be valued:

1.  When purchased they should be be valued at the price paid (in BTC).
2.  Their expected life-span should be calculated - i.e. how long before they run out of warranty or the likely difficulty increase is such that it would no longer be profitable to mine with them.
3.  Their expected resale value at that time should be calculated in USD.

Their value at any given time should be based upon a steady depreciation from their initial cost in BTC to their expected resale value at decommisioning time (converted from USD to BTC at current rate).

The exchange rate would thus have minimal impact at (or near) purchase time but increasing impact as decomissioning draws nearer (and the resale value becomes of increasing relevance).  Obviously there's nothing to stop an extended warranty being purchased to increase the period over which depreciation is applied (albeit at an additional cost).

Mining equipment is purchased to provide a revenue stream. Where there's no intent to actively trade it, then writing off the purchase cost over its projected life-span makes a LOT more sense than trying to revalue it every week with the value dependent on an exchange-rate that is initially IRRELEVANT as there's no intent to sell.

Obviously leaving it on the books without any depreciation is just as bad - as when the equipment finally fails (or has to be sold due to being unprofitable to use) that would cause a large drop in value which was 100% to be expected and should have been accounted for.

A few points follow from this:

1.  Mining companies should be aiming to mine sufficent coins with hardware to cover the costs of it before it gos out of warranty or will become uneconomical to use (see, however point 4 for an exception).
2.  If the projected revenue from mining falls steadily below the rate at which you need to depreciate the hardware then the project is a no-brainer bad idea.  That's because IF you depreciate hardware at a steady rate in BTC (as I propose) and the income STARTS by not compensating for that decline, then as income will drop (unless you believe difficulty won't rise) it's never gonna catch back up with the line.
3.  Why the fuck do so many people invest in mining companies when those companies SHOULD have calculated proof that it's a good investment in optimistic circumstances (low-rising difficulty) at a minimum, yet rarely bother to actually demonstrate to investors even the best-reasonable-case scenario and how investors will make money.
4.  It's my contention that the life-span of mining equipment should be based on the warranty period for the hardware UNLESS there's good statistical evidence for that specific hardware that it's actual life-span (when being used to mine) is longer (when something near that value could be used - especially for larger operations where the number of rigs is likely to produce overall results somewhere near the expected mean).

A slightly off-topic post - but relevant to the point being discussed.

Just noticed this (thanks to usagi for pointing it out).

Will be PMing smickles to accept shares on GLBSE (don't have an MPEx account yet).

Thanks.

lol.  That's honestly the first time I've even read that thread.  I have to say, in fairness, that I now can totally understand why you believed I was being paid by MPOE-PR/mirceau.  Looks like you pointed it out just in time for me to claim my free shares as well.  If you'd linked me to that thread earlier then a lot of the dialogue between us could have been skipped - as until you just posted that link I thought you had zero reason to believe me a mircea puppet when in fact you had a good reason.

That said, you MUST realise that if I actually had some deal to be paid by him then surely he wouldn't have listed me in that post (unless, I guess, it was some sort of double-bluff).  It's a Bayes Theorem/Prosecutor's Fallacy type scenario - where evidence (if properly assessed) actually doesn't support the hypothesis it would appear to.

Anyway guess I need to send a mail to claim my free shares - thanks for pointing it out.

I agree there's no point us repeatedly going over the same ground, so I'll ask a simple question with a follow-up:

Do you believe it's sound business/accounting practice to buy something for price X then immediately value it at a price Y, where ALL of the following are true:

1.  Y is much higher than X.
2.  You can buy more of the items on the open market for much less than Y.
3.  Noone is willing to buy the items now for price Y?

I'm not asking whether it should ALWAYS be done - just if it's EVER good practice to value the item at Y if ALL 3 of the above are true.

If your answer is no (or "Only extremely rarely") then why are you you routinely doing it?
If your answer is yes then why do you believe Enron executives were charged (amongst other things) based on their use of precisely such a "future profits" accounting system?

Regarding "I know mircea pays you" - you still haven't figured out how wrong you are on that?  You accused me of being an account made this August to be a sock-puppet for mircea (do I need to link to your post saying that?).  That's despite ANYONE being able to look at my forum creation date and see you're about a year out on when my account was made.  The ONLY "evidence" you have linking me to mircea is that we both disagree with you.  You CAN'T have any other evidence - as I've never had any interaction with him other than posting in some of the same threads here and occasionally replying to his posts or him replying to mine.  Baseless accusations like that do nothing to further your credibility.

EDIT: to avoid a seperate post please clarify this.  You repeatedly refer to "local rules" which allow a thread-starter to choose who may post and what content they may post.  Can you PLEASE point me to some official FAQ or guidelines post giving any validity to such "local rules"?  I honestly can't find one - but will happily stick to local rules if (and only if) such official guidance exists.  If no such guidance exists then please don't waste your virtual ink in the future referring to such meaningless "local rules" again.

Questions about BMF's insurance policy with CPA.

Summary of the situation can be found in this post : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1229467#msg1229467

No need to comment on all of that lengthy post (unless you really want to).  My questions boil down to these:

1.  Is BMF entitled to claim under that policy now (and previously) with it's NAV/share being under 1.0?
1a.  If answer to 1. is "Yes" then why hasn't it?
1b  If answer to 1. is "No" then what IS BMF insured against if it isn't NAV/share falling below 1.0?  Does this represent good value to BMF investors for their 550 BTC worth of premiums.

2.  On September 10th in regards to the policy you said ""This was announced, publicized, motioned, voted on and passed two months ago."
2a. Where was it announced and publicised?
2b. Where can I find the motion?
2c. Where can I see the results of the voting?

No offence - but when I asked in the BMF thread ages ago (and also in the CPA one) why BMF wasn't claiming on its insurance policy (and what that policy covered if it wasn't loss of NAV) you refused to answer it.

You then started telling everyone who had comments/questions to post in THIS forum - which we did.

Now we post here you still won't comment on the insurance question here - but now want it posted back in BMF.  That's the ONLY thing I've asked about here.  It's the FIRST thing (I think) I ever asked about your companies (back when I first came across you whilst looking through and evaluating securities).

OK - I'll ask it as a few simple questions in the BMF thread as that's now what you apparently want.  Not that I have any expectation of getting an answer this time either.

To cut to the chase on your valuation policy - you will value companies above the highest current Ask price when you believe in the long-term they will be worth that amount.

The problem with that approach is that:

1.  It assumes your judgment is correct - when NOONE else with liquid BTC agrees with you.  we KNOW noone else agrees - or the ASK wouldn't be there.

2.  It allows generation of paper-value that's in no way realisable.  e.g. if you value (say) Nasty at 0.6 when there's ASKs on the market at (say) 0.4 then for every NASTY share you buy the valuation of your fund (by you) immediately jumps by 0.2 due solely to you buying from the ASK-wall.

Point 1 is major given your track record - where there's a whole ton of examples of you buying things then finding out they weren't even worth what you paid: let alone some even more generour value.

Point 2 is dangerous as it allows you to make it look like you're doing well, even if you're doing badly, just by progressively over-valuing your assets more and more based on some combination of beliefs, guesses, believing people who tell you things on irc and total lunacy.

At some point you need to accept that the fact pretty much everything you touched in the past has lost money is probably a more reliable indication of what's coming in the future than delusional optimism.  And you also need to start accepting that when everyone else says "stock X is not worht more than A" - by refusing to buy it at A then it's kind of dumb (or intentionally deceptive - no way for me to know for sure which) for you to then go and value it at A*1.5 or A*2. 

Sure - on occasion there may be specific reasons why you actually DO have good reason to believe that a stock is seriously over-priced.  But you DON'T at that point start valuing it at over Ask prices.  Instead you value it within the live trading range and mark it up WHEN it gos to your expected price.

1.  That way's honest, transparent and your current valuations are based on information that can be verified.
2.  If you're right, then WHY reveal what stocks you believe are grossly under-priced anyway?
3.  If you're wrong WHY make yourself look even more of an idiot?

You make yourself look good as a manager by buying things when they're cheap then watching their market value rise (to where you thought they'd go when you bought them) and your fund's own valuation rise too.  You make yourself look terrible as a manager by valueing things you buy based on 'knowledge' that only exists in your own imagination - then having to spin bullshit stories blaming it on everyone/thing else when the scenario you dreamed up ends up never becoming reality.

Exchange rate at 0.00399.

Adjusted NAV/U at 10.50730245

Ask staying at 10.6, moving Bid up to 10.3 as the exchange rate seems to have stabilised a bit (famous last words, no doubt).

Just a bit of explanation for the math of something which might seem offputting to some if not through carefully.  It would be easy to look at my historical NAV/Us and Bid prices and think "Heh - something's wrong here: he's saying NAV/U is 10.45 but placing bids at 10.15 meaning we can only draw out 1/3 of the claimed profits."

There's two reasons why that's the case - one obvious and one much less so.

Obvious: I have to hedge against exchange-rate fluctuations (so people can't drain money from the funds by buying/selling based on pretty small changes in the rate).  I have to balance between two competing interests - offering attractive rates to those trying to buy in/sell out and protecting the investments of those already in and staying in.  I will always err on the side of caution in attempting to achieve the latter of those two.

Less Obvious: My spreads are based on a % of unit value NOT on a % of profit - so attempting to assess them based on a % of profit is misleading.

If NAV/U is 10.45 and my bids are 10.15 then the margin on bids is NOT to withhold 66% of profits, it's to offer bids at at around 2-3% below NAV/U (which is what I typically do if the rate looks fairly volatile).  Consider two extreme examples -

If NAV/U were 10.00000001 Then my bid would be around 9.7 - 9.8.  Rather obviously that's withholding more all profits AND some of original capital.

At other end of the scale consider if NAV/U were 20.  Then my bid would be around 19.4 - 19.6.  Obviously that's withholding around 5% of total profits.

In short: don't look at the current % of profits you can't withdraw and mistakenly assume that in some way my bids are actually BASED on withholding profits - they aren't.  My bids are based on the best price I believe I can safely offer such that any likely exchange-rate fluctations whilst the bid is unattended will not detrimentally impact the value of units belonging to investors already in the fund and not trying to exit.

I haven't bothered previously pointing out just how retarded this whole line of argument is.  But here's what usagi and Diablo both missed when using it:

IF the asicminer deal was for XXXMhash/share NOW then it would be a great deal.  But it's not.

When asics come online guess what?  The power of the network is going to massively increase.  And  each MH/Share THEN will only be generating the same BTC as a small percentage of that MH/Share generates now - and that's totally ignoring that difficulty will likely increase anyway (even if ASICs never show up) and block-halving.

IF asicminer gets its ASICs out significantly before any other ASIC producer then they'll be a great investment (and likely that trade would have worked out OK).  In all other scenarios there's no way that trade would ever be anywhere near a decent one.  Treating the first scenario as a certainty is entirely stupid.

Aside from anything else the trade valued ASICMINER at about 10 times their market value.  If that happened to be true then why:

a) didn't anyone else spot it?
b) didn't all of usagi's companies sell all their other assets and buy ASICMINER?
c) didn't Diablo just sell off some of the DMC shares on the market and BUY ASICMINEr shares for a fraction of the price he ascribed to them in his handouts?
d) didn't it ever cross usagi's mind that "I've been wrong in just about every other mining share I've valued (e,g, buying tons of fixed MH/s mining bonds at prices which could NEVER be profitable with ANY realistic model of future difficulty)- so likely I'm just full of shit as usual this time"?

The only sensible answer is that usagi isn't actually as totally brain-dead as its justification of the deal makes it appear.  Rather, usagi KNEW the deal was terrible for DMC but managed to talk Diablo into it (and also, apparently, convince nefario it was legit - which means little given that he believes losing 95% of a company's value without any records is perfectly fine).  And now usagi has to continue feeding the totally stupid justification for teh deal out so as to be able to continue to exploit Diablo's total lack of business sense again (e.g. talking him into buying back its shares at double nav).

I don't think it#s being done to wreck IPOs - it's being done because it's profitable.  It's a direct effect of IPOs that offer bonus shares/discounts to large buyers AND put far more shares up for sale then will sell out in a short period.

How to make money on such IPOs:

1. Buy bulk shares, so you pay less than the listed IPO price.
2. Relist said shares at 1 satoshi below IPO price.
3. Once they've sold, if there's still bulk shares left go back to stage 1.

It makes the person doing it profit - without the IPO issuer selling any more shares to the public.  I'd considered doing it myself on this specific offering to be honest: as it's the perfect sort of IPO to make money in that way (about 9% profit basically).  To be clear, I haven't done it (yet) on this OR any other IPO - but it's precisely (one of) the sort of thing my tiny LTC fund (which you're aware of) intends to do.  We're not looking to make money by picking good value investments (as there aren't many).  We're looking to make money from the poor judgment of both asset managers and investors.

My point: if it's being done intentionally there's a perfectly sound reason to do it for financial gain - so no need for conspiracy theories about someone trying to wreck IPOs.

No way GLBSE should lock trading on IPOs that don't sell out fast:

1.  Investors should have the ability to liquidate assets.
2.  It would make the IPO sell out even slower - as with a bid-wall (or bid-mountain in this case) noone can buy in unless they believe there's a near-zero chance of them being able to cash-out in the foreseeable future.
3.  Why punish investors/speculators for the short-sightedness of an asset issuer?

Personally I'd love it if the trade of DeprivedAsset were highlighted in some colour in the order books - it would allow investors to be  sure they were buying/selling to one of my orders (or someone else's that was better).  As it stands, potentially someone could buy out my ASks then relist higher - and new investors could think it was my own offers and so was only 1% or so above nav/u.

I COULD just sling up a huge Ask-wall to stop that - but as I don't want to sell a whole ton of units at once I'm very reluctant to do that.

Do bear in mind that showing asset issuer's offers could be fairly easily worked around if they wanted to (by doing it via other accounts they transferred shares to) - but I don't see any legitimate reason why an asset issuer should want to hide trades made by the actual asset (trades made by their personal account is a slightly different issue - but I also don't see any good reason to hide those).

I like this in theory (I'm an asset issuer on LTC_GLOBAL) myself.

What I'd like to see is that asset issuers either include in their contract (if an IPO) or modify their contract (via motion) if it's already in the wild to include a statement of how they'll apply that change.

In the case of my fund (which day trades across a range of assets and is very exposed to the LTC/BTC exchange rate) I wouldn't foresee needing to halt trading other than in some VERY extreme circumstance (e.g. GLBSE getting hacked or shutdown).  Even in those circumstances I'd likely only halt trading very briefly - just to clear orders and post an update here/ in the ltctalk thread.  Thereafter investors all have the same information before they trade (except any idiots who trade without bothering to work out why their orders were cancelled) and can do what they want on the market.

But my situation is a bit different to most - as my fund buys/sells units and so is effectively the market-maker for the asset and I would expect it to usually form the bulk of orders itself (as the trading range moves up/down during the day as profits/losses are made and the exchange-rate varies).

The real argument on is between two competing points of view:

1.  That if something unexpected occurs, those with oustanding market orders should be prevented from loss.
2.  That anyone placing orders and leaving them unattended is already accepting the risk that the pricing of their orders may become severely wrong in some situations.

I don't have a strong belief on either side of those arguments - but I'd certainly like to know what an asset's policy was.  I'll sort my own policy on it out tomorrow - then see about passing it as a motion to amend the contract: not becasue I NEED it in the contract (I don't) but because i believe any investor reading the contract deserves to know my stance on it.

My policy will also definitely include that in the event something occurs which would cause me to impose a freeze the neither the asset itself or my personal LTC-GLOBAL account will trade my units before I press the freeze button: i.e. I won't exploit the situation myself before preventing anyone else doing so.

Oh - and for usagi's benefit, a contract is NOT broken or defaulted on when both parties to the contract agree to vary it or waive a term in it.

I can see arguments for both sides here:

On the one hand, the contract strictly interpreted would tend towards usagi sending the money to the shareholders.

On the other hand "send the money back" - which usagi agreed to - clearly means to where it came from.

Given that both parties to the contract (usagi/CPA and bakewell's shareholders) agreed to waive the terms of the contract, I'd have to end on Ian's side.  After all - usagi's own companies happily change their contracts with their shareholders (BMF seems to do it on a regular basis) and never bother getting the contract amended on GLBSE - so any new investors really don't have a clue what the contract of the week actually is.

Given that when usagi/CPA made an insurance contract with BMF (its own company) NEITHER side adhered to the contract (BMD didn't claim when entitled to, CPA never paid out, BMF stopped paying premiums - without any mention of either default by usagi), it's sudden desire to actually stick to the strict terms of a contract is hypocritical at a minimum.  It's also totally petty - but I wouldn't have expected anything different.

Having said all that, in Ian's shoes I'd almost certainly just dividend the 4 BTC to the shareholders anyway.  But that should be his choice, not usagi's.

Exchange rate at 0.00395

Adjusted NAV/U at 10.50244162

Asks up at 10.6, a very small bid up at 10.15.

Last 3 trades were all sells back to the fund (54 units - approx 10% of units).  That drained our liquid LTC.  Have BTC on withdraw from GLBSE, will convert it in morning and put up the usual 30 unit wall.  As the fund mainly day trades, liquidity isn't the huge problem it is for some investments - only real delay is converting from BTC to LTC (withdrawals from GLBSE is the slow part).

Me too - not sure in which universe OBSI.HRPT have a 5-day average of over 0.09.

Exchange rate at 0.00397

NAV/U : 10.4563912

Not been on long (as I said yesterday, I have a busy day today).  Some of my bids and asks went through whilst I was offline - the profits from those just about cancelled out the reduction in value (in LTC) from the exchange-rate change.

Also had our first sell-back of units to the fund today - which added a tiny bit to the NAV/U of everyone else.  Will be around on and off for rest of the evening - then trading as usual again tomorrow.

WEEKLY RESULTS FOR THE TRADING PERIOD 26th Sep 2012 - 29th SEP 2012

Results are given in LTC (in which this fund is denominated) and also in BTC (for any investors who view BTC-value as more important than LTC value).

NAV/U (LTC) at start of period : 10.0
LTC/BTC exchange rate at start of period : .00356
NAV/U (BTC) at start of period : 0.0356

NAV/U (LTC) at end of period : 10.50186932
LTC/BTC exchange rate at end of period : .00383
NAV/U (BTC) at end of period : 0.04022216

Exchange-rate change during week : +7.58%

Trading Profit :

Change in NAV/U (LTC) : +5.087%
Change in NAV/U (BTC) : +12.98%

Management Fee taken : 2 units.

New High Watermark : 10.45168239

I'm satisfied with the results of the first few day's trading.  We made a reasonable profit -despite a large chunk of it (measured in LTC) being wiped out by the change in the exchange-rate.  I should point out at this stage that IF the exchange rate had reduced us into a loss (in LTC) for the week I would be entitled to reduce the HWM to the new NAV/U.  In fact it didn't take us into loss - though it did nicely eat up a chunk of the management fee I would otherwise have earned.

For reference, if the exchange rate had not changed during the week (i.e. it ended at .00356) then the ending adjusted NAV/U would have been 10.98 and we would have made 9.8% profit measured in both LTC and BTC.  I would also have been entiteld to 5 units (5.37 rounded down) as fee.  Such is life - no doubt there'll be weeks where the exchange rate drops (by less than 5%) and I get an extra unit or 2 fee.

IMPORTANT : do NOT make the mistake of thinking "we made 9.8% trading profit in half a week so we should make 15-20% each week".  That absolutely will not be the case.  Here's why:

1.  Some of the most profitable activites are only available on a very tiny scale - as the fund grows the profit from those has a decreasing effect on overall profits.
2.  So far I haven't made any typos, bought into a security just before the bottom fell out of it or got stuck with some useless junk that noone else is willing to buy.  The first of those (typos) will likely happen at some point.  The second (bad timing) is inevitable at some stage.  The third (getting junk noone else will buy) shouldn't happen - but is possible (for GLBSE shares I have very strict rules on how much I'll tie up in any security relative to their daily/5-day trade volumes).

I'm not going to attempt to guess what trading profit we'll make each week.  I'm confident we WILL make a trading profit - but really can't say how large/small it will be.  Remember, also that even if we make a trading profit it can be wiped out by LTC rising vs BTC.  Of course the converse also applies - that profit can be enhanced (or loss diminished) by LTC falling vs BTC.  Swap LTC/BTC in the previous sentence if you like to think of your units as being worth BTC.

Not many units have been sold so far.  That was entirely expected :

1.  I have no track record,
2.  I didn't even make a token effort to claim not to be a scammer (I believe such claims to be valueless - both scammers and non-scammers will say they aren't a scammer, so them saying it adds no information assisting anyone else to assess them).
3.  I'm not actively promoting the fund in the main securities forum or in my signature.
4.  I'm keeping details of what securities I trade hidden.  There's a good reason for it - but many investors (including me) are wary of black-box operations.
5.  I'm not paying dividends - many investors like these.  Personally I prefer growth - but to each his own.

A slow start, giving me time to explain things to investors, iron out any glitches in my systems etc makes perfect sense - so please don't panic if you're one of the few current investors but don't see anyone else investing.  All the time the fund stays tiny, your units should grow at a far better rate than when it gets larger.  Do bear in mind that from MY perspective growth (to a certain point) is good even if it diminishes the percentage returns to you - my fee is based on the amount of profit not the percentage of profit.  This divergency of interests is mitagted by my holding units myself - where if more units are issued I MUST make more profit or my fee stays the same and my earnings on my personal units decreases.

Thanks for investing (those who did).  Thanks for at least considering investing (those who didn't but read the thread).

I won't be doing a whole lot of trading tomorrow (got a busy day) - but will obviously have bids/asks out and check them a few times during the day.  Will be around a few hours now to answer any questions anyone has.

EXPLANATION OF SPREADSHEET

Most of the spreadsheet should be obvious - but in case not, here's what every item on it is.  Values in Black (other than percentages) were manually entered.  Values in green are calculated.

At the top is the current LTC/BTC exchange rate - as this fund is valued in LTC but mainly holds BTC-denominated assets, this exchange rate has a massive impact on the fund's value.

Next we have a list of what assets are currently held in currency (LTC or BTC).  For each item it is valued in both LTC and BTC.

The balances in LTC and BTC are given for the BTC-E exchange.  These will usually be zero (in fact there's some tiny amounts in there) - but there may be occasions where funds happen to be being moved between exchanges when the weekly report is prepared.

Next is the balance in BTC on GLBSE
Then the balance in LTC on LTC Global.

Do remember that this is primarily a day-trading operation.  That 58% of the fund is in BTC on GLBSE does NOT mean that the cash is sitting idle - in fact over 10 BTC of it is committed to buy orders at present.

After the currencies section, we have our GLBSE holdings.  Only long-term (i.e. intentionally being held for more than a day or two) securities are displayed here. You'll notice some hidden rows after ASICMINER - those contain the other securities we current hold (and some rows are for securities we've recently held but no longer do).  For long-term securities the general rule is that I use the 5-day average on GLBSE.  That valuei s currently lower than the 0.11 in my spreadsheet.  Why?  Because there are bid orders up into which I could sell the ASICMINER shares right now for .11 - so their value has to be at least that.

Next we have out LTC-GLOBAL holdings.  The comments about GLBSE apply here as well - other than that the 7-day average rather than 5-day one is used by default.  Again, the LTC-GLOBAL shares could be sold for 73.1 - so that is used as their value rather than the (slightly lower) 7-day average.

We then have the total for LTC and BTC denominated holdings and a grand total.

Now for the data below all that obvious stuff:

Units Authorised : This is the number of units I am authorised to sell to the public (an arbitrarily large number of units was created so that there'll never be a need to make more).  At present I am allowed to issue up to 2500 units in total.

Units Outstanding : This is the number of units held by investors (including my own personal account on LTC-GLOBAL).

NAV/UNIT (in LTC then BTC) : This is total value of the fund divided by the number of outstanding units - it represents what each unit is backed by in assets.

OLD HWM : This is the previous 'High Water Mark' - the value/unit above which management fees are payable.  The fund started off selling units at 10.0 - so that is the base from which profit is measured this week.

Adj NAV : This is the value per unit discounted by the management fee which would be taken at the end of the current week.  It represents what each unit would be worth to an investor if I took any fees due to me, sold all assets at their current valuation then shared out the proceeds (in fact this slightly underestimates the value - as we'll see later).

The columns below that showing various percentages of NAV or NAV/U are used by me in pricing my Bids and Asks so as to protect existing investors' equity without grossly overcharging new investors or allowing us to be too easily exploited if the exchange-rate suddenly swings.

Man fee (Units) calculates how many units I am entitled to as my fee for the current period's trading.  That value this week is 2.6.  According to the contract that gets rounded down - so my fee for this week is 2 units which will shortly be transferred from the asset's account to my personal one.

OK, time for the first weekly report.

I'll post a screen-shot of the fund's spreadsheet - then explain what everything in it means.  Going to do the explanation in a second post - so I can make sure the image displays properly before explaining it.