updated

[Fjordbit]

Well first I think we should establish that it was actually two times that you asked and I did not answer, since the first time I actually did answer the question. Second I contest that you had actually "asked" me in the second and third case, because I was sleeping. As I was incapacitated from thought at the time, I do not think it is logical to assume I was able to answer you. You did realize I was sleeping, didn't you? :p

Anyway no I'm just kidding. As I said tho yeah, it will be the company doing it so naturally dividends will go up. income will remain the same, just, it will be split up among fewer shares. That's how I hope to cause a revaluation.

At the time I wrote the sentence, I had asked a 3rd time. It's right there to the left.

You hadn't answered that question in your first post, just that you would be buying back with corporate funds, which implies nothing about the response to that question. You say naturally, but we really can't know what you're thinking unless you explain it.

Sorry for not realizing you were asleep. I thought that you had made a response between the 2nd and 3rd posting, but it seems not.

[1714999031]

1714999031

[1714999031]

1714999031

[1714999031]

1714999031

[1714999031]

1714999031

[1714999031]

1714999031

[1714999031]

1714999031

[EskimoBob]

Shares outstandibg, as of 19.09.2012, around UTC 16.03

CPA       52079
BMF         5244
NYAN.A    1611
NYAN.B    2133
NYAN.C    3480
YARR         290

[bels]

Is there any news yet on when CPA expects to start issuing dividends again?  I have been looking all over but haven't found an answer.

[Deprived]

NYAN.C is currently trading at about 0.3 BTC - significantly above its NAV. You know much more about finances than I, but it seems to me buying at this price would decrease, not increase, shareholder value.

Example with rough numbers:
NYAN.C starts with 1.25kBTC in assets and 5k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.25 BTC.
You buy back 1000 shares of NYAN.C for 0.3 each, totaling 300 BTC.
NYAN.C now has 0.95kBTC in assets and 4k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.2375 BTC.

I understand dividends come into play, but dividends are generally proportional to NAV. I just fail to see how buying above NAV increases shareholder value or dividends. Perhaps you can enlighten me, usagi.

Usagi's first point was that future projected cashflow (and thus dividends) and not NAV should determine value, and I agree. This is the standard by which other companies are held. Apple doesn't have 655.35B worth of assets.

If anyone cares, I can go into a deeper explanation of how future cashflow is the primary determination of company market capitalization. It's a pretty important concept if you hope to invest in securities.

But cashflow will decrease when assets are used to buy back shares. Usagi may have many admirable qualities, but I don't think she can make capital appear out of thin air or generate cashflow from nothing.

You honestly believe she's really going to do an aggressive buy-back of shares?  There'll undoubtedly be a small immediate rise in the value of her securities - as people buy to speculate, hoping to be able to sell at a profit when her bid walls appear.  When significant bidwalls don't emerge at above nav the price will fall back below to around nav/share - with the usual spikes up when she posts her weekly spin then the falls back down when everyone notices that despite her spin she's still steadily pissing away the funds they invested.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81993.msg1204123#msg1204123

BMF, my flagship fund, has a real annualized rate of return of over 40% not including dividends. Do you get it yet? You're wrong. Seriously, are you retarded? Every time I correct your gross misunderstandings, you take it personally -- or at least, you pretended to get upset at being wrong to increase your post count.

Go ahead, tell the people who have invested in BMF and my other funds how bad they lost out. You sir, are an idiot, and should probably be banned from these forums. Seriously, stop following me around a shitting in all my threads. You're worse than nimda was when I was running YARR.

And how does your annualised return of 40% compare to the annualised return of someone who just held bitcoins?

The only reason you can claim to given this return is because you're calculating it in US$.  And the entirety of that gain is due to changes in the exchange rate.

It's truly pathetic that you claim to be doing well just because BTC rose against the US$ at a rate faster than you managed to lose on investing.  If people want to gamble on BTC rising then they can just hold BTC - without having to subject their coins to your (mis)management.

I believe EskimoBoB posted the list of outstanding shares as a reference to see whether you were actually performing an aggressive buyback - or just using the 'threat' of doing so to try to drive the market up.  That said I DO agree with you that you shouldn't buyback whilst the share prices are above nav - but wasn't that my point anyway?  That your shares (not all shares) should only be valued at nav or thereabouts - nice to see you practice that even if you preach otherwise.

[EskimoBob]

Shares outstandibg, as of 19.09.2012, around UTC 16.03
[...]

If you're looking for a meaningful stat you would need to keep track of 5 day average price as well. BMF for example has a NAV of ~.5 right now but has a small ask up at .74. I have no problems selling at that price if people want to buy (and apparently they do, we've been selling shares at .74 the last few days). This is about supply and demand. We will force the market to revalue us by our income or dividend. Why give away free shares? Selling shares at NAV now means that people are getting our hard work for free -- for example if we buy hardware or pay a dividend of say 2%, people that buy in during the middle of the week will get an unfair advantage. That's why I am floating the price like this. Of course I would not pay .74 for shares myself, but will have bids up around NAV.

...
1. All standing asks have been canceled. None of my companies (NYAN, BMF or CPA) currently have asks on the market for their own shares.
2. Each company will be aggressively buying back their own shares.
...

5 day average has absolutely nothing to do with reducing the number of shares outstanding.
Your regular statements will show at what price you bought the shares. Hopefully.

[EskimoBob]

..valuing BMF by the cost of hardware it holds (directly and through bonds).

Usagi and the rest of you, please keep this in mind: Bonds do not give you any "hardware to hold". Bonds are not equity! Bonds are debt. Yes, bonds can be backed by pile of depreciating hardware but this will not make your bonds to be equity. Bonds are like a loan.
If you hold fixed Mh/s paying "bonds", you are better off holding your coin as it is - bitcoin in your wallet.
Invest only a half of what you "think" you can lose.

[Deprived]

And how does your annualised return of 40% compare to the annualised return of someone who just held bitcoins?

About the same. You can calculate that yourself without much effort; just match the outstanding shares of BMF as "bitcoins bought" with the historical mtgoxusd prices (which are freely available) for any date. Just average out what it would have cost to buy BTC at the time vs BMF.

Cut out all the rest of your smoke and mirrors.

I don't need to mess around with historical mtgoxusd prices.

You IPO'd at 1 BTC per share.

Now here's some complicated math for you.  If they'd kept that 1 BTC what would they have now?  (Hint: it's more than 0.9 BTC and less than 1.1 BTC and you don't have to look at mtgoxusd to figure it out).

Rest of your post was based on that rather elementary mistake.

Total dividends per share to date come in at under 0.1 per share (0.094994 from a quick copy/paste into Excel).

So even at 0.74 per share (which is horribly optimistic - and you've already said even YOU wouldn't buy at that price so don't value them that high) where's their profit?  Looks like a 16% loss to me.  Value the shares at nav and obviously it's a lot worse.

All your waffle about valuing hardware in USD is just that - waffle.  If gear was bought in USD back then, then it's now second-hand so very little of it will be worth more in USD now.  And with BTC having risen vs USD it's rather obviously dropped even more in value when valued in BTC.

[Factory]

Usagi. What is the current NAV of CPA? Thanks.

[bitcoinbear]

Is there any news yet on when CPA expects to start issuing dividends again?  I have been looking all over but haven't found an answer.

Did you read the FAQ? It says if you need more info, email cpa@tsukino.ca :>

Anyway I don't see why we can't pay divs next month. We took a one time loss and the share price dropped, but since then we've been doing ok.

I think that was a very rude way to answer a legitimate question. A simple answer of "Next month" would have been better. You spread info over several forum threads, no wonder people have trouble following what is going on with your funds.

[usagi]

direction

[Deprived]

Usagi. What is the current NAV of CPA? Thanks.

It is impossible to answer that question, because it does not apply to CPA.

CPA makes around 140 bitcoins a month. Those are our earnings. NAV, or Net Asset Value is not applicable here because CPA is not an investment fund which holds other investments, but a company which performs a service and makes money selling that service. Therefore "net asset value" is meaningless because we don't make money by holding assets. Technically speaking we could have no assets whatsoever as long as we had a sufficient number of accounts and say a 30 or 60 day payment window. Consider; in order to make as much money as CPA does by having money in Starfish Bank at 1% a week, for example, you would need 3,230 bitcoins. So that amount over 52,000 shares implies that people who like to put money in Starfish Bank will enjoy paying 0.062/share for CPA. What about BTC-BOND? That's popular, there's over 17,441 outstanding shares of that, and it only pays 0.5% a week. That would imply CPA is worth 0.124 per share.

So what's the NAV of Starfish bank? What's the NAV of BTC-BOND? You see, NAV is not relevant here. What you are probably thinking of is "book value", which in CPA's case would be the value of everything it actually owns at a moment in time. But this is a poor way of valuing an insurance company which takes in more from premiums than it does from investment income (unless one were thinking of firing all the employees and liquidating the assets). So you see, when I say our NAV or book value is around 0.03 or maybe lower, that is a very poor way of looking at CPA. What matters is that we have enough to back all our current contracts, and enough to sign yet more contracts -- and we're making money. We're growing. For a company like CPA, assets under management means almost nothing, only the ability to pay current contracts and sign new ones. We're not an investment fund!

Recent P/E data for 2012 (here, for example) puts the average P/E ratio for Insurance companies (on the low end) at about 13. This recent Seeking Alpha article gives several bargain Insurance companies with P/E ratios between 7 and 10. Using 7 as a very conservative figure, and assuming CPA signs no contracts for the next year, this puts us at a valuation of 11,760 over 52,000 shares -- about .226/share. In other words, 7 times higher. Right now the bitcoin market is giving us a P/E of 1.

I feel that's ridiculous and I refuse to sell my shares that low. I'm sure the market disagrees -- fine, don't buy CPA! If the market wants to sell my shares at 20% of what I think they're worth, I'd be happy to buy them. Don't agree? Fine, sell your shares even lower! Be my guest.

I think the real issue here is what P/E we should assign to CPA. I feel 1 is extremely low. I can't possibly see how that is justified. If you look at forward P/E after we sign more and more contracts next year, it's around 0.4 or 0.3. That's insane.

Even more smoke and mirrors.

What's the P/E ratio for insurance companies that lost 70% of book value in a few months?  Oh - there aren't any (except yours).

Earnings isn't just your turnover in insurance premiums.  You also have to deduct from that (amongst other things) what you paid out on claims.

How much did you have to pay out on Yarr?  Yes - I know you haven't actually paid it all out yet (though bulk of what's still owed is conveniently owed to your nyan companies who don't seem to want it, unfortunately for their investors).  Did you still make 140 BTC per month after deducting that?  If so, then that means you actually lost MORE than 'only' 70% of book value but clawed a bit back from operating profit.

And do bear in mind 20 of that 140 BTC/month is from BMF - who are paying 550 BTC 'premiums' over 110 weeks for a insurance policy with a maximum payout of 500 BTC and on which it seems to me they should already be claiming.  Shuffling funds between your various suffering enterprises isn't making profits.  It just allows you to rearrange which set of your shareholders bear which portion of the pain.

[pyrkne]

How much are my companies worth? I think we are about to find out.

I sense just a hint of anger... But I think it's probably well-deserved.

[bitcoinbear]

Recent P/E data for 2012 puts the average P/E ratio for Insurance companies (on the low end) at about 13. This recent Seeking Alpha article gives several bargain Insurance companies with P/E ratios between 7 and 10. Using 7 as a very conservative figure, and assuming CPA signs no contracts for the next year, this puts us at a valuation of 11,760 over 52,000 shares -- about .226/share. In other words, 7 times higher. Right now the bitcoin market is giving us a P/E of 1.

So you are saying the expected profit for CPA for the next year is 0.03 btc per share?

In the extremely risky bitcoin environment, an isurance provider is a high risk investment, so a very low P/E makes sense.

[Factory]

Usagi. What is the current NAV of CPA? Thanks.

It is impossible to answer that question, because it does not apply to CPA. We're not an investment fund!
You see, NAV is not relevant here.

The term NAV is not limited simply to investment funds. There are multiple definitions. Net Asset Value and Book Value can be synonymous. Even though you should probably know that, I should have been more specific. Sorry.

What is the current NAV/BV of CPA? Thanks.

What you are probably thinking of is "book value", which in CPA's case would be the value of everything it actually owns at a moment in time. But this is a poor way of valuing an insurance company

It is industry standard to use book value and price/book as base metrics to evaluate insurance companies. As a matter of fact, book value and price/book hold more importance for the insurance industry than any other industry when performing analysis. Please share how you came to believe that book value provides little value when analyzing an insurance company.

I think the real issue here is what P/E we should assign to CPA. I feel 1 is extremely low. I can't possibly see how that is justified. If you look at forward P/E after we sign more and more contracts next year, it's around 0.4 or 0.3. That's insane.

That is not an issue. We don't choose to assign a P/E ratio, the market will do that on it's own. If you manage CPA well, the P/E is more likely to expand. If you manage CPA poorly, the P/E is more likely to contract. That is the natural way of the markets.

Regarding the prospects of additional contracts: Any attempt to determine a PEG ratio for an entity that has existed for such a short time will likely lead to an inaccurate assessment. While I have little doubt that there is potential for a growing number of contracts for CPA, a reasonable estimate can not be made. It is probably best if we avoid such attempts, as even those with the most intimate knowledge of CPA (Usagi) would likely not be able to make a proper determination.

But you're free to value us at NAV if you wish, and not buy CPA

The average NAV/BV for the sector is ~1.0 right now.

Now consider the following:

• The insurance companies on major exchanges are fully audited and are transparent- CPA is not.
• Most of the insurance companies on major exchanges have long track records. CPA has a very short track record, which means much harder to appropriately calculate. This is compounded by the refusal to make CPA's financial information public.
• The insurance companies on major exchanges employ vast amounts of people with advanced degrees in business, finance, math, and all other applicable fields. CPA employs one person, who from what I can tell holds no applicable degree or experience in any applicable field.
• Most established insurance companies are extremely conservative. CPA is not (CPA was involved in Pirate-related practices; something of unmeasurable risk due to it's 'black box' nature.)
• CPA is denominated in BTC. In terms of investing in securities, it must be viewed as an extremely volatile foreign currency with an unknown future. The total risk of uncertainty and potential to weaken should likely be factored in over the potential for btc to strengthen.

With the average book value of major insurance companies in the sector being ~1.0, it would actually not be surprising to see CPA trade at a further discount to book.

Regardless of who thinks CPA is undervalued or overvalued, regardless of if the individual heading it is a genius or a complete imbecile; the following are certain:

With limited public information regarding the finances of CPA, price realization will be relatively slow and inaccurate.

If CPA is drastically undervalued it would make sense for Usagi to release a financial statement. If the financial statement is properly done, comprehensive, and clear, the market will likely begin to head in a path that more appropriately prices the shares of CPA. The numbers should not lie. It would certainly solve some of the issues raised on these forums. [/list]

[EskimoBob]

Shares outstandig, as of 19.09.2012, around UTC 16.03

CPA       52079
BMF         5244
NYAN.A    1611
NYAN.B    2133
NYAN.C    3480
YARR         290

Code:

            2012.09.19 2012.09.20      Change     
CPA              52079      52079          0
BMF               5244       5347       +103
NYAN.A            1611       1611          0
NYAN.B            2133       2133          0
NYAN.C            3480       3480          0
YARR               290         80       -210
NYAN       -                 1417-          

[Bitcoin Oz]

usagi is doing the best they can with what is available.
There are real scammers on glbse like bitdaytrade,rebate ,zip.a etc and bmf,cpa and nyan are nothing like them.

Anyone who thinks operating a fund in this current market is anything like the normal stock market has rocks in their heads. Ask cytokine from MOVE.TO.FUND what its like to try and navigate it.

tl;dr
I wish people were doing this sort of due dilligence on actual scammers.

[EskimoBob]

Deprived and Factory are actually making valid points. Usagi, I have to agree with them that you have close to no experience in this topic. You mentioned, that you have been investing for 20 years (in IRC). So what? Most investors are as clueless when it come to real finances. Nothing strange about it and no need to feel insulted. 

When talking about finances, proper terminology is everything. If you have hard time understanding, what is the meaning on NAV is the context, you have to read up on the subject or ask.

I must say Usagi, your level of communication is good (you mentioned that you are a English teacher?) but lately it's mostly fluff. And this is starting to get a bit irritating. You also attack pole who obviously have a better idea what is going on than you do.
 
How about using some accounting software that helps you generate reports that can tell investors, what's really going on?
Kmymoney, GnuCash, Turbo CASH and/or some web based software are good enough for your needs.

Spreadsheet of a portfolio in good start, but it shows only a partial picture. Get your books in order by figuring out what is what and let us know, what is really going on. 

PS! If I invest my BTC to BTC business, I do not want to see any "but... but... we made money if you convert it to USD (or any other fiat)"  This is usually a clear sign of major fuck-up and you can be 100% sure, you have lost your invested principal.

Do any of you have the IPO prices for the following:

CPA
BMF
NYAN
NYAN.A
NYAN.B
NYAN.C
YARR

(why not have that info on your website?)

[Factory]

What is the current NAV/BV of CPA? Thanks.

As I said, that's a bad way to look at it. As a result we don't publish those numbers on the forums. What would the point be? We don't sell our company at liquidation value. It's in our contract to maintain 100% backing. So, you can actually calculate our book value if you see all of our contracts, or if you could see our spreadsheet.

Book value is quite relevant; so are financial statements. I think it is quite reasonable to want access to such basic information. You would serve yourself better by not totally disregarding these things.

It is industry standard to use book value and price/book as base metrics to evaluate insurance companies.

No, it's industry standard to use earnings to value insurance companies.

Earnings are always calculated in just like all other factors; that is standard. What I said in regards to BV and P/B is they are the fundamentals that are more relied upon when analyzing insurance companies. I encourage you to research varying valuation methods and learn why BV and P/B are important in regards to valuating insurance companies.

I think the real issue here is what P/E we should assign to CPA. I feel 1 is extremely low. I can't possibly see how that is justified. If you look at forward P/E after we sign more and more contracts next year, it's around 0.4 or 0.3. That's insane.

That is not an issue. We don't choose to assign a P/E ratio, the market will do that on it's own. If you manage CPA well, the P/E is more likely to expand. If you manage CPA poorly, the P/E is more likely to contract. That is the natural way of the markets.

Ok lol. So let me get this straight. The market -- everyone but you -- comes up with a P/E to value CPA. But it's industry standard to value insurance companies by BV. Therefore you are interested in the BV of a company -- whose income has nothing to do with it's BV -- in order to assign value.
Do I have you straight on this one?

I stated that P/B is more applicable than P/E for analyzing insurance companies. I did not say that only one metric can be looked at; I simply said P/B is more pertinent. I am not sure why you focus on the P/E of CPA so much. Like I said before: If you manage CPA well, the P/E is more likely to expand. If you manage CPA poorly, the P/E is more likely to contract. That is the natural way of the markets. It is quite logical that I am interested in the book value of a company to determine value. There are all types of different 'value' that are useful to know- and book value is one of them.

The average NAV/BV for the sector is ~1.0 right now.

You're showing your stripes. First off, CPA is not in the mining or investment fund sector, so what you have said is just a verification of what I have said; people value it like a mining company, which is a big mistake. And one you seem intent on replicating.
Second, CPA is the only insurance company in the land of bitcoin. We're our own sector. And I say, it's worth more than a P/E of 1. Anyone who disagrees is free not to buy CPA.

What you quote there expresses nothing of a P/E ratio and there is zero mention of valuating CPA like a mining company. My mention of 'sector' was in regards to insurance.

With the average book value of major insurance companies in the sector being ~1.0, it would actually not be surprising to see CPA trade at a further discount to book.

Oh my god -- are you suggesting that real-world insurance companies trade at a P/E of ~1?
You didn't read my post did you? I mean this is like the 3rd separate issue you got wrong from what I said. *facepalm*
Look Factory, just stop arguing with me. It's clear you don't get it. If you think you are so smart, trade against me on CPA. You aren't listening and you don't appear to understand what the CEO of the company is telling you. Major clue time.

I stated that major insurance companies were trading around 1.0 to book value. I did not say P/E of ~1. I said I would not be surprised if CPA traded at a p/b ratio of less than 1.0. I recommend avoiding making such statements as "You didn't read my post did you?*" if you are going to read mine so poorly.

Again: If you believe CPA shares are grossly undervalued, why not release a financial statement? Surely an accurate depiction of it's balance sheet will clear most concerns. If the financial statement is in-line with your claims the share price will surely grow to reflect such.

[Puppet]

The more I read, the more it seems usagi is smoking the same stuff Diablo is smoking. Neither can distinguish between revenue and profit, both misrepresent (to use a mild term) their numbers, both seem to think obsi's ponzi's are a sound investment. This cant end well.

The only point of the OP also seems to be to boost share price, and so far there is no evidence of any buyback; if EskimoBob numbers are right, its rather the contrary.

Pump and dump?

[bitcoinbear]

Eskimobob, this keeping track of shares as if you are trying to catch me in a lie is a bit of a joke. Really, don't worry about it that much. And please, the last thing you want to do is start supporting puppet/deprived and factory ^^ I think you're a little smarter than that.

Eskimobob is doing nothing but posting accurate facts, something your posts seem to lack. The only reason you would think he is trying to catch a lie is if there is a lie to catch.

EskimoBob: this informaiton is useful, please keep it updated periodically (if Usagi does not post the information themself).