It's going to have to wait - got a phone-call shortly after my last post and only just got off the phone.  Have other things I need to do now, so will have to leave the next bit for another day (maybe tomorrow - though I won't have too much free time then).

Been considering which to do next (there's actually a few more very clear cases of one company carrying out actions that benefit another of usagi's companies with no gain to the first).

The nyan.a holding OBSI.HRPT shares probably warrants some proper description (there's a bit more too it than has previously been explained/examined).  But that one is messy to explain due to the relationships between the various nyans.

I think, instead, I'll do "Nyan cooking the books to cover up an interest-free loan to CPA" - as it hasn't been discussed anywhere (except briefly by me) and just about all the facts in it are already accepted by usagi.  Other, of course, than that the whole exercise was just to let CPA get an interest-free loan from nyan.

Give me 15 mins or so to type it up - I'll have to reference a fair bit of background info so as to make what happened crystal clear.

Nah it's not in USD.

"2. CPA will not be liable for loss greater than 500 bitcoins."

Clearly says that the loss against which BMF is insured is denominated in BTC.  Plus usagi has always stated nav in BTC anyway.

As far as nav being below 1.0 - it's pretty obvious that usagi did the insurance policy right when it had got nav back to or close to 1.0 (the last reported nav was .866 2 weeks before the insurance was agreed).  Usagi specifically stated that signing the polict meant that "This contract means we will likely begin paying dividends again by next week."

You see the nature of the contract is such that it COULD be agreed when nav was actually slightly below 1.0 - in those circumstances they'd make an immediate claim on it, but CPA would still get 550 back from BMF long-term.  If the initial payment needed were low (and BMF didn't collpase horribly like it did) then CPA  would still make a tidy profit from it - and the deal could be viewed as making good sense for both parties.

I repeat: if you interpret the contract that way (and believed both BMF and CPA had rosy futures), then signing it make good sense for shareholders both parties.  BMF got some immediate cash to restore NAV to 1.0, CPA got an income stream etc.

The problem came when both BMF and CPA then lost a ton of capital, CPA couldn't afford to cough up 500 BTC (in 5 chunks of 100 of course) and usagi decided to stiff the BMF shareholders to prop CPA up.

Signing the contract wasn't the problem (though it SHOULD have been properly explained and motioned as usagi represented the other party to it too).  Not honouring it is a HUGE problem.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1229467#msg1229467

Link to the policy and other relevant info in that post.

Amusing how usagi totally refuses to discuss the BMF insurance issue.

That was (I believe) the very first question I asked about its companies.  Just about every other question raised, usagi will try to bluster around with an explanation that (often) doesn't make sense - but at least is an explanation of sorts.  On this particular issue, it can't even think of a bullshit explanation to give of what value BMF were getting for their 550 BTC and why they aren't receiving that benefit.

And THAT's why I posted the whole contract in my original post in the CPA thread about a month back (usagi accused me of being a noob for pasting the whole contract rather than just linking it).  Not because I don't know how to link - but because I wanted acknowledgement of what was AT that link to prevent it getting changed later if, in fact, usagi were defrauding BMF investors to help CPA out.

If OGNasty entered into either selling a short OR a PUT option then it would have no effect on number of outstanding shares.

Easiest way to ythink of it is that it's a bet (below is very simplified) -

OGNasty bets that NASTY shares hold their value, the other side bets that they lose value.
It's really nothing more than that.

Only risk to shareholders is that someone shorts the share then tries to talk the price down.  But if there's nothing wrong with the share then:

a)  It probably won't work,
b)  IF it does drop (and there's nothing wrong) then those who aren't misled get to buy more for cheap.

And there's no need for shorters to try to talk down targets anyway - why try to talk down a decent share when there's plenty of bad ones you can short and let collapse on their own without any need for interference?

So if it happens there's no real issue for shareholders - and, in any event, it's not gonna happen anyway.  OGNasty's post was more of an "I dare you to bet against me" than an offer he'd have had any expectation of being accepted.

Current LTC/BTC exchange rate 0.00382.  Still not much volume around that price so it could change in either direction fairly quickly.

Adjusted NAV/U : 10.45434

Ask going up at 10.6,  Bid at 10.25

That's why I asked about time-zone - as one pretty obvious interpretation of Mirceau's irc chat was that he was intentionally quoting from this thread, then his next line was commenting (in a joky fashion) that you were stealing his idea.

I don't take anything usagi says at face value.  I was also accused by it of being an account made on mirceau's behalf in early august this year.  Despite the FACT that my account wasn't even created this year - let alone in the week that it alleged.

In fairness, it does appear you've been buying back shares last few weeks.  But if you look back further you find:

2012-08-12 15:18   1.635   545   0.003
2012-08-19 13:36   1.635   545   0.003
2012-08-26 12:34   1.635   545   0.003

three weeks where the share traded consistently below 1.0 but outstanding shares remained the same (545).  The price remained below 1.0 - but new shares were sold the next few weeks (so no way to tell easily whether buybacks happend).  Then next few weeks shares outstanding dropped - whether on a Sunday (or form you buying up via lowball bids) is not possible to tell.

Do note that your contract says you'll put up a bid-wall at 1.0.  If you have to buy back shares priced below 1.0 before you CAN put up the bidwall then that's, in theory, your problem - your job is to gtet the bidwall up.  I DO believe that wasn't your intent (as it could commit you to buying back all shares at once) and wouldn't try to enforce that - but it IS what you wrote in your contract.  To my mind if you buy backk 5% each sunday (the lowest asks) then that's fair - just not what you said you'd do (and, for a few weeks at least, not what you were doing).

Meh - the spreadsheet screenshot will have to wait - will be doing 1st weekly report tomorrow anyway and posting one then.

I'm actually still around - got bogged down in other stuff.  Give me 10 minutes and I'll see if I can upload shot of the spreadsheet.

I can't show what shares are held - for two reasons:

1.  I day-trade, not invest: within a few hours of any details being released that information will usually be out of date.  Seeing a list of securities we hold at a specific point in time doesn't tell you anything about how I rate those shares, nor does it actually prove that we DO have those shares.
2.  I don't want to give away to competitors details of which shares I trade on - only a small percentage of shares on GLBSE meet my (pretty tight) criteria to invest in.

There's some pretty specific things I do which work pretty well - they only work on securities with certain characteristics.  Some of those characteristics are fairly obvious - e.g. they aren't obvious scams (which could vanish any time leaving me holding worhtless junk), they trade within a fairly well defined range etc.  Some are a lot less obvious.  It's not in my (or my investors') interest for me to provide information which would assist the competition (yes there IS competition - though it's not from other funds afaik).

Let me give an old example of the sort of thing I do - then maybe you'll be able to see why I really can't give detailed info on trades.

The below is an extract from a set oftrade done BEFORE the fund started.  You can likely find the trades in the GLBSE twitter feed - and i'm fine with nefario confirming the trades listed were done by me, in the order listed with no other trades in between.  These trades weren't particularly profitable - but as a proof-of-concept they did the job.

buy   23/09/2012 21:48   0.11399999   ASICMINER   34
sell   23/09/2012 21:42   0.11900001   ASICMINER   10
sell   23/09/2012 21:40   0.11900001   ASICMINER   11
sell   23/09/2012 21:38   0.11900001   ASICMINER   13
buy   23/09/2012 21:34   0.11399999   ASICMINER   46
sell   23/09/2012 21:32   0.11850001   ASICMINER   9
sell   23/09/2012 21:30   0.11850001   ASICMINER   11
sell   23/09/2012 21:28   0.11850001   ASICMINER   12
sell   23/09/2012 21:26   0.11850001   ASICMINER   14
buy   23/09/2012 21:24   0.11399999   ASICMINER   36
sell   23/09/2012 21:20   0.11850001   ASICMINER   11
sell   23/09/2012 21:16   0.11850001   ASICMINER   11
sell   23/09/2012 21:13   0.11850001   ASICMINER   13

What you see there is me selling shares at one price then buying back the same shares at a lower price.  In fact it was the SAME shares being traded back and forht with me making a profit every cycle.  The actual tarding went on for quite a lot longer in simialr fashion - with one share sniped by some third-party plus a buy at wrong price due (I guess) to a mislick.

The other side of those trades was a remarkably dumb bot - that always undercut asks by 1 satoshi and overbid bids by 1 satoshi.

There was a gap in trading range on asci miner including from .113 - .1195.  So all I did was:

Put up a bid of 1 share at .1185.

(Wait for him to outbid me.
Sell to his order.
Cancel my bid.) Looped until he stopped putting up decent quantities


Put up an ASK at .114
wait for him to undercut me.
Buy all my shares back from him.

Rinse and repeat.

After a bunch of these cycles the bot must have hit some stop-loss and halted.  It cam back again next day and did the same thing lol.  It was SO dumb that before putting up at ask at .114 i'd put up a BID at .11399999 - and the dumb thing would STILL undercut me, selling into my order so he landed with the trade fee.

That bot no longer operates on ASCIMINER (that share is now tricky to trade in for a few reasons - though proft can be made in an entirely different way).  It DID, for a while, contine trading but only doing 1 share at a time (which makes the strategy I used too risky).

Not you've seen the above, hopefully you can see why I absolutely can't afford to identify which securities I'm active on at a particular time.  At present my bot-exploloitation is largely on hold - GLBSE's way too slow to do it manually and I've yet to finish off my own bot (which, as well as monitoring my trades, executing stop losses etc will also be able to be set up to strip cash off other peopke's badly designed bots).

There's other types of trades I do (which require far less effort) - and a few more things that will come online if/when the fund grows a bit.

Now I'm definitely off to bed.

Oh - the initial transfer of assets was purely BTC + asicminer shares.  The asicminer shares I transferred in ( a dozen or so from memory) sold for more than I valued them for the first day of trading (I've since bought and sold more of those as well).  I did have some other junk shares (e.g. DMC which I only bought so I could state I was a shareholder in the thread) - those I liquidated and got a handful more ATF shares with the BTC from their sale.

According to his contract he's suppsoed to palce a bid-wall each week.

According to what he told me when I asked in this thread, he doesn't do that - instead he manually buys back shares listed at below that price.

According to market data and the evidence of one's eyes he doesn't honour his commitment to buy abck up to 5% of outstanding shares on teek.a and teek.usd each week at all.

I actually considered buying up the shares listed at well below 1, relisting them at .995 then prodding him to buy them back (for a quick 10%+ profit) - but given that he's clearly lieing about buying them back I had zero confidence that he wouldn't just vanish rather than do what he's contractually obliged to do.

Look back up the thread to where I asked about it (when I was researching securities to find ones to invest in).  If you've had a sell order up below 1 over a weekend then you personally KNOW that he's lieing (and even if he's doing what he claimed in response to me, it's in no way the same as doing what his contract SAYS he'll do).

Exchange rate's been all over the place today - it finally seems to be settling down a bit, though there's little support on the sell side (so a rise is more likely than a fall in my view).

LTC/BTC Exchange rate at 0.00377

Adjusted NAV/U at 10.5612 (NAV/U before projected fee adjustment 10.6236).

Will be leaving Asks up overnight at 10.75 and Bids at 10.1

Would recommend against buying in if exchange rate gos much over 0.00385.  Would never recommend selling to my overnight bids unless either LTC/BTC rate really tanks or you're absolutely desperate.  Were I staying online ask would be 10.68 and bid 10.3 (meaning the first few investors could cash out for a 3% profit less 0.4% fees if they chose).

Meh :

1.  A large chunk of those votes were you I'd bet.
2.  "All of my shareholders are happy." is not supported by the facts.  All the vote shows is that the ones who VOTED were happy.
3.  Anyone with half a brain who wasn't happy would have sold out by now - and no longer have a vote.
4.  Why do you think you were able to buy back shares at below IPO price?  It can't be because the shareholders were ecstatic about your management of the company. 

You bought out all the unhappy ones (at a loss to them) - what's left is those who don't pay attention, the terminally stupid and probably a few unfortunate souls who haven't been around for a while.

Typical usagi spin/gloss.  The vote wasn't even announced in the main BMF thread - just in one of your numerous "Important: I'm an attention whore - please listen to my bull-shit and don't argue with me" threads.

Oh - and how DID you get more yes votes than have EVER been in circulation?  You didn't by some chance transfer unsold ones to yourself to vote with (then send them back) did you?  I asked nefario about that particular nasty little trick a while back (by PM) but got no answer - so assume it IS possible for a company owner to generate as many yes votes on a motion as they like.

Meh :

1.  A large chunk of those votes were you I'd bet.
2.  "All of my shareholders are happy." is not supported by the facts.  All the vote shows is that the ones who VOTED were happy.
3.  Anyone with half a brain who wasn't happy would have sold out by now - and no longer have a vote.
4.  Why do you think you were able to buy back shares at below IPO price?  It can't be because the shareholders were ecstatic about your management of the company. 

You bought out all the unhappy ones (at a loss to them) - what's left is those who don't pay attention, the terminally stupid and probably a few unfortunate souls who haven't been around for a while.

Typical usagi spin/gloss.  The vote wasn't even announced in the main BMF thread - just in one of your numerous "Important: I'm an attention whore - please listen to my bull-shit and don't argue with me" threads.

Oh - and how DID you get more yes votes than have EVER been in circulation?  You didn't by some chance transfer unsold ones to yourself to vote with (then send them back) did you?  I asked nefario about that particular nasty little trick a while back (by PM) but got no answer - so assume it IS possible for a company owner to generate as many yes votes on a motion as they like.

Oh - and how DID you get more yes votes than have EVER been in circulation?  You didn't by some chance transfer unsold ones to yourself to vote with (then send them back) did you?  I asked nefario about that particular nasty little trick a while back (by PM) but got no answer - so assume it IS possible for a company owner to generate as many yes votes on a motion as they like.

Meh :

1.  A large chunk of those votes were you I'd bet.
2.  "All of my shareholders are happy." is not supported by the facts.  All the vote shows is that the ones who VOTED were happy.
3.  Anyone with half a brain who wasn't happy would have sold out by now - and no longer have a vote.
4.  Why do you think you were able to buy back shares at below IPO price?  It can't be because the shareholders were ecstatic about your management of the company.  

You bought out all the unhappy ones (at a loss to them) - what's left is those who don't pay attention, the terminally stupid and probably a few unfortunate souls who haven't been around for a while.

Typical usagi spin/gloss.  The vote wasn't even announced in the main BMF thread - just in one of your numerous "Important: I'm an attention whore - please listen to my bull-shit and don't argue with me" threads.

Oh - and how DID you get more yes votes than have EVER been in circulation?  You didn't by some chance transfer unsold ones to yourself to vote with (then send them back) did you?  I asked nefario about that particular nasty little trick a while back (by PM) but got no answer - so assume it IS possible for a company owner to generate as many yes votes on a motion as they like.

You control over 8000 shares now?  Are there any other shareholders left at all?

Joking aside, would assume that anyone who was dissatisifed would have sold out - and though they would't be too happy about losing a large of their investment they no longer have any means to vote.

What time-zone are those time-stamps in?  Would be interested to see when that is relative to this (and MP's thread on a similar topic) being made.

Would also be interested to hear what Puppet has to say.

Don't let usagi see you say that lol.

But your example is incomplete - as you don't say that the ONLY assets of A are the 50% of B etc., hence can't say anything about the total value of A+B+C.  The point you're trying to make is valid - and relevant, however without any public information about what CPA holds there's no way to show HOW relevant.