[LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF

[Deprived]

Not much happening - but at least no longer 100% in cash.

Exchange-rate : 0.005
Adj NAV/U : 13.14996427

Bid at 12.95

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : .00534

Adjusted NAV/U : 13.63996
Bid at 13.4

Got up to about 30% of funds invested in LTC assets then they all sold and we were back to 100% cash again (more cash than last time of course).  Only stayed all cash briefly this time.  Getting back to all cash is nice in a way - every time we do it I (and you) can be absolutely confident that at that stage my valuation is totally accurate (ignoring the few GLBSE shares - which are under 5% of our value) and there's nothing toxic we're left stuck with.

Will be putting up a motion today to address issuing BTC-denominated bonds and the necessary changes in our contract to accomodate that.  A means of getting out at full NAV/U (including reimbursement of the 0.2% fees) WILL be provided for anyone who disagrees: so if you happen to think it's a bad idea DON'T panic and sell into my bid - you'll have a means to sell for full NAV/U (which should hopefully be up around 14 by the time motion passes).

I'll also be updating one of the early posts in this thread with a spreasheet showing TRADING profit for each week of operation of the fund (that's profit BEFORE fees and excluding changes caused by exchange-rate changes).  That's needed as one of the restrictions on my ability to issue bonds will be that the rate offered is no more than 1/3 long-term trading performance - so clearly that has to be estimated/calculated.  Exchange-rate changes will be ignored - as one of the main purpose of the bonds is to make us pretty immune to them, so as they won't have any great impact once bonds are in play they can be ignored when calculating what we can afford to pay for bonds.  More on that when I write the motion up later today.

[Deprived]

The following motion is being put up to vote on :

--- MOTION BELOW THIS LINE ---

This motion is to make two changes to the contract:

1. The section of the contract headed "MANAGEMENT FEES" to be amended to:

MANAGEMENT FEES

At least once per fortnight (with the goal being to do it weekly) a report will
be prepared and posted in the forum thread linked above.  This will include a
current valuation of the NAV and NAV/U for the fund.  This valuation will be in
LTC (a BTC valuation will also be posted).

When that valuation is above the current HWM then the excess is considered to be
profit.  The manager is entitled to receive 10% of that profit as a management
fee, paid in LTC-ATF units at the calculated adjusted NAV/U.

2. A new section to be added to the contract as follows:

BOND ISSUING

The fund manager is authorised to issue interest-paying bonds with a face value denominated in BTC.  These bonds may be issued on ones or more trading platforms of Manager's choice.  Costs associated with creating these bonds will be charged to the fund and treated as an non-realisable asset depreciated to zero over a period not exceeding 20 weeks.  No additional management fee may be taken for administering these bonds and the manager's fee must be taken on profits AFTER payment of interest due on the bonds.  For accounting purposes bonds are treated as a liability at their face value.  Although face value must be in BTC, the bonds may be transacted (and dividends paid) in any currency of manager's choosing.

The following restrictions are placed in respect of these bonds:

Bonds may not be issued with a total value greater than 1.5 times the NAV of the fund.  If, through exchange-rate movement or trading loss, NAV falls below this requirement then either more units must be sold or bonds redeemed.

The fund must maintain BTC-denominated assets such that outstanding bonds amount to a liability of no more than 90% of such assets.  When this ratio is not met (such as after issue of new bonds transacted in a currency other than BTC or after significant BTC-denominated trading losses) it must be promptly restored.

The interest offered on new bonds issued may not exceed 1/3 of the estimated average trading profit (excluding exchange-rate caused elements) of the fund for the previous 26 weeks (or since the start of the fund if it hasn't been running for 26 weeks).

No risks associated with normal trading may be passed on to the bonds - all loss from trading is applied against the value of fund units.  The risk of trading-platform failure may, at manager's discretion, be fully or partially shared with the bonds.

Manager has authority to define the detail of how bonds will be managed as he sees fit within the above parameters.

--- END OF MOTION TEXT ---

EXPLANATORY NOTES

Hopefully most of this is pretty straight-forward.

The first change deletes all the section addressing modification of management fees to deal with changes caused mainly/solely by exchange-rate fluctuation.  One of the main point of the bonds is to massively reduce the impact such movement has - and make the mechanism being deleted irrelevant.  In practice this will have two effects:

1.  If LTC falls more than 5% against BTC then my fee will be slightly larger than it would have been before.
2.  If LTC rises more than 5% against BTC then I no longer have the ability to reset the HWM downwards - and get zero management fees until the fund grows back over the previous HWM.  This actually a pretty huge improvement for investors in theory - as on the old system if I had a whole bunch of genuine trading losses (or one big one) HWM would still get reset next time currency moved up by more than 5%, allowing me to claim management fees on making back previous trading losses I'd incurred.  Had that situation ever arisen I would not, of course, have claimed such fees - but this formalises that in addition to removing my ability to reset HWM when previously I could perfectly legitimately do so.

I believe that, on balance (and excluding the loophole - which I wouldn't have exploited, so removing it doesn't actually gain anything) this change has no overall theoretical impact on management fee (I get slightly more when LTC falls and less when it rises than under old system).

The second change introduces the ability to offer bonds to raise funds as an alternative to selling more units.  The reasons for this (and the benefits/risks) are detailed in the following thread:

http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html

I'll just address a few specific parts of the proposed change whose purpose may not be immediately clear.

"Costs associated with creating these bonds will be charged to the fund and treated as an non-realisable asset depreciated to zero over a period not exceeding 20 weeks. "

This is to prevent a sharp(ish) drop in NAV/U if a registration fee is paid to create a bond asset.  Having the ability to issue the bonds DOES have a value (or we wouldn't be doing it) so it's not an unreasonable method,  More to the point, it removes any incentive for people to sell out before we do so then buy back in lower afterwards (though it's pretty unlikely the opportunity to get back in would exist).  So if (as is likely to be the case) there's a 250 LTC fee to list the bonds then that will be written down over up to 20 weeks rather than deducted in full from NAV immediately.

"Although face value must be in BTC, the bonds may be transacted (and dividends paid) in any currency of manager's choosing."

This is pretty important.  I'd previosuly mentioned that we couldn't justify a 5 BTC fee to list the bonds on btc.co - and was considering manually managing them in a forum thread.  Since then, the obvious has occurred to me - why not just list them in LTC?  Although their FACE value is in BTC, all transactions can still be done in LTC.  That way, not only does it serve as a bond - but also as a means by which investors can speculate (or hedge on) the LTC/BTC exchange-rate without having to take funds off of LTC-GLOBAL.  The only area where this causes any real inconvenience is that I wouldn't be able to leave a bid-wall up on them unattended (as their price should swing round as exchange-rate moves).  But I can still do buybacks by arrangement with no difficulty.

"Bonds may not be issued with a total value greater than 1.5 times the NAV of the fund.  If, through exchange-rate movement or trading loss, NAV falls below this requirement then either more units must be sold or bonds redeemed."

When reading this statement bear in mind that NAV is Assets - Liabilities (The N stands for Net - i.e. not gross).  If we have 5k LTC of assets and issue 5K LTC worth of bonds then our NAV remains 5k (10K Assets - 5K liabilities).

I'll do the spreadsheet for historical trading profits tomorrow.

After this motion passes, I will offer for a week the opportunity for anyone who wants out of the fund to get out at very slightly over NAV (either by purchasing their units myself or by the fund repurchasing them and me repaying the fund the fees element so NAV/U doesn't drop).  I strongly believe that if there's any non-trivial change to the contract of a bond/unit then all investors should be given the option to exit at a price no less than what they would receive if the bonds were recalled/fund closed.  It may well be the case that you can sell direct to market for more anyway - but, if not, then that offer WILL be in place.

I'd recommend you vote yes - but if you have any questions or a reason why this is a bad idea PLEASE speak up.  If I'm missing something I'd like to know - and will happily cancel or alter the motion if necessary.

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : .00511
Adjust Nav/U : 13.8419

Bid at 13.63

The motion allowing issuing of Bonds was passed.  As promised there will be an exit route provided for anyone wanting to sell out at full NAV/U because they disagree with us issuing bonds.  I WAS going to do this by messing around with transfers, verifying emails (to make sure it was an owner at the time of this offer) etc - but that's far too much like hard work.  Instead I'll be doing the following:

BUYBACK OFFER FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO GET OUT OF THE FUND

For the next week I'll be placing Bids at 100.3% of current NAV/U - yes, buying back units at more than their actual (book) value.  For units sold back in this fashion I'll do one of the following (at my discretion) :

1.  Buy them (via transfers) with my private account from the asset issuing account at 100.1% of the cost the fund paid for them,
2.  Transfer 0.4% of amount the fund paid from my private account to the asset issuing account.  Units bought back in this manner will NOT be sold on the market until after this buyback offer ends.

This ensures that remaining investors get a (very tiny) increase in NAV/U if/when such sell-backs occur whilst ensuring anyone who disagrees with the direction we're taking can exit without loss.  And I'm fine with personally paying a small premium to get back some units and/or decrease the outstanding units which increases my share of profits.

If I haven't updated bid price for a while you MAY want to PM me first - so I can update it to reflect any profits (or losses) from recent trading before you sell.

If anyone believes this is in any way unfair please DO let me know.

Obviously if there's higher bids on the market already you may choose to sell to those.

This offer will last until 23:59:59 GMT on 30th November 2012

As a result of this policy, bid is now at 13.884

NEXT STEPS TODAY

Here's what I intend to be doing today on the fund:

1.  Update the copy of contract in second post of this thread to reflect the changes passed in the recent motion.
2.  Edit the first post of this thread to give general information about LTC-ATF and to show a spreadsheet of past results (already done - just needs to be posted).
3.  Create an asset for the bonds on LTC-GLOBAL and write up its contract etc.
4.  Create thread in relation to the bond asset on litecoin and bitcoin forums for feedback.
5.  Update my spreadsheet to properly account for bonds in fund valuation - and also for depreciation of the cost of creating the asset.

I'm creating the asset now so as to get the (potentially lengthy) process of getting 5 moderator votes started.  As yet there's nothing to actively trade on BTC.CO, so no immediate need for funds.  But it's best to get everything ready now than, down the road,  sit here twiddling our thumbs and missing bargains because the asset hasn't been approved.  My intent is to release the first batch of bonds BEFORE we can use the funds anyway - as that way we increase our chance of being able to sell them at lower rate of interest (this will be explained in more detail later - after I've done the list of tasks above).

[Deprived]

WEEKLY REPORT



Another solidly profitable week.  Most of the profit was made in the first half of the week - towards the end of the week activity on LTC-GLOBAL seemed to drop off a bit.

I've delayed creating the bond asset (and updating the spreadsheet etc) until after this report - that way I have a week to iron out any glitches in the spreadsheet and can include this week's report in the new first post so I dont have to redo it later.

LTC seems to have started to rise vc BTC - it dipped pretty lkow during during the week but is now back to (very) slightly over what it was at last report.  So I won't be rushing to get assets into BTC just yet - as obviously if LTC rises we want to be holding as little BTC as possible.

The section of the spreadsheet calculating adjustment to management fee for exchange-rate movement has been removed per the passed motion.  It wouldn't have been used this week anyway - as LTC hasn't dropped.

Management fee this is week is 5 units (rounded down from 5.2) which will be taken after this is posted.  HWM will then be updated.

Bid is at 13.889 (above NAV/U due to my offer to buy back at above NAV/U for a week due to a change being made to the contract).

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : 0.00494
Adjust NAV/U : 14.21786

Bid up at 14.26 (Still buying back above NAV/U due to the change to the contract)

One update on the GLBSE situation.  As you may recall, our holdings when GLBSE closed were some ASICMINER (10-16, currently valued as 10 but almost certainly 16), some BITBOND (3, valued at about half last traded price) and some OBSI.HRPT (written off).

I registered a claim with friedcat for our ASICMINER ages ago (maybe a month?) - that'll be pretty irrelevant now that nefario is actually sending out lists.  But we were in posion to get them back even if he hadn't.

I did also PM Amazingrando (issuer of BITBOND) making our claim (as requested by him) but had receved no reply.  Today I received the following email from Amazingrando:

"Dear BITBOND bondholder-

GLBSE has recently sent me a list of BITBOND bondholders and their holdings at the time of its closure.  This email is to notify you of the information I have received.  Please reply to this email and confirm that this information is correct.

Wallet address: (REMOVED)
Bonds held: 3

While I await confirmations, I have started the process of migrating all bonds to Cryptostocks.  I hope to relaunch the security soon.  Additionally I will be providing more information about buyback and upgrade programs once they are finalized.

Thank you for your patience"

So it looks like that asset will soon be liquid again (and likely at a price over what it's valued at on our books).  It also bodes well for us being included on the list sent to ASICMINER - I'd been concerned that we wouldn't be included as I never received any emails from nefario about the return of our funds (though we did get the funds back obviously).

Dependent on what is offered in terms of buyback we'll likely NOT take a buyback.  If a buyback is offered to all investors then the one thing we can be sure about is that it'll trade at a higher price than that buyback - so selling on the market will probably make more sense.  I'll announce when we create a cryptostocks account (and update spreadsheet) - so investors are aware of the point at which we begin to have assets (and hence exposure) there.

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : .00581

Adjusted NAV/U : 14.45211

Bid at 14.49 (Still offering buyback above NAV/U)

Making slow but steady profit this week - looking unlikely we'll have a 10%+ week like last couple, but should be a 5%+ one.  LTC is rising like mad against BTC at the moment - up nearly 20% since last update I made.  As we're still nearly all in LTC it's only having a marginal (downward) pressure on our NAV/U (and a big rise in BTC valuation of the fund of course).

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : .00682

Adjusted NAV/U : 14.7653763

Bid at : 14.58
Ask at : 15.08

The week of offering to buy back above adjusted NAV/U has finished, so Bids are now dropped down to their more usual level.  A few investors did sell back units.  The first few I took myself, the last few sells the fund covered (the markup was covered on the larger one by profitable trades having occurred shortly before the buy-back - meaning buyback was actually below NAV/U.  And on the later smaller one by us being over 5.24218% in profit for the week meaning that the accrued management fee on repurchased units exceeded the compounded .3% markup and .2% transaction fee, so fund NAV/U gained slightly at the cost of lowering my management fee).  If anyone wants the math for how 5.24218% is calculated I can provide it - in practice I just made a note of NAV/U, reduced outstanding shares by 1, updated balance to post-sale and checked NAV/U had risen.

Units outstanding when the buyback offer started were 464.  After my management fee of 5 units that rose to 469.  Outstanding units is now at 444 - meaning the fund itself acquired back 25 units.  I am now going to place those back on the market at around 1% over NAV/U (which is higher than Adjusted NAV/U as it also includes earned management fee).  There's no great rush to sell them (at present our holdings are over 60% cash) but with the impending purchase of a ticker for our bonds and us then wanting some cash in BTC (we have to maintain SOME of our own funds in BTC as well as that raised from bonds - to ensure safety vs any massive drop in LTC value) I'd like to get us back to where we were in terms of cash.

Price of those will be adjusted along with bid as normal - for now they're going up at 15.08.

I have no expectation of issuing more units in the foreseeable future other than putting back on the market ones sold into the fund's bid (units outstanding DOES, of course, rise each profitable week due to my management fee being paid in units).

Trade and profits died down a bit towards the end of the week - coinciding with the strong rise in LTC vs BTC.  As I've commented before that's pretty typical - when LTC rises, people sell securities to benefit from the growth in LTC.  When LTC starts to fall next, they'll be back buying securities again.

[Deprived]

WEEKLY REPORT



In the middle of the week it didn't look likely that we'd manage another 10%+ week - but we eventually got there thanks to a little burst of activity last night (we'd have got there earlier had LTC not risen to much vs BTC).

Even with the tiny percentage of our fund still denominated in BTC (the GLBSE holdings) the exchange-rate change reduced our trading profit (profit before management fee) from 11.09% to 10.21%.  If anyone values their units in BTC rather than LTC then obviously they did massively well this week (gaining from LTC's rise PLUS the profit we made trading).

LTC's rise seems to have stalled and there's the first little bits of trading happening on BTC.CO - so this should be the week we move (slightly) back into BTC-denominated trading.

We've ended the week with only 20% of holdings in non-currency holdings.  But it hasn't been that way all week - at one point we had over 60% of assets in LTC-denominated securities and I even moved some funds back over from our BTC-E reserves to make sure the bid-wall could be kept up.  In the past week we've traded in about 10 different securities on LTC-GLOBAL, right now we have holdings in only 5.

Management fee this week is 4 units (rounded down from 4.28) which will be transferred after this is posted.

Bid at : 14.9
Ask at : 15.4 (only 11 units left being sold)

Earlier this week I made a post on the Litecoin forums about the issuer of Esecurity.SA and .SA2 trading and market-manipulating his own asset.  The post can be found here : http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,915.0.html

It's therefore only fair that I clarify the extent to which I trade LTC-ATF myself.

Fund Account : This only places Bids and Asks in accordance with the policy in the contract.  Bids are always slightly below Adjusted NAV/U, Asks (when the fund is actually selling) slightly above the undajusted NAV/U.  On bids if there's a bid from someone else at around where the fund would bid I'll Bid slightly lower than them - so their order gets filled first.  On Asks I just put them where my spreadsheet tells me to - irrespective of any other Asks in the vicinity.

Personal Account : I usually have some units up for sale from this - at 10% or more above current adjusted NAV/U.  I don't try to sell below that.  If I want to buy more units I buy from the fund (if it's selling) or put bids up myself that are always at or above adjusted NAV/U.  If I buy from the fund I do so AFTER I've done a recalculation of value and updated the fund's Asks - and the valuation at that time is posted to forums: so I never take advantage of an outdated Ask price.  My trading on my personal account is minimal - I don't try to manipulate the market price or try to profit from trading across a small spread between the fund's own orders.  What I DO do is try to make sure there's always SOME units up for sale if someone wants to buy a small holding at a significant premium.

I personally hold a bit over half of the units in the fund - that should be pretty obvious as the effort I put in would in no way be justified if all I got in return was the small management fee.

Any statements I make about the fund's holdings or trading activities on LTC-GLOBAL/BTC.CO may be verified with burnside at any time without need to ask my permission.  So if spreadsheet says we have X LTC then I've no problem with anyone asking whether we actually DO have that (ignoring rounding).  Similarly if I say we have Y LTC worth of securities then I've no problem with him verifying that (at the time the statement was made) our holdings had around that value (think ALL our current investments are on my books at below 7-day average - and that will usually be the case).  This permission only extends to confirming that things I HAVE said are accurate - not to giving any further information.  So if I said "Earlier today we bought around 100 units of a share and sold it within an hour for 50% profit" then it would be fine to ask for confirmation that I had a set of matching trades meeting that description.  It would NOT be fine to ask what the share was, what the price was or what the exact quantity was (as the latter two would allow identification of the asset).  I'm offering the above just as a way for anyone who is concerned to obtain SOME reassurance that the spreadsheet and my reports aren't just figments of my imagination - but pretty accurately reflect the business actually being conducted by this fund.

[burnside]

I wonder if there would be any demand for being able to make a simple copy of your portfolio public?

Eg:

https://litecoinglobal.com/portfolio/[username]

Would give a page with the portfolio summary tab populated and nothing else?

You'd toggle it on/off in the account settings.

[Deprived]

I wonder if there would be any demand for being able to make a simple copy of your portfolio public?

Eg:

https://litecoinglobal.com/portfolio/[username]

Would give a page with the portfolio summary tab populated and nothing else?

You'd toggle it on/off in the account settings.

I don't publish my current holdings for a good reason - I'm not the only person actively trading on the market.  If someone knew (for example) that I already had 15% of fund invested in security X then they'd know I couldn't afford to buy more.  That would let them know that any bids I placed I didn't want filled (so was deliberately letting myelf be outbid rather than just not having noticed).  They (if they only had a small holding in X) could then remove their own bids, forcing me to remove mine (as I wouldn't want to end up buying more, so couldn't risk being top bidder) and drive the price down.

For a fund that invests, showing current holdings has no big dowside.  For a fund that trades it's a disaster.  Even ignoring active scenarios (such as the one I just gave) there's the passive information of being able to work out which Asks are mine.  That can reveal information such as whether I believe the current low Ask is fair or not, whether I'm trying to sell by Asks or just get the price down to buy more etc.

I'm fine with making some LTC for other people who invest in the fund. I'm not interested in explaining all the details of how I do it (though I'm totally fine with you verifying that I am indeed making the profits I report trading on LTC_GLOBAL).

Unlike an investment fund we tend to be very liquid anyway - the vast majority of time over 2/3 of assets are cash (some is kept cash anyway for maintaing bidwall on LTC-ATF itself and the next chunk is only used for really golden opportunites - which are rare and so far haven't occurred when we were heavily invested already in any event).

So no - I've no interest in exposing my portfolio.  It would be of marginal benefit (though maybe a bit more interest) to actual investors but would give way too much useful information to others trading the market.  If any investor is concerned that my reports are inaccurate (e.g. I'm just making up valuations - and don't actually trade at all) then there are a couple of solutions:

1.  As mentioned in a previous post, I'm fine with them contacting you and you verifying that I did indeed (at the time of the report) hold securities and cash with a value matching that in my report (cash will match to a few decimal places, securities may vary a bit - as my valuation isn't based on current market.  Generally my valuation is above highest bid, below 7-day average, well below lowest Ask).

2.  If anyone has signficiant holdings in LTC-ATF (say 10% of outstanding units or more) then I'm fne with mailing them an unamended spreadsheet 1 month after the date of a published report (so they can see precisely what I held a month ago when I made a report).  Note that I DON'T keep old data like that as a matter of course - but can preserver a spreadsheet at any date (on request) for release a month later.  Think that would remove/reduce the risk to me of giving away that info - whilst allowing them to (in retrospect) see how I reached a particular valuation.

[burnside]

I wonder if there would be any demand for being able to make a simple copy of your portfolio public?

Eg:

https://litecoinglobal.com/portfolio/[username]

Would give a page with the portfolio summary tab populated and nothing else?

You'd toggle it on/off in the account settings.

I don't publish my current holdings for a good reason - I'm not the only person actively trading on the market.  If someone knew (for example) that I already had 15% of fund invested in security X then they'd know I couldn't afford to buy more.  That would let them know that any bids I placed I didn't want filled (so was deliberately letting myelf be outbid rather than just not having noticed).  They (if they only had a small holding in X) could then remove their own bids, forcing me to remove mine (as I wouldn't want to end up buying more, so couldn't risk being top bidder) and drive the price down.

For a fund that invests, showing current holdings has no big dowside.  For a fund that trades it's a disaster.  Even ignoring active scenarios (such as the one I just gave) there's the passive information of being able to work out which Asks are mine.  That can reveal information such as whether I believe the current low Ask is fair or not, whether I'm trying to sell by Asks or just get the price down to buy more etc.

I'm fine with making some LTC for other people who invest in the fund. I'm not interested in explaining all the details of how I do it (though I'm totally fine with you verifying that I am indeed making the profits I report trading on LTC_GLOBAL).

Unlike an investment fund we tend to be very liquid anyway - the vast majority of time over 2/3 of assets are cash (some is kept cash anyway for maintaing bidwall on LTC-ATF itself and the next chunk is only used for really golden opportunites - which are rare and so far haven't occurred when we were heavily invested already in any event).

So no - I've no interest in exposing my portfolio.  It would be of marginal benefit (though maybe a bit more interest) to actual investors but would give way too much useful information to others trading the market.  If any investor is concerned that my reports are inaccurate (e.g. I'm just making up valuations - and don't actually trade at all) then there are a couple of solutions:

1.  As mentioned in a previous post, I'm fine with them contacting you and you verifying that I did indeed (at the time of the report) hold securities and cash with a value matching that in my report (cash will match to a few decimal places, securities may vary a bit - as my valuation isn't based on current market.  Generally my valuation is above highest bid, below 7-day average, well below lowest Ask).

2.  If anyone has signficiant holdings in LTC-ATF (say 10% of outstanding units or more) then I'm fne with mailing them an unamended spreadsheet 1 month after the date of a published report (so they can see precisely what I held a month ago when I made a report).  Note that I DON'T keep old data like that as a matter of course - but can preserver a spreadsheet at any date (on request) for release a month later.  Think that would remove/reduce the risk to me of giving away that info - whilst allowing them to (in retrospect) see how I reached a particular valuation.

Makes sense to me.  Thank you for the explanation.

Down the road feel free to use it as a tool to allow other 3rd parties to verify your holdings, should you ever need to do so.  There's no list of pubic portfolios published anywhere and I do not output any account info on the public portfolio pages.  The url to access it uses an obfuscated identifier, thus it's only as public as you want it to be.

Cheers.

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : 0.006

Adjusted NAV/U : 15.33286

Bid at : 15.05
Ask at : 15.66 (only 3 units left for sale)

So far this week trading has been very sluggish - that may pick up if (as seems to be starting to happen) LTC begins a drop vs BTC.  I've now converted a small part of our capital into BTC ready to trade on btc.co - so NAV/U will now be slightly more affected by exchange-rate changes than previously.  We still have nearly 90% of assets LTC-denominated, so won't be seeing massive changes.  The current amount we have in BTC should be sufficient for any bonds we need in the short-term (we need to keep some of own assets in BTC to ensure that any big swing in LTC price can't impact our ability to service bonds).

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : .00602

Adjusted NAV/U : 15.60045

Bid at : 15.32

No Ask as no more units left on sale.  Been pretty slow trading other than someone (yet again) trying to fix the market on -SA2.  Worked out nice for us as we had some profitable Asks up which they bought out whilst clearing the Ask side of order book.

[Liquid]

i bought a few more not sure if it was me 

[Deprived]

Basically no change in last day.  Been quietest day I can remember on LTC-GLOBAL - only 3 securities have any trade at all in last 24 hours (and 2 of those it's just a 1 unit sell to make last traded price high).

[Deprived]

REPORT AND UPDATE



There's a few additions to the above spreadsheet from previous weeks:

BTC balances held at BTC.CO and CRYPTO have been added - as we'll now be trading on those platforms.  The spreadsheet also tracks holdings of securities there - but those rows have been hidden as we currently hold no assets (other than BTC) on either.

Towards the bottom of spreadsheet you'll see a section headed "Miscellaneous" with an entry for the LTC-ATC.B1 bond ticker valued at 225 LTC.  As previously discussed (and passed by motion) the 250 LTC cost of the ticker is being written off over a period of no more than 20 weeks.  As we made respectable profits this week I already wrote the value down by 10% - I intend to write it off far quicker than the maximum 20 weeks if possible.  This method is, to a degree, creative accounting - but serves to avoid a sudden drop in unit value when there's been no underlieing loss (the ticker DOES have value or we wouldn't have bought it).

Trading on LTC Global has been extremely sluggish this week - so profits are well down on the previous few weeks.

BITBOND

Since GLBSE's closure we have had 3 units of this asset stuck on GLBSE - these had been marked down on our books from a purchase price of around 0.2 BTC each to 0.1 BTC each.  Earlier this week the security was relisted on Crypto and bonds distributed per a list provided by Nefario.

The issuer also made a rather concerning post in the thread for the asset - indicating that he was unable to pay (yet) dividends due for the period whilst the bonds were inaccessible.  This was apparently due to some undisclosed arrangement made with some large investors where they had a senior claim on dividend funds.  No explanation was offered of why funds weren't at hand to pay ALL due dividends.  He also indicated that he would be unable to pay further dividends going forward - obviously totally unacceptable for a supposed fixed-rate bond.

Clearly some individuals either don't read very well, don't do any research or were attempting to manipulate the price - as I was able to sell our three (two at 0.25 BTC and one at 0.3 BTC) for a price higher than what we paid and higher than they were trading at when GLBSE closed.

In theory issuer could make a buy-back offer higher than that - but I'll be shocked if his offer is anywhere near that and/or is available for immediate settlement.  We may, of course, trade these bonds once issuer has explained what (and why) is actually happening and the trading range has moved (down) to somewhere sensible.


LTC-ATF.B1

Our BTC-denominated (but transacted in LTC) bond has now been submitted for approval by LTC Global moderators.  Initially we will only be looking to sell 10 BTC worth of bonds with a dividend rate of 0.6% per week.  The rate may be raised if few sell.  As more trading opportunites present themselves, further tranches of bonds will be issued.


ODDS AND ENDS

A management fee of 2 units is due this week (rounded down from 2.08) which will be taken after this post is submitted.

Bid is up at 15.47

The first post of this thread has been updated with some general information about LTC-ATF - at some point in the coming week more information will be added and the formatting tidied up.

[Deprived]

Exchange-Rate : .00596

Adjusted NAV/U : 15.8063
Bid at : 15.5

Our bond has now been approved and first few have been sold.  Below is how the accounting spreadsheet has been updated to deal with the bonds.  Any suggestions, comments or requests for clarification are gratefully received.



The line after "BTC denom holdings" is now changed to "Gross Assets".  This represents the total value of all assets managed by LTC-ATF.

There is then an entirely new section of data entitled "Bonds".  Here's a breakdown of what each line here represents :

Outstanding : The number of bonds actually sold.

Face Value per bond : The face value of each bond.

Total Value : The total value (cost) of all outstanding bonds = number outstanding * face value.

Weekly Dividend : The dividend paid each week (as a percentage of face value)

Days since last dividend : The number of days since last dividend was paid.    Each day when I first open the spreadsheet I'll update this number.  This resets to 0 right after I pay a dividend.

Accrued Dividend : The liability the fund currently has in due but unpaid dividends.  This is equal to Total Value * Weekly Dividend (%) * (Days Since Last Dividend / 7).  This allows the cost of paying dividends to be built up over the week (for purposes of calculating current value) rather than all taken off in one hit at the end.

Ratio Bonds : Total BTC - This measures total percentage of total bond liability as a percentage of liquid BTC denominated assets.  This value has to be kept under 90% - in practice, once bond sales are largely complete, I'll be aiming to keep it in the 80-85% zone.  Bond liability is face value of bonds + accrued dividend.  Liquid BTC denominated assets is total BTC denominated assets less illiquid ones (currently only ASICMINER shares which are untradable).

Ratio Bonds : NAV - This is the percentage total bond face value is to total liquid NET assets.  Liquid Net assets is total NAV for the fund less illiquid assets (ASICMINER shares and Bond Ticker value at present).  This isn't allowed to exceed 150% - but there's no intention of getting too near to that anyway (and in short term it's not going to go over 20-25% depending on exchange-rate).

Net Asset Value is then calculated - which is Gross Asset Value less (Bond Face Value + Accrued Dividend).

The remainder of spreadsheet is unchanged - though obviously uses the new NAV row rather than the old row it used to use.

[Deprived]

WEEKLY REPORT




This week saw the release of our BTC-denominated bonds.  1000 were initially placed on the market with a face value of 0.01 BTC each to raise BTC-denominated capital of 10 BTC.  They sold out pretty quickly - and there was still unmet demand left at the end (an order I couldn't fill of ~200 + I wouldn't have minded a few hundred more myself).  That bodes well for us being able to sell more when the need arises without having to raise the rate we pay (or at least not by much).

First dividend on the bonds has been paid - I rounded it up to nearest 0.5 LTC so investors got a fairly legible number as their dividend - will do that regularly so its easy for them to add up what they've earned on their bonds.  At week's end we have exactly 0 BTC-denominated assets held (other than actual BTC).  During the week we did briefly hold some assets - but sold them off making a 0.3 BTC profit.  Whilst that sounds (and is) tiny, remember that the total cost of servicing the bonds is only around 0.06 BTC per week (it'll be slightly higher due to my rounding up on dividend + exchange/movement costs of funds).  So the capital raised by bonds has already earned its first month's dividends (the trade we did definitely would NOT have occurred before we sold the bonds).

Activity on LTC-GLOBAL has continued to be extremely sluggish - it may well be a seasonal thing (before Christmas people don't tend to do a load of investing).  We still made a modest profit for the week.  The ticker has been depreciated by a further 15 LTC this week.

There's a new line under "Net Asset Value" towards the bottom of the spreadsheet.  This line has the title "% NAV BTC Denominated" and represents the percentage of LTC-ATF NET assets that are BTC denominated.  This is AFTER deduction of liabilities in respect of the bonds - and is an accurate measure of the degree to which LTC-ATF units are susceptible to changes in the LTC/BTC exchange-rate.  The issuing of bonds has reduced this slightly from last week - even though we've significantly increased the amount of BTC deployed.

Management fee of 1 unit will be taken shortly after posting this.

Bid at : 15.83

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : .00587

Adjusted NAV/U : 16.1744

Bid at : 15.91

With immediate effect the fund is going to begin trading on Bitfunder in addition to the existing sites we trade on.  An additional 600 bonds (6 BTC face value) will be placed on the market to raise BTC-denominated capital for this.  Trade on the site is picking up nicely - and although some assets listing there are dead/dieing ones there's also some that are definitely alive and kicking.  From what I've seen so far it has a similar approach to LTC-Global/BTC.CO (simple interface and responsive developer).  Pretty certain that within a few weeks (or even days) it'll have passed Crypto to be in second place for volume (not counting MPex as that's a totally different beast and several orders of magnitude larger in terms of volume).

I've no plans to increase bond interest rate at present - there's no desperate rush to sell this batch (we can temporarily take slightly higher exposure to exchange-rate and use our own funds if necessary) and I'll be taking a decent chunk of them myself (after giving a few hours so others get a chance first).

There's still limited trading opportunities on BTC.CO, but it's definitely picking up.  Assets relisted (from GLBSE) on any site tend to have an initial 'exuberance' period after relisting (where everyone's happy operator has relisted and not run with their cash) suring which they trade above (what I believe to be their) real value.  I have to be careful not to get sucked in then and end up holding assets when price drops to a more realistic level.  Obviously when we actually HAVE some of those assets (as was case with BitBond) it offers a great opportunity to first few to get out at a good price (lowest Ask is already below the cheapest price we sold for and lowest bid way below that).

Although we've had a few weeks of low (by our historical standards) profits, I'm very optimistic about the fund's future.  Even if we 'only' made 2% per week (below our worst week other than when GLBSE closed) we'd still be outperforming just about every non-ponzi business that has lasted for any period of time - and the bonds let us leverage 'cheap' capital to increase the profit for holders of actual units in the fund.  But nonetheless there WILL undoubtedly be some terrible weeks at some stage - eventually we'll get stuck with holdings in a scam/disaster that collapses- so investors should definitely NOT expect profits every week forever.

Once new bonds have sold and I've moved funds around will update OP with a list of where we currently trade and approximate percent of total controlled capital held on each.  That will allow (current or potential) investors in either units or bonds to get a rough idea of how platform-based risk is spread.