[LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF

[Deprived]

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).

[Deprived]

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.

[Deprived]

Exchange rate at .00412

NAV/U at 10.36764959

Bid up at 10.2, Ask up at 10.5

There's some volume slowly building up around the .004-.0042 range, so with any luck the exchange-rate will settle in that area for a while.

I've also raised a motion on LTC-ATF.  The text of it is:

"    

This motion is advisory in nature and the asset issuer is not obligated to
commit (or not commit) any action in response to it.

Proposition : The unit-holders of this fund believe that the motion system on
LTC-GLOBAL is functioning properly.

Vote Yes if you agree with the proposition.
Vote No if disagree or would prefer to press the No button (IF there's a NO
button - which I don't know yet)"

The motion shows up on the LTC-ATF page (near bottom).  I'd encourage all investors to vote (doesn't matter which way) so we can see if/how well the system works.

[burnside]

I fixed your 'NO' vote.   

There was a bug where asset issuers were able to vote with their non-outstanding shares.

Cheers.

[Deprived]

There's currently no bid up from me on LTC-ATF (should be one before long - just waiting on exchange-rate to settle down a little).

Earlier the price of LTC/BTC actually hit the 0.005 mark (a 20% rise in a few hours).  I pulled my bid quickly obviously.  Someone else had a bid up at 10.1 for 20 units.  when the rise looked like slowing I sold to that bid (NAV/U was under 10.1 at that stage) then transferred the LTC from the sale to BTC-E with some other LTC (making sure to leave 5% of fund value liquid on LTC-GLOBAL of course).  I then sold into the exchange at peak and bought back lower for a profit.

Exchange rate is currently hovering at around 0.0043 - I expect it to drop a bit lower in next few hours.

Whoever's bid I sold to now has units worth more than they paid - and, because I was able to use their funds to take advantage of the exchange-rate spike, our fund will have gained more LTC from the sale to them at 10.1 than if they'd bought NOW from us at our ask of 10.6.  Note that we had plenty of liquid funds in BTC - but no way I could use those as they were on the wrong side of the market and would have taken too long to move from GLBSE.

[Deprived]

I fixed your 'NO' vote.   

There was a bug where asset issuers were able to vote with their non-outstanding shares.

Cheers.

Yeah, guessed that was the case - only issued the motion to test the system.  Next one I'm gonna try is voting with the shares on my personal account, sending them back to main asset, returning them to my personal account and seeing if they get to vote again

Not sure how you do voting - if you just add up votes when someone clicks the vote button then you'll have same problem GLBSE has (you can end with more votes than shares - and by transferring shares the votes can be rigged).  Way i THINK you should do it is to register the vote for the person voting - and only convert it to actual share-votes when the motion ends (based on whatever shares they hold at that time).

Cross-posting this to your thread for the exchange in case you miss it here.

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate at ~.0045 - still room for it to move quite a bit in either direction.

NAV/U at 9.96313697

Will leave bids at 9.0 and asks at 10.5 overnight - the rate really is moving about in that wide a range.

We started the day with exchange of .00412 and NAV/U at 10.36764959.  If exchange-rate had ended the day at same rate then NAV/U would now be 10.506. My little trading profit of 1.5% was swallowed whole by the ~10% swing in the exchange-rate.

I don't see any reason to believe the current high LTC price will be maintained or get higher.  Obviously if you DO see a good reason for it to rise more (and at a decent speed) then you should NOT invest in this fund (until it's reached whatever you believe is the peak for LTC).

The Ask of 10.5 is priced based on an exchange rate of about 0.0042 (I don't believe LTC will stay above that long-term but am willing to chance it not going above that overnight).  So if the exchange rate falls below .0042 the units become a good buy.

[burnside]

Way i THINK you should do it is to register the vote for the person voting - and only convert it to actual share-votes when the motion ends (based on whatever shares they hold at that time).

I have to track the votes as they're made to show a real-time tally, but I have set it up so that when the motion ends (and at regular intervals while it is open) it will iterate back through all the votes, tally the shares held at that time, and do a final vote count update.

Cheers.

[Deprived]

Well, the fund's been running a week now.

At present the exchange-rate is moving around in the range 0.0042 - 0.0046

Using 0.0044 we get a NAV/U of 10.11043197
Across that active range we get a NAV/U of (9.81 - 10.44)

Putting bid up at 9.7 and Ask at 10.5 - that's the tightest I can safely make the spread.  Will adjust throughout the evening as/when the rate changes.

If you look at the long-term graph for ltc/btc on ltc-charts

http://www.ltc-charts.com/period-charts.php?period=ytd&resolution=day&pair=ltc-btc&market=btc-e

You can see just how big the rise in LTC value was yesterday compared to how it's been for the previous month.  Running an LTC-denominated fund that mainly invests in BTC was always going to be challenging - especially whilst trying to offer some real liquidity.  I didn't expect it to be QUITE so hectic in the first week of operations but am actually pretty satisfied with how it's going so far.  At the current exchange rate, LTC has gained about 25% value on BTC since the fund started - and yet we're still (very slightly) in profit when valued in LTC (the BTC value of a unit has risen by ~25% since fund start).  To look at it a different way, if the LTC/BTC rate dropped back to 0.00356 (what it was when we started a week ago), each unit would have a NAV/U of 11.73 (and an adjusted NAV/U of 11.6026).

In short - the fund's made around a 20% profit on trading during its first week, but the exchange-rate rise has pretty much wiped that out when valued in LTC (and increased it slightly if you were to value your units in BTC).

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate at around 0.0046.  No real volume from .0045-.00473.  Decent volume at both ends is at about .005 sell and .0043 buy - which is what my overnight bid/ask will be set based on.

NAV/U at 10.079.

Bids going at 9.4 and Asks at 10.6

We started the day with NAV/U below 10 at an exchange-rate of 0.0045 - so despite LTC strengthening by 2%ish we've still made a profit.  If/when LTC finally falls back down our NAV/U will go through the roof.

I'd not recommend buying at my overnight rate unless either the exchange-rate drops below 0.0044 OR you're very confident LTC will drop sharply soon (you're better off putting up an ask at 10.3 - 10.5 which I'd likely sell to in the morning if the exchange-rate hasn't fallen far).

I wouldn't recommend selling to my bid unless the exchange-rate gets pretty close to 0.005 (and you actually want to sell anyway of course).  As ever, I'd recommend AGAINST investing anyway if you believe LTC will continue to gain on BTC at a decent speed.  Conversely, if you believe LTC is likely to fall against BTC in the near future then investing not only gets you growth from the exchange-rate change, but also from my trading activities.

[Deprived]

Exchange rate at 0.00446

For once it's having a steady spell - becalmed between 0.0044 and 0.0045. Will set a nice tight range for now so anyone who wants to buy in or out can do so without too much premium.  That range will, of course, widen significantly as soon as I spot the exchange-rate starting to significantly move.

Adjusted NAV/U : 10.4716 (yep, we're now in profit for the week despite LTC still being up over 10% on the week)

Bid : 10.35
Ask : 10.55

[Deprived]

GLBSE is down with a message saying:

"GLBSE is offline

We will update our users on Saturday."

Obviously majority of our fund's assets are stuck on there.  I've cancelled all outstanding orders on LTC-ATF (mainly so nooned sold to the other Bid that was up) and temporarily frozen trading on it.  Will be sending out a notification saying this as well.

I'll reenable trading later tonight - but won't be placing any buys or sells up myself (not on the asset account nor on my private one).  I've also done no trades on either account since GLBSE went down -

We'll then review the situation on Saturday and decide how to proceed.  My guess (ONLY a guess) is that they've been ordered to close by the FSA (UK equivalent of the SEC in the US) pending investigation of whether to license them.  I don't personally expect much news on Saturday if that's the case.

Will go post this on litecoin forum and in a notification for LTC-ATF then I'll make sure my spreadsheet is up to date and report back what the situation is with our holdings.

[Deprived]

First off, here's the current fund valuation:

Exchange-rate LTC/BTC : 0.0044

Adjusted NAV/U : 10.5696 LTC

With the exchange-rate finally stopping rising, profits were beginning to build up.  Then GLBSE pulled the plug.

I'll be reenabling trading of the units shortly - but won't be buying or selling them myself.  Here's a break-down of how funds are currently distributed:

BTC on GLBSE : 41.88%
Securities on GLBSE : 10.33%
LTC on LTC-GLOBAL : 5.57%
Securities on LTC-GLOBAL : 42.22%

This valuation is 100% accurate as of about 10 minutes before GLBSE went down - I was online at the time and had checked for new trades on GLBSE within the 10 minute period before it went down.

This means that just over half of our assets are currently inaccessible on GLBSE.  Usually we'd have a much larger portion of our assets on GLBSE - it just so happened that GLBSE went down at a time when we didn't.  I'll now explain why.

One of the trading opportunities I have been doing is buying LTC-MINING bonds on GLBSE then trading them with burnside (who runs the asset AND the exchange we're listed on).  Because of the current high(ish) LTC/BTC exchange-rate we make a 10%+ profit on each such trade (after paying the transfer fee on GLBSE and the costs of liquidating some of those bonds on LTC-GLOBAL then exchanging the proceeds back via BTC-E into BTC on GLBSE).  It's a profitable arbitrage opportunity for us (one of the types of thing our fund does) and also serves burnside's desire to get the bonds off of GLBSE and onto LTC-GLOBAL.

This morning I transferred 10 of these bonds on GLBSE to burnside and sent him a PM to say I'd sent them (we'd agreed I'd just send them, PM him, then when he got online he'd transfer the bonds back to us on LTC-GLOBAL).  burnside didn't get online (or at least didn't see the PM) until AFTER GLBSE was down - and he could no longer verify that I'd sent them.  He STILL sent us the bonds on LTC-GLOBAL - my thanks for that trust (for anyone believing I could be trying to scam him, do bear in mind that the PM was sent some hours before GLBSE went down - had I known GLBSE was going down and intended to scam this is hardly the way I'd logically be doing it).

That's why we currently have a much larger proportion of our assets on LTC-GLOBAL than we normally would.  The bonds transferred from burnside are around 18% of our tiny fund.  Had GLBSE not gone down, most of those bonds would have been sold by now and the funds would be back on GLBSE to be recycled.

Those bonds will sit untouched in the fund's LTC-GLOBAL account at least until Saturday's announcement from GLBSE.  Before we can trade them we need to know that all transactions on GLBSE prior to its shutdown are intact and being honoured.  If they (for example) roll-back their database to before I transferred to burnside then I'd either need to re-send them on GLBSE (if the rollback wasn't far enough to cancel our purchase) or return the ones on LTC-GLOBAL (if the rollback was so far that we no longer had them at all on GLBSE).

The above information should be taken into account by anyone who wishes to trade our units prior to Saturday : there are circumstances in which that 18% of our assets could end up being on GLBSE not LTC-GLOBAL.

If GLBSE's next announcement does not make clear whether there's been a roll-back then the bonds will sit untouched in our account.  If their announcement indicates that there HAS been a rollback (without a precise time AFTER I sent to burnside) and we still cannot access our GLBSE accounts then the bonds will be returned to burnside (as it is then far more likely that the trade is reversed than that it occurred).  If GLBSE confirm that all trades are honoured up until their shut-down (which I believe to be be by FAR the most likely case) then the bonds are in burnside's GLBSE account and we can use the ones one LTC-GLOBAL as we see fit (though obviously, if this were the case and then somehow it turned out GLBSE were wrong we would need to reimburse burnside with 10 LTC-MINING bonds on one of the two platforms).

Although the majority of our assets on GLBSE are in BTC, those are nearly all committed to bids - I very rarely leave any significant amount of BTC on GLBSE idle (idle makes no profit).  My hope is that when GLBSE comes back up they'll either clear all bids/asks or give a decent amount of notice and then have a period in which no trading occurs but bids/asks can be cancelled.  It is near enough a certainty that when GLBSE returns there'll be a wave of panic selling.  So long as I can cancel our bids before trading starts we'll be in good shape - we can either withdraw the funds (if we no longer want to stay on GLBSE) or take advantage of the panic to buy into the better securities at bargain-basement prices.  It's unfortunate our fund is still so tiny - so even a good % profit is still a tiny amount of actual LTC.

Looking forward, I'll continue to trade on LTC-GLOBAL (though volume is still tiny) until Saturday - then reassess things when the GLBSE situation is hopefully a bit clearer.  All I expect to happen on Saturday is that GLBSE will issue a brief announcment explaining the reasons for the shutdown (which I'm very confident will be that they were instructed to by the FSA or LE) and maybe some sort of a time-scale for reopening.  I also expect them to confirm that all data is intact and that all trades up until the moment of shut-down will be honoured.  If we're lucky they COULD re-open the site read-only (no trades or withdrawals possible) so at least everyone can verify what they've got on there.  But I'm not too optimistic on that.

I won't be doing a weekly report/profit-split this week.  Under the contract I could possibly do so - and take some more units as my fee.  I will NOT be taking a fee for any funds tied up on GLBSE.

I'd recommend against trading the units before Saturday - but in case anyone wants to, I will shortly be re-enabling trading of the asset.  I will NOT be clearing trades/freezing trading on the assets again - anyone who wants to trade it now does so on the basis that they believe they can react to changes faster than those on the other side of the trade they're trying to make.  I will not be placing bids/sells until GLBSE is back up and I have proper access to our assets including the ability to withdraw funds and trade securities.  At that stage my Bid wall WILL eat any Asks below it.

[Deprived]

UPDATE

By now you should all be aware that GLBSE is closing down.  As regards assets on GLBSE, the following is a summary of what is supposedly happening:

BTC deposits will be returned - this may involve the need to provide some ID.  I have no objection in theory to IDing myself - though am not too keen on doing so to an organisation which is closing down.  For now I am valuing the fund on the basis that our BTC on GLBSE will be returned.

Asset-issuers will be provided with a means by which they can get in contact with asset-holders.  It will undoubtedly be the case that some asset issuers will just run with funds (or prevaricate until people give up trying), whilst others will act proactively to ressetablish a relationship.

I will now disclose our holdings on GLBSE and explain why I was holding them and how I am currently valuing them.  Note that this is only my best estimate of value and investors are entirely free to value any bids/asks you place on units on any valuation you choose.  It is also possible that our actual holdings are different to listed below - we had lots of active bids and a few asks up.  Whilst the below list was accurate maybe 10 minutes before GLBSE shut-down, it could have changed in that last 10 minutes without me noticing.

ASICMINER 16.

We were holding 10 of these as a longer-term investment and also regularly traded these.  We happened to have 16 at the time of GLBSE shut-down.  The 7-day average for these was .108 and last I checked (shortly before GLBSE going down) bids were at around .106 and asks at around .110.  friedcat (the issuer of these) is already proactive in seeking to resstablish contact with share-holders and I am confident our ownership of these will be recognised.  These will continue to be valued at .108 each for our portfolio until/unless circumstances or new information indicates to do otherwise.

OBSI.HRPT 20.

This always looked like a scam/ponzi to me and I never invested in them (nor did the fund) until they totally crashed in price from .1 down to .005.  We bought about 100 of them at under .005 and since then had been trading them a lot.  The price recovered from the bottom and at the time GLBSE went down bids were at around .0058 and asks at just over .01.  We had both bids and asks active on these at the time.  The value of these 20 units on GLBSE at the time it shutdown would have fairly been in the range .12 - .18.  I have zero confidence we will receive any more funds in respect of these and so these are being written off to a value of 0 in my records.  Obviously if we DO receive funds for them then those would go to the fund - but I cannot in good conscience value them above 0.  We have still make a nice profit on trading this stock - would guess we've bought and sold 150-200 of them making a 70%-100%+ markup on every trade.

BITBOND 3

This mining bond had recently been in a plummet in price from 0.4 per unit down to around 0.2 (maybe slightly slower) at the time when GLBSE closed.  The reason for the slump in price was entirely rational - if you compared their upgrade offering (to ASIC-based mining) with that of competitors then they were severely over-priced in terms of MH/s per BTC.  My view was that the devaluation had probably gone too far - as bitbond was about to announce an upgrade in the MH/s for their ASIC-bonds, information not immediately obvious to anyone looking at just the OP of their thread or the contract on GLBSE.  I had bought a few for us, hoping to make a profit when they announced the detail of their upgrade - as from past experience the naive market would over-react and over-price the stock briefly.

As noted above, these were trading somewhere around 0.2ish at time of GLBSE shutdown.  As far as I know there has been no announcement yet from bitbond in terms of how they intend to proceed following GLBSE closure.  This isn't a big deal - no reason they should have announced yet - but obviously I can't value them at full price.  For now these are being marked down to 0.1 BTC each in my accounts.  This valuation will be revisited when the situation with them becomes clearer.

Taking into account the above devaluations, the current valuation for the fund is as follows:

Current Exchange-rate : 0.00436

NAV/U : 10.30795017

If that proves correct and we can navigate past GLBSE closure and still be in profit then I won't, honestly, be too disappointed.

For anyone who believes we won't see a dime from GLBSE, nor be put in contact with asset-issuers the NAV/U is 4.977159 if you only count assets/LTC on LTC-GLOBAL.  So noone should be selling units significantly below that.  I'll put up a buy (from the fund) at 4.8 so noone accidentally sells for a stupidly cheap price.  As that price is JUST for LTC-denominated assets I don't need to monitor it based on exchange-rate.

[Deprived]

Cross-post from litecoin forums.

What are your plans for the fund with GLBSE out of the picture now? Will you start trading on a different BTC exchange? If so, which one?

That depends on what happens with all the securities that were traded on GLBSE.  At present there's not a lot of volume on LTC-GLOBAL, so it would be pretty poor value for me to run a day-trading fund based on there (a long-term investment fund like yours doesn't need much daily volume, a day-trading one like mine does).  I don't see any significant number of the funds from GLBSE being likely to move to LTC-GLOBAL as being denominated in LTC would become an absolute nightmare for most of them.

If enough securities move to either Crypto or to any BTC-denominated platform created as an offshoot from the LTC-GLOBAL code then I'd be very likely to start trading there as a replacement from GLBSE.  Obviously volume would be a lot lower than GLBSE - but luckily my fund is still very tiny so doesn't need a huge amount of volume to do well (I could have used about 5-10 times the capital on GLBSE and generated the 5-20% per week I was doing on trades no problem).

Really, right now it's wait and see - until we're out of GLBSE I won't be trading anywhere other than LTC-GLOBAL for sure and I obviously can't shut down (if that was was I decided to do) until we have our BTC back and know what's happening with bitbond.

Hopefully enough securities will re-register somewhere else that the fund can continue - if not, then it wouldn't take too long to shut it down as our (non-GLBSE) assets are pretty liquid.

I haven't meantioned MPEx: it lacks range of securities and the few there are seem to have too small spreads and too stable prices for what I do.  I don't see many GLBSE securities moving there as to handle dividends for all their investors each ivnestor would have to pay 30 BTC to register to use the site.  That's just not going to happen.

[Deprived]

UPDATE AND REPORT

I've now received back the BTC we had on GLBSE - though no email received at all (seems some people got emails, some didn't.  Some got all their BTC, others got 90%).

In fact I received back around 0.7 BTC more than we had on GLBSE.  Looking at the few securities we held just before GLBSE closed, the explanation would seem likely to be that 6 of our 16 ASICMINER shares sold.  10 of those shares were intended as long-term holdings so would not have been up for sale, the other 6 definitely would have been for sale.  So for now (until I receive an email confirming our holdings) I'm only listing 10 ASICMINER shares in our holdings.

SPREADSHEET



NAV/EXCHANGE RATE ETC

Current LTC/BTC exchange rate : 0.0078
Current NAV/U : 7.63649216

Placing bids up at 7.4 and asks at 7.9

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Obviously we've lost around 25% of our NAV/Unit.  How?  Well there's actually two reasons:

1.  The obvious one - the exchange rate.  Since GLBSE closed down the exchnage-rate has moved from 0.0044 to 0.0078.  Over half our holdings were in BTC (and locked in GLBSE so no way for me to trade them) and those lost ~43% in value.  That pretty much accounts for the loss on its own.

2.  We took a further hit because of having to hold on to our 10 LTC-MINER.LTC shares until it was clear GLBSE wasn't going to be rolled back.  At the time of GLBSE closure those could have been sold on LTC-GLOBAL for 110-120 LTC each.  By time I was sure GLBSE wasn't being rolled back (and so could trade them) the price of them had fallen and we ended up selling at 80-90.  That cost us around a 5% loss in value.

The above 2 factors were mitigated to an extent by someone deciding to sell back LTC-ATF units at 4.5 - which essentially cancelled out the loss from point 2. above.

To put our performance in context (and show just how much the loss is down to exchange rate) consider the following two things:

1.  At fund start each unit was worth .0356 BTC.   Now each unit is worth .05956 BTC.  Expressed in BTC each unit has actually gained 67.3% in value.
2.  If the current exchange rate were .00356 (what it was when the fund started) then each unit would be worth 11.313 LTC.  So even after the losses incurred from GLBSE closing down (writing off OBSI, marking down BITBOND, losing ~300 LTC having to hold LTC-MINING) and despite being unable to trade much for 2 weeks we're still actually 13% up on trading.

My point is NOT to claim that we can value the fund a different way to pretend we've made a profit.  We haven't.  My point IS that my actual trading has been sound - just the (known from the start to be a risk) exchange-rate jump is the reason for our losses.

For now I'm holding 10 BTC on BTC-E.  I don't want to convert them to LTC at the current rate - as there's serious resistance to the rate rising higher and I expect some sort of downward correction within the next day or so (though it may well only be a temporary one).  Whilst I don't want to end up speculating on the exchange-rate, I definitely don't want us locking in our losses by converting everything to LTC at the peak of a bubble.

I still can't make a deicison on the log-term future for LTC-ATF until we see what ex-GLBSE asset holders do when nefario releases lists of their investors to them.  So for now I'll just be trading on LTC-GLOBAL then will review the situation when we see how things develop.  From now on I'll be maintaining bids and asks all the time - so anyone who wants to buy in/cash out can.  The spread of bid/ask will vary (as usual) depending on how volatile the exchange-rate seems.

One final note: the HWM is being reset (per contract) to the current NAV/U.  Please do appreciate that if the exchange-rate swings back in the other direction there IS provision in the contract to prevent me taking management fees on "profits" that are actually just the result of that currency movement rather than a trading profit.

[guruvan]

Thanks for the updates. Was getting a little concerned with the whole situation, especially considering that the liquidity on LTC-ATF completely disappeared. That said, it's performed well as a hedging instrument.

Regarding MPEx: I really think you should be trading there, but I do understand why you're not.

First off, though the spreads appear small, you have to look at the daily trading range. I make pretty decent profits trading S.MPOE, which has high volume). (It's a little tight this week due to a correction, and significant upward push with GLBSE money being claimed)

Second - options. The primary attraction to MPEx is really MPOE. There's plenty of volume on options. Plenty of money to be made if you're an experienced options trader.

Thirdly - registration fee. Yep. It's expensive, and would hurt to buy that out of this fund. There are brokerage services. In fact, I offer brokerage services. (as do a few others) - If you're interested we could negotiate a favorable deal (lower fees, access to interest payments on carried balances, means to mitigate the counterparty risks you'd take on with a broker, etc) My email is on my GPG key, linked in my sig - PMs are disabled.

Fouthly - I seriously doubt you'll see more that one or two (at most) GLBSE assets move to MPEx. There really aren't many that would be able to meet the MPEx listing requirements. Most GLBSE assets are most likely completely dead, certainly as far as public trading.

There's also assets-otc.

[Deprived]

Thanks for the updates. Was getting a little concerned with the whole situation, especially considering that the liquidity on LTC-ATF completely disappeared. That said, it's performed well as a hedging instrument.

Regarding MPEx: I really think you should be trading there, but I do understand why you're not.

First off, though the spreads appear small, you have to look at the daily trading range. I make pretty decent profits trading S.MPOE, which has high volume). (It's a little tight this week due to a correction, and significant upward push with GLBSE money being claimed)

Second - options. The primary attraction to MPEx is really MPOE. There's plenty of volume on options. Plenty of money to be made if you're an experienced options trader.

Thirdly - registration fee. Yep. It's expensive, and would hurt to buy that out of this fund. There are brokerage services. In fact, I offer brokerage services. (as do a few others) - If you're interested we could negotiate a favorable deal (lower fees, access to interest payments on carried balances, means to mitigate the counterparty risks you'd take on with a broker, etc) My email is on my GPG key, linked in my sig - PMs are disabled.

Fouthly - I seriously doubt you'll see more that one or two (at most) GLBSE assets move to MPEx. There really aren't many that would be able to meet the MPEx listing requirements. Most GLBSE assets are most likely completely dead, certainly as far as public trading.

There's also assets-otc.

Thanks for the info guruvan - will have another look at MPEx either tomorrow or Friday (either got a very busy day of work tomorrow or a very idle day - won't know until the morning).  And yeah - a narrow spread doesn't matter too much if the volume's there: but without an automated brokerage system it would be hard to trade just on volatility: so I'd need to be very confident about market trends/stability before getting involved too heavily.

I removed the liquidity from LTC-ATF as no way I could offer to buy people's units back at full value without being certain GLBSE would return our BTC (and of course I couldn't be sure of that).  Similarly I couldn't allow anyone to buy into LTC-ATF at just the value we held in LTC-denominated assets - as it would horribly dilute existing investors' funds when GLBSE returned our BTC.

I agree totally that I'd expect very few ex-GLBSE assets to go to MPEx - it wouldn't make sense (even if they were able to get listed there) when they already have a load of existing investors who wouldn't want to fork out the MPEx registration fee.  If they go anywhere I'd expect them right now to go to cryptostocks if anywhere - unless burnside gets a BTC-GLOBAl up.  I had another look at crypto-stocks today.  There's tiny volume there, with the highest volume being on a couple of securities I really wouldn't want to touch (think the obvious ponzi has highest volume).

BRIEF UPDATE

May as well give a brief update on LTC-ATF in this post:

LTC/BTC exchange-rate 0.0077
Adjusted NAV/U : 7.7505

Exchange-rate has been locked in the .007 - 0.0095 range for the last day or so.  There's pretty significant resistance against it rising out of that band (though some of that could be artifical) and a downward move seems more likely than an upward one.

Have made a small amount of profit trading on LTC-GLOBAL - at moment prices seem to have over-corrected for the currency-rate change so there's some (I believe) under-priced securities being sold. 

QUICK COMMENTS ON LTC-GLOBAL

I think there's a few fundamental issues with the LTC-GLOBAL market so far (not the platform, the players in the market).

1. Investors acting in an irrational manner.

As a simple example, consider LTCI - there's a full list of its holdings in a spreadsheet with them valued by the fund-manager at BID prices: i.e. the price those assets could immediately be sold for.  And we still picked up a bunch at below even that.  The out of date spreadsheet values assets based on bids at over 0.6 (including valuing our own units at 4.5 - the LTC-denominated-only value) and a more reasonable estimate of NAV/U for it is around .75.  So grabbing some units at .5 and under wasn't a hard choice, especially with my assessment that if anything the exchange-rate will fall rather than rise in the short-term.

2. Terrible reporting from some investments.

As an example consider EMIF.LTC-TRADING.  He's paid dividends the last few weeks without ever reporting what profits are or what current NAV/unit is or what (if any) managerial fees he's taken.  As he's actually paid dividends every week then, from his contract, it follows that he hasn't made a loss - so NAV/U must be over the original 0.5 per share.  Yet it's been trading significantly below that.  Can only believe it's down to the total lack of information coming from the asset owner - he got cold feet about his original plan after 1 week, promised information on what he was going to be doing in terms of change then went silent but continued paying small dividends.

It definitely seems like a lot of asset owners seem to think once they've sold as many shares as they can they can just stop posting and pay out the occasional dividend - and don't realise that their security price plumetting is a direct result of their silence.

Put together investors with a low level of knowledge, asset-owners with a lack of communication skill and the current situation of wide-spread uncertainty about crypto-investment in general and it's no real wonder the prices of nearly everything on LTC-GLOBAL is falling (this one's an exception - as the trading range for LTC-ATF is set by myself as an effective market-maker, so the fall in price is a direct measure of a loss in value rather than anything to do with the aforementioned factors).

[killerstorm]

Note that price have fallen also for stocks like LTC-GLOBAL and LTC-MINING.LTC -- this must be not due to a lack of trust.

Also LTC-GAMING and LTC-CHARTS are not backed by anything, so their price simply reflects the mood on exchange.

I think falling prices means that people are withdrawing litecoins: i.e. they sell assets they have and do not buy another assets... Also new people with money do not come. So there are too few litecoins for too many assets, which produces weird prices.

Maybe they withdraw litecoins to sell them on btc-e while prices is high?

[burnside]

Note that price have fallen also for stocks like LTC-GLOBAL and LTC-MINING.LTC -- this must be not due to a lack of trust.

Also LTC-GAMING and LTC-CHARTS are not backed by anything, so their price simply reflects the mood on exchange.

I think falling prices means that people are withdrawing litecoins: i.e. they sell assets they have and do not buy another assets... Also new people with money do not come. So there are too few litecoins for too many assets, which produces weird prices.

Maybe they withdraw litecoins to sell them on btc-e while prices is high?

I suspect that the increase in LTC value on the exchange probably has a lot to do with it.  Now is definitely a good time to cash out if you've been sitting on your coins for a few months.

It's also expected for mining assets to swing roughly in step with difficulty.  No one wants to spend 100 LTC on a mining bond that will produce half the coins it would have produced a couple weeks ago.  With difficulty twice what it was, I would expect the mining bonds to trade at half what they were.  That seems to be playing out on LTC-MINING.LTC as expected.