[LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : .0093
Adjusted NAV/U : 60.907
Bid at : 59

Just a brief mid-week update.  LTC has fallen vs BTC since my last report - which has obviously manifested itself in some NAV/U growth.  Before projected management fee NAV/U is up by 6.8% so far this week - but the bulk of that is due to the exchange-rate movement with actual trading profits so far only at about 2.3%.

[Deprived]

CRITICISMS OF / QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUND

Earlier today I received a PM expressing some ciriticism of (and asking some questions about) this fund.

I do NOT respond in depth, by PM, to such messages - I prefer all such discussion to be public.  This is for two reasons:

1.  By answering in public I avoid having to address the same issue repeatedly in PM to multiple individuals.
2.  I have nothing to hide - so why would I want it done in private?  If I'm wrong about something I've no problem whatsoever with it being pointed out and me acting to resolve whatever the issue is.

I therefore asked whether the person PMing me would be willing for me to respond in public to their comments but without revealing their identity (so as not to embarass them).  They were fine with that.  I have no problem at all with someone PMing me questions/criticism and me responding to it in public without revealing their identity.  In many ways it's actually a hood way to do things - as by not revealing their identity I am forced to address the issues they raise rather than attack the questioner.  I will not reveal the identity of anyone who wants to raise issues in this way - nor will I confirm or deny whether such posts are any specific person unless someone is accused of being the PMer, denies it in public AND asks me to confirm that it wasn't them (when I'll honestly say whether or not it was them).

The below quotes are from the PM without any modification from me.  I have excluded some parts of the PM which did not deal with LTC-ATF and hence would not be of relevance if addressed in this thread.

Hopefully this at least provides some light entertainment for readers.

FABRICATING NAV/U

Your recent report stated actual profit is down by 4.82%. Yet you fabricated an 8.57% increase in NAV from 61.83 to to 67.13. That makes no sense.

This refers to the values in the spreadsheet in the OP of this thread - not to the values given in the weekly reports.  The PMer simply hasn't read (or hasn't understood) the explanatory notes below the spreadsheet there.

The period in question is the one ending 10th March 2013 (the week LTC massively rose from .003 to .00725.

Column 4 is the NAV/U of the fund at the end of the week before deduction of any management fee.  This is the actual NAV/U (before fee) the fund had - and is what management fee is based on.  There's a subtle clue this is the actual NAV/U in the use of the word "ACTUAL" above the column.

Column 8 is the one that our mysterious friend takes great exception to.  Despite us having made a loss for the week it shows a very significant increase from the value at the start of the week.  How can this be so?

Well, column 8 is a crude esitmate of what NAV/U would have been had the exchange-rate not changed.  As the exchange-rate DID change (very much so) this is a lot different to the actual result at the end of the week.  Do note, first off, that this value is NOT used when calculated management fee.  It is NOT used when calculating buy-back price.  It is NOT used as the starting point for the next week (that is, of course, the actual NAV/U after deduction of management fee).  Nowhere is it claimed that this IS the actual NAV/U nor is it used anywhere AS the actual NAV/U.

Why is this value reported at all?  Well there's two reasons why it's reported:

1.  The actual results in any week (profit or loss) depend upon two factors :
a) How I do in trading,
b) How the LTC/BTC exchange-rate moves - if LTC increases then our NAV/U will drop and if LTC decreases vs BTC then our NAV/U will increase.

This column gives an estimate of what my trading performance was when the impact of exchange-rate movement was discounted.  In the week in question I made a killing trading - but that was still not quite enough to compensate for the loss in NAV/U caused by LTC's steep rise vs BTC.  Hence the massive discrepancy between the actual NAV/U and this number.  If you look at weeks where LTC fell vs BTC you'll see the opposite - that this column is lower than the actual growth for the week.

2.  This column is used to calculate the maxium rate we could safely offer on bonds based on past performance.  The capital raised by bonds and the liability incurred in respect of them cancel one another out in terms of exposure to exchange-rate variations.  Because of that, when calculating what rate we can safely offer, we have to look at profits recalculated to at least approximate removal of exchange-rate variation.  Imagine a situation where every week I made a loss trading but LTC fell steeply vs BTC.  In that scenario clearly I shouldn't be selling bonds at all - as trading isn't making a profit - yet the actual NAV/U of the fund would rise giving the illusion that the bonds were doing well for us. 

A comparison which may help understand this is to think of Satoshi Dice.  If you look at graphs of its performance you'll see two lines - a red one (showing expected profit based on the odds) and a black line showing actual profits.  When assessing the value of the share you SHOULD be looking at the red line (exception being if you believe any variance is down to double-spend attacks).  Our actual NAV/U is the black line - it's what we actually got.  Column 8 is the red line - which IS what matters when looking at the rate for bonds: as capital raised from bonds is NOT subject to the difference between the red and black lines caused by exchange-rate movement.

This was all explained anyway in the notes below the spreadsheet.

A PONZI?

Another issue is that at 67, LTC-ATF has enjoyed ponzi-like returns of 600% over the last 6 months. Congratulations, you are beating pirate at his own game.

Not sure what to say to this other than thanks - though of course the 67 figure is NOT the actual NAV/U (if LTC falls much further it probably will be).

If it would make investors more comfortable I am, of course, fine with taking a one-time bonus of say 30-40 LTC per share so they don't have to share the stigma of having made ponzi-like returns.  And if you want it to be really scary you should look at the returns that have been made if the units were to be valued in BTC or USD.

More seriously, if LTC-ATF is a ponzi then it has to be the first one that rarely sells any new units and constantly has a bidwall up at a few % under the stated value of the shares.

If anyone has serious concerns that the claimed funds belonging to LTC-ATF don't exist then it's actually pretty easy for me to prove otherwise.  Most of the time 80%+ of the assets managed by the fund are in cash.  I can, at any time, show all of that cash by placing pre-agreed bids on the various sites I trade on (it's a bit of a pain on Bitfunder - as have to cancel my other bids to do it).

Additionally, ANYONE can ask the operators of exchanges where I trade to conform ANY statement I make about our assets or trades.  I've stated it before - and repeat it again.  If I say I have X BTC on Bitfunder/BTC.CO/LTC-Global then Ukyo/burnside have my permission to confirm that without any further reference to me.  If I say I have assets worth Y BTC/LTC on sites the same applies.  This blanket permission only extends to confirming the truth of statements I've made - not to revealing further information that I haven't disclosed.

I'm fine with taking ANY reasonable action to confirm that the fund holds the assets (with the value) that I claim in my reports.  However any requests for such verification by ME MUST be made in public and then the fact that I was correct confirmed afterwards (you can ask exchange operators to confirm things privately without involving me - so I don't care about that).  I will NOT reveal details of securities held but, if someone seriously makes such a request, will see if I can find a way to prove it without doing so (ideally get the exchange operator to confirm it in public).

Logically there's actually no need for me to prove all assets exist anyway.  If I can show 80% + exist as cash and another 5% exist as shares in assets we run pass-throughs to (those are already disclosed anyway) then we're already at 85% of assets.  It would be a stretch of even the most hostile critic's imagination to believe I could have made a 300% growth whilst holding absolutely no securities at all (300% is roughly what growth would have been if the securities I say we hold don't exist - just the cash and pass-through shares).

Anyway, apologies to all offended by the fund's profitability.

LTC-ATF.B1 - FATALLY FLAWED?

Although not explicitly stated, the following points relate to LTC-ATF.B1, not to the fund itself.

Second to this, your contract contains dangerous flaws. For example, you state you will sell shares to meet demand, but you also state you will increase dividend to increase demand. Which is it? The way you present yourself looks very nice (we will increase dividend to meet demand) but the reality is you are doing a bait and switch on your investors since you sell shares into the market to satiate demand. And what's worse you have a clause which allows you to sell shares below NAV, screwing over your existing investors to line your own pocket.

Oh dear - we have a bad case of lack of understanding here.

If the fund wants to sell bonds and there's sufficient demand to do so, then we do not raise the rate paid.
If the fund wants to sell bonds but noone is willing to buy then we do raise the rate paid.

We do NOT sell shares (bonds) to meet demand unless we can actually use the funds raised.  Similarly we will NOT raise rates unless we are unable to sell bonds without doing so.

The idea that "we will increase dividend to meet demand" is just horrible.  We do exactly the opposite of that.  Dividend will be raised if (and only if) there's no demand to meet.  Dividend is NOT increased to MEET demand - but to CREATE demand when none exists.  To date there's been plenty of demand and so absolutely no reason to raise dividends.

This is all explained in the contract - in the very first overview section where it says:

" Bonds will initially be offered paying a 0.6% per week dividend - then the rate will be gradually increased as necessary until demand meets supply. "

Demand has never yet fallen below supply - so there's never been a need to increase it.  Rather trivially, if demand is already above supply (which it is - as we have no bonds we're stuck trying to sell) then raising the rate could only move demand FURTHER away from supply and not any nearer to the two meeting.  I'll admit I'm a bit surprised that we haven't had to raise the rate yet - but I'm not going to complain.

I can only speculate on why our correspondent thought the rate would be raised when demand was clearly already at or above supply level.

As for the idea that selling at below NAV/U would line my own pocket - that's just dumb beyond belief.  The bonds can be sold back to the fund on request at 99% of face value.  It would be terminally stupid of me to sell them at under that - as it would be trivially exploitable by people buying them then immediately cashing them back in causing a loss for me.  The right to do that was reserved explicitly in case the rare situation arose where a significant profit could be made immediately if extra capital were available.  That situation has yet to arise - and likely will never do so.

Further, the value of each bond is exactly 0.01 BTC regardless of who buys how many at what price.  NOTHING I do can lower that.  Yes - the market price CAN be lowered by me selling more bonds but short of never selling any there's no way around that.  And it can't fall far below 0.01 - as the fund is committed to buying back any priced at .0099 BTC or less anyway.  To the extent that I can I DO try to protect existing bond holders.  So I'm tending now to sell into bids rather than place asks (as we have no urgent need for cash) so as not to bid down the asks of investors who want to sell.  And sales of new bonds are pretty much done for now anyway.

If you view the bonds as some investment that will grow in price then you're looking at them wrong.  They're issued at will by LTC-ATF and SHOULD always trade not too far from 0.01 BTC when the LTC/BTC exchange-rate is stable.  They're a way to gain BTC exposure whilst generating a modest but predictable and reliable return - not some speculative growth thing.

BONDS NOT SUSTAINABLE?

I'm also worried about what the BTC price spike has done to your fund and it's bond. You invest in stuff. BTC price has gone up 600% too. That means the stuff you invested in crashed. That means there is no logical way you can continue paying 0.6% a week on LTC-ATF.B1. I think you're going to have to show us your books. Because if this is not sustainable you need to come clean NOW before you screw over people's lives with a fraud-in-progress.

Well IF I were investing in stuff you may have a point.  But LTC-ATF does NOT invest in stuff.  We trade stuff.  You're looking at LTC-ATF as though we were one of the failed GLBSE funds - that bought crappy mining securities at market rates then sat on them whilst they lost value.  We just don't do that.  There's a reason most of our assets are always cash - I mainly buy stuff when I expect to be able to sell it at a profit quickly.  So most of our assets are cash committed to buy orders that rarely fill - and when they DO fill, we don't sit on them waiting for them to lose value, we sell them for a profit, rinse and repeat.  There have been a few exceptions to this - ASICMINER which we held for a long time then sold for a 600%+ profit and DMC which we held for a few weeks then sold for a 100-200% profit.

If we buy something and I can't sell it at a profit then I sell it at break-even or a loss.  I don't sit on it watching it drop in value (not for too long anyway).

Yes - a lot of the stuff I trade in HAS crashed in price.  But most of the time it hasn't crashed enough to prevent us selling at a profit.  Timing is the key - and understanding the way in which most investors (over)react to certain things.

The key value determining whether we can continue paying 0.6% on LTC-ATF.B1 is whether our growth/week adjusted to remove exchange-rate variation falls below a certain value.  If we were maxed out on bonds then that value is around 2%.  As we're not even near maxed out, at present trading profit would need to fall below about 1.5% per week for me to start becoming concerned.  Whilst I don't expect profits to continue at 10%+ with LTC higher vs BTC I don't see any danger of them dipping that low.

We need to be careful not to conflate two different things:

a) That there's no logical reason for us to make a profit.
b) That I'm lieing about our assets.

When you seperate those two you should actually realise that I absolutely CAN afford to pay the rates as ONE of the following is true.  Either:

1.  My reports ARE (at least approximately) correct in terms of our assets - and hence we're very clearly making sufficient profit to pay the cost of capital.  That you can't understand how it's done or duplicate it is YOUR problem, not mine.  I'll take any reasonable steps to prove that we HAVE made this profit - but don't expect me to write a detailed How-To guide on it.

OR

2.  I'm totally wrong/lieing when I report our assets (with most being cash it would pretty much HAVE to be lieing) in which case I'm running a ponzi/scam and so also CAN afford the rates.

There's NO scenario in which the rates can't be paid.  The issue of whether this is a PONZI was addressed earlier.


GLBSE ASSETS NOT WRITTEN OFF?

There are many other problems with what you are doing. You claim to have written off GLBSE failures back in October. But you had OBSI.HRPT on the books just a few weeks ago. And so on.

OBSI.HRPT was marked down to zero value right after GLBSE closed.  It continued to be listed in the weekly reports for a while - but at a value of exactly 0.  That accurately reflected the fact that we still (at least morally) owned those shares - and also that they had no likely value whatsoever.  Writing them off does NOT mean that we abandon all claim to them should Obsi suddenly show up with a van full of cash and hand it out to his shareholders.  The value of 0 reflected the fact that I assigned no meaningful likelihood to that actually happening.

Not sure what's at all contentious with that - if I'd claimed to write them off but left them on the books with a non-zero value then you'd have a point.  But that ain't what happened.

The only other GLBSE assets we had were ASICMINER and Bitbond.  ASICMINER we sold last week for a very good profit on the .1 each we paid for them.  Bitbond I sold very shortly after they relisted - we managed to sell them for more than I had them on the books for (and, in fact, more than we originally paid for them).  We were one of the very few who managed to sell our shares before it became obvious to everyone that Rando was just another scammer.

As a final note - please be aware that I am NOT going to engage in relaying a stream of PMs debating/discussing my response to questions.  I'll take questions - and answer them here anonymously.  But if you want to debate/discuss my answers then I'm afraid you have to man up and put your name on it.

[Liquid]

Keep up the good work Deprived dont worry about trolls 

[Deprived]

WEEKLY REPORT




Proft was a bit slimmer this week than it has been recently - 9.86% actual growth with an estimated 5.53% from trading and the rest resulting from LTC losing some ground vs BTC.  There's a few reasons why trading profit is significantly down:

• As mentioned in last week's report, the higher value of LTC drives down the value of BTC profits meaning the same BTC profit (as an amount) results in a much lower percentage growth.
• S.MPOE and S.DICE (mainly this) fell in price - hitting the value of the surplus we hold of them to back the pass-throughs.
• I had to mark down some securities I'd bought as a hedge against LTC crashing.  LTC didn't crash so we made a small loss on the books (they may still sell at a profit - but it's less likely unless LTC falls a lot.

Still perfectly respectable results which I'd happily take every week if they were offered.


OP UPDATED

I've updated the OP with a current set of all results to date.  I've also added in a summary section showing the overall performance of the fund to date - we've now been running for almost exactly 6 months.

This new table was prompted in part by the accusation (responded to slightly earlier in this thread) that I was out-pirating Pirate.  The existing detailed results don't actually measure the real profit to date (there's no figures or averages in it showing post-fee returns) so I was interested to see just how close we were to matching the 7%/week Pirate offered.  To date the fund has actually grown by MORE than 7% per week (in LTC) and if you were to consider how BTC invested at the start would measure up now, they'd have been making just under 11.5% per week.

Don't take the projected APR in that table seriously - whilst it IS the growth that would be delivered if historical growth rates continued that is NOT going to be the case.  I don't pretend to be able to predict what growth we'll achieve in the future but I don't see ANY way it could continue at the current speed.


REPURCHASE UNITS / RESALE OF SAME

This week a further 134 units were sold back to the fund.  I would guess these were sold back because the seller(s) wanted to cash out whilst LTC was high - a sensible move if they believed it likely to fall heavily vs BTC and/or USD.  I think it's likely badly timed if so - the previous seller last week had much better timing in my view.

Where does that leave us in terms of capital?

Well, right now our bonds are equal to 62.5% of our NAV - so we're in great shape.  And I don't see any likely need to issue a significant amount more bonds in the immediate future (we could maybe use another 10-15 BTC on BTC-E to maintain flexibility and ease currency balancing when the exchange-rate moves).  The problem is that it's hard to tell which way LTC will move next - it's been making a half-hearted attempt to rise (on pretty low volume) but could equally easily fall back to .005 or lower (it dipped there briefly once in last few days).

We certainly don't need to reissue all those 134 units - but my view is that reselling some would be prudent to avoid any risk of needing to sell more or forcibly recall bonds in the event of a mini-collapse of LTC.

I will therefore be listing 50 of them on the market at a markup of around 25% above NAV/U.  As we have no urgency to sell them there's no reason to sell them cheap.  If LTC does fall sharply then I can always lower the price.  If they don't sell and LTC doesn't fall much (or at all) then I can take them down once we've grown enough more that there's no longer a useful function served by selling them.

Even if they sell, we'll still have less units outstanding than BEFORE I sold the 100 a few weeks back : our growth since then has meant we no longer need the entirety of that expansion, so it's all working out rather well for us.

To be crystal clear, the units sold back to the fund were NOT mine.  I've never sold units back to the fund (only small numbers of units at high markups via Asks).  At present I own over 50% of the fund.  I do NOT intend to buy the 50 units being reissued myself - with LTC's big rise I don't really want to reduce my BTC position to increase my LTC position (if anything I'd prefer to balance in the opposite direction).  That said, if LTC falls and I have to reduce the price of the units then I WILL buy them if noone else does.


SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

This week I'm going to make a serious start on developing a bot/user-interface to make the trading I do easier - as well as allow some options that at present aren't practical.  I had a part-finished application for this on GLBSE.  Here's some of the main objectives of it:

• Allow trading on multiple exchanges in a single window - so securities on LTC-Global, BTC.CO and later, hopefully, Bitfunder as well would all be in the same list.
• Only show securities I'm interested in - at present on ALL exchanges there's a bunch of dead/dieing/inactive/worthless junk that clutters my screen up needlessly.
• Integrate with BTC-E so I can see prices in all of LTC/BTC/USD for securities.
• Maintain bids/asks based on a currency other than the one the security is listed in.  This would allow, for example, me to maintain a bid-wall on our LTC-ATF.B1 bond at just under face-value of 0.01 BTC with the bot repricing it in LTC as/when the LTC/BTC exchange-rate moved.
• Bot-maintained top Bid / Lowest Ask.  Automatic order updating to outbid others - with multiple defined ranges (priced in any currency), exposure per range, minimum size to outbid etc.
• Automatic currency balancing on execution.  If we buy back LTC-ATF.B1 then the bot should immediately convert some BTC to LTC to cover it and keep exposure the same.
• Automated cash-stripping from badly designed bots.  There's already at least 1 bot running on BTC.CO - at present just doing tiny bids/asks.  If bots start trading decent sums then taking cash off them becomes attractive.  That needs multiple orders placed (and removed) fast - which is something best done by software rather than manually.
• Some other nice stuff.  There's some other functionality needed to allow my next intended expansion of operations.  More info on that if/when we reach the point of implementing it.

Initially I'll be programming just for BTC.CO/LTC--Global (in part because we need the functionaility more there and also becasue Bitfunder hasn't published their API yet afaik).  But the intention is definitely to integrate Bitfunder as well - and the design will be such as to allow exchanges (both of securities AND of currency) to be added in fairly easily.

Don't expect this software to be finished in a week or two - it'll take a while for a few reasons:

• I'm fairly rusty at programming.  Whilst I have a LOT of experience (it was my job for a fairly long time) I haven't coded much in anger recently.
• I have zero experience of OAUth.  I'll be programming in C++ so it'll take a fair bit of effort to get that sorted quite likely.  If it proves impractical to do it in C++ then I'll have to spend a few days learning like something like Python to do it.
• BTC.CO and LTC-Global heavily cache shit.  It's entirely likely that to get decent responsiveness I'll have to scrape current data from web-pages rather than retrieve it via the API.  This is going to especially be a pain with transactions - as it's nigh on impossible to get immediate info on when an order has filled.  If not properly handled this could lead to a bot placing multiple orders as it had no way to find out that one had filled.  If you've ever seen your balance go up/down then struggled to work out what happened you'll see the problem.
• I don't always have a lot of spare time to devote a decent period to development.  I can check and update market orders in a spare 5 minutes - I can't do ANYTHING of use in software development in 5 minutes.

I'll try to post updates here each week on how it's going - with screen-shots once some decent functionaility gets added.  Some parts of it I won't be able to show of course.

ODDS AND ENDS

Management fee this week is 4 units (rounded down from 4.17) and will be transferred shortly.
Bid currently at 61

[Deprived]

WEEKLY REPORT




LTC fell vs BTC for most of the week but has risen towards the end, finishing very slightly above where it was last week.  We made just under 2.5% profit this week - that would have been nearly 3% but for the small rise in LTC.

For much of the week we were at significantly higher profit - but then two apparent defaults occurred on Bitfunder wiping most of it out.

The single largest threat to our growth has always been default by asset issuers.  I've mentioned a few times before that sooner or later one or more will default causing us significant loss - and this week it happened.  This is bound to happen because a part of my strategy involves bids placed to catch panic sells.  Those CAN be very profitable - but it also opens the door to shares being dumped on us when an operator defaults and decides to steal extra by selling shares.  My view remains that the benefits of this far outweigh the downside to us - so long as we make a profit from it more often (and larger) than we make a loss it continues to be a viable and profitable part of our activity.

Whilst I don't usually disclose the securities we invest in, I think it only fair to disclose them when they incur significant loss for us.  So here's the two that hurt us a bit this week.


BAKEWELL

Asset issuer has proven in the past to be somewhat less than honest, bad at dealing with problems and unreliable.  In many ways that's made his asset perfect to trade in -as people panic sell, can't properly value it and the spreads are massive.

Recently he took out personal BTC-denominated loans (supposedly) to invest in some fiat-denominated business opportunity.  With the massive rise this month in BTC he's obviously screwed.  This week he dumped shares that belong to the company NOT him into low Bids - including some of ours.  He hasn't shown his face since.

I don't believe he intended to scam/steal - just got in well over his head.  But the end result is the same.

We pretty much dodged the bullet on this one.  Although we got sold a bunch of shares, someone then placed up a Bid at well over what we paid.  So we filled that, dumped the rest cheap and came out of it with only a small loss.

In the past we've made a LOT trading this share - including getting dumped shares at a stupidly low price that we sold off for a 900% profit.

If price drops low enough I may still buy back in.


ZIGGAP

A money-exchange website that clearly had serious problems and financial incompetence from the start.  I've traded it pretty profitably for us previously - that someone is doomed isn't a reason not to trade it, just a reason to get out of it in time.  I got the timing wrong on this.  My calculations had indicated that the shit wouldn't hit the fan for them until at least mid-April.  I was wrong - clearly there were non-visible factors I hadn't factored in (e.g. some share-sales were faked so didn't raise capital, they had other undiclosed debts etc).

This week someone dumped shares at tiny prices - including a good sized bunch into our orders.  On quick investigation it was obvious it was the asset issuer.  Their website had been non-functional for much of the week (unfortunately I hadn't realised this) and they missed a dividend payment at around the time of the dump.  Dumping those shares was totally against the contract - which specified a minimum price for further shares to be sold at.

Issuer has logged in since but not posted.

The main reason our profits are depressed this week is because I applied a very large write-down on the value of these shares.  The price hasn't totally collapsed yet - Asks are still well above what we paid, let alone what they're now marked down to.  I would have written them down even further were it not for the fact that the website is now back up and functional and there's some signs of life.  I don't believe this company will be viable as an investment (there's structural faults in their plan and a total lack of understanding of exchange-rate risk/mitigation) - but if they make ANY sort of positive announcement there'll be enough idiots around for us to get rid of our remaining holdings without further lossm probbaly at a profit to current book value and quite feasibly at a profit to what we actually paid.

Without the write-down of these, we'd have been up around 6-7% this week.  If the issuer totally fails to return then profits will be reduced again next week by writing them down to near zero.

I'm less inclined to dump these for cheap as I did with the Bakewell ones - as issuer has some credibility in the community which they'll likely exploit to delay their collapse (and allow us to exit with profit).  I expect some vague announcement about unspecified problems which are being resolved and an assurance that everything will be OK : which should generate enough Bids for our purpose.


ODDS AND ENDS

Trading on LTC-GLOBAL is especially tricky at present.  LTC is rising vs both BTC and Fiat and the vast majority of securities on LTC-Global are effectively denominated (either in full or in large part) in one or the other of those.  So profits there are slim at present.  We're now very heavily into default country - the sharp price in both BTC/LTC vs USD has meant there'll be plenty of issuers around with debts denominated in BTC/LTC that were used for fiat purposes and are now very hard for them to repay.  I'll be exercising more caution than usual in trading - and would advise everyone else to do the same.

Management fee this week is 1 unit.
Bid at : 62.2

[Deprived]

Well LTC just went through the $1 USD mark (and is well up vs BTC as well).  So we're decently into loss for the week.  Hopefully that continues - I'll happily take a small drop in NAV in return for a large rise in LTC.

Bid will obviously drop as LTC rises.  This is the sort of loss I LIKE making (we are actually up 0.5% or so from trading but that's wiped out by the 30% rise in LTC).

[Deprived]

Just a quick note as I believe this should be disclosed.

Today there have been two sell-backs of LTC-ATF shares (both partially filled by other orders, rest bought back by the fund).  The second one (a few minutes ago) was by me - of 50 units.  I haven't lost confidence in the fund or anything (I still own over half) - I just believe that LTC was nearing the top of a bubble so am protecting my own investment position as it was becoming too heavily LTC-based.

If LTC stays high then I'll have missed out on some profit but will have maintained a safer (for me) invetsment balance.  If LTC stays high then the fund benefits from the sell-backs anyway - as with a high LTC we still have more LTC-denominated capital than we need to cover out bonds.

If LTC falls to the extent that the fund needs to sell new units then I'll buy back in at the same rate as anyone else (likely NAV/U+25% again) and the fund will have gained a NAV/U increase (and I'd still personally be well ahead from having moved funds over to BTC during the fall).   Pretty sure the other person selling is planning exactly the same.

The fund DOES have liquidity to allow this sort of thing - so if anyone else thinks LTC is bubbling then feel free to try the same.

My sales back were done same as anyone else's - I sold into market and the fund's Bid was placed at NAV/U -2% (anyone other than myself would have got NAV/U -1%).

At present fund is down about 6% NAV/U on the week (would have been ~10% from the exchange-rate move but trading/profits on sell-backs have made around 4%).

The owners of ZigGap have shown up on IRC by the way - claiming the site was just down from hardware problems for a few days and everything will be back to fine soon.  If so, we'll make an absolute killing on this - as I actually bought MORE of them overnight at about 1.5% of what trading price was.  Figured in for a penny, in for a pound - and well worth risking 2 BTC for the chance to make 50-100 profit.

[Deprived]

Well it's pretty crazy at the moment - with LTC now at over 0.04 vs BTC and at over $4.

I've sold back 30 more of my shares - and someone else sold back 20.  Mine has been converted to BTC - and will buy back in if necessary (at 25% markup to a much higher NAV/U than I sold at) should (as I expect) LTC crash right back down.  It may well rise a bunch further before final collapse - but I can't see this price (or anything near it) being sustainable at present.  If I'm wrong then I just lost out on some equity in the fund (plus on further growth of LTC).

I still won over half the fund.  I don't plan to sell any more unless LTC hits about $10 when I'd sell another small batch (and STILL have ~50% of the fund).

With this big rise we're obviously not short of backing for our bonds (at present bonds are 20% of NAV/U and our safe limit is 150%).  Main impact of the sell-backs (mine and others) is to reduce our LTC cash position - which is no big deal when we don't use it.  It doesn't impact LTC position per share - as after any sell-back I readjust to a 15% holdings in BTC position.  Those adjustments (which I do even without buybacks) mean we DO take more NAV/U loss when LTC rises (and more profit when it falls) than you may expect from a 15% BTC position.  Here's why:

Consider if we start with 15% assets BTC and LTC doubles.  First instinct is to think we lose 7.5% of NAV/U (as the 15% in BTC loses half its value) - but in fact we lose more.  That's because at various times during that currency movement I'll be adjusting our currency balance to get us back to 15% BTC again.  That increases our NAV/U change when movement is sustained in one direction - especially when it's slow and steady.  I can't just leave the balance alone - or no investor would ever be able to estimate what exposure they had to BTC.  Plus we could end up not properly covering bonds (the balance changes due to trading as well as from exchange-rate movement of course).

I would estimate that if LTC doubles vs BTC we'll usually lose somewhere in the 10-12% of NAV area before mitigation from trading.  WHere the change is sudden and huge that will lower (as I don't have a chance to rebalance).

RIght now with LTC at .042 vs BTC (more than 4 times what it was at start of week) we're at about 51.15 NAV/U - which is a bit under 20% down on the week (or day).  I'll try to keep bids up in case anyone wants to sell - but sometimes LTC changes by 25% in a few minutes to I'm having to be pretty cautious.

[Deprived]

WEEKLY REPORT




I'm sure it will come as no surprise that we made a loss this week.  LTC rose massively vs BTC before moving back down but has ended the week (at least at the point when I prepared this) at .00258.  That's still nearly three times what it was at last week.

We've finished up with a 10.8% reduction in NAV/U (at one stage during the week we were at -20%).  Typically I'd expect a doubling of exchange-rate to result in a drop of NAV/U of around 10-12%.  That we've kept the drop down to 10.8% indicates some reasonable trading profits.  In fact trading profits were pretty good - it's hard to be exact but I'd guess around 10-12% before writing down prices.  Because the exchange-rate movement was so extreme it managed to hit with a double-whammy.  Not only did we lose value on the BTC part of our portfolio but a lot of our LTC-denominated investments had to be significantly written down.

Of course it's not all bad news.  The value of our units if expressed in BTC or USD rose enormously.  Whilst the units ARE denominated in LTC and DID make a loss I'm pretty confident most investors would happily take a 10% or so hair-cut on unit value in LTC in return for LTC trebling vs BTC and quadrupling or more vs USD.  A month of it doing that every week and anyone holding a decent number of units would never need to work again.

ZigGap is proceeding largely as predicted last week.  The asset issuer showed up, gave a totally unconvincing and vague explanation plus the obligatory assurance that everything would be OK.  Reaction in the market wasn't as good as I'd hoped - but it WAS a pretty piss-poor explanation which only the most blinkered of optimists would take seriously.  It does actually appear like the issuer may well try to struggle on - presumably having begged, borrowed or stole some cash from somewhere.  We picked up a nice bunch more of the shares absolutely dirt cheap and have since since sold a fair few at more than we paid.  So at the end of the week we own more shares with a total book value significantly lower than it was last week AND have taken some profit from it.  Our holdings there are now cheap enough that it's no longer a significant issue.  I haven't marked them down further (just averaged cost as usual) as right now I could sell them into Bids for more than they're on the books for anyway - but I'm holding off as I'm confident an opportunity to sell for more will show up at some point.

This week also saw significant sale of unit back to the fund - with a good chunk of them being my own.  Speaking for myself I sold to lock in exchange-rate gains - with the intent to buy back into the fund if necessary (i.e. if the rate plunged back down).  That works out well for both the fund and myself if it happens - I get good profit from exchange-rate movement and the fund gets to buy shares off me then sell them back at a pretty hefty markup.  When the rate was high the fund obviously didn't need the capital.  In fact there's still absolutely need for the fund to resell any of the units that were sold back.  The exchange-rate would need to drop to close to 0.01 before I'd have to start selling the units again.

If anyone else wants to sell units please feel free to do so : if the exchange-rate stays where it is I'd love to see another 50-60 units sold back and would sell back half of those myself if someone else sells back the rest (I'd like to keep my personal holding at around 50% of all units).

Looking ahead, I see a pretty dry period for us on LTC-Global.  The price of nearly all securities there has crashed.  There's three seperate, but linked, reasons for this:

1.  Most shares are effectively fully or largely valued in either BTC or USD.  So LTC's rise in exchange-rates has naturally lowered their price.  That means even if the same volume of shares changes hands the volume of LTC traded will be much smaller.
2.  The sharp price in value of lTC has, in my view, prompted a change in the view-point of many investors.  Suddenly they're thinking of it as "money" rather than as "LTC".  And that means they're more careful/cautious about investing it.
3.  There's been dodgy goings on and shoddy/non-existent accounting in a number of securities (that's not an exclusive to LTC-GLobal).  THis is in part due to the rise in LTC/BTC vs USD - whereby those who borrowed denominated in Crypto to spend in Fiat are a little bit screwed when it comes time to repay.

With the LTC exchange-rate madness I've had little time recently to work on our software.  I'll try to put some time aside for this week - and also for the other new projects I have lined up for us.

Management fee of 0 units is due this week.  HWM stays as it was - no management fee for me until I get NAV/U back over where it was at the start of this week.
WIll check exchange-rate and put up a suitable Bid after posting this.

[ThickAsThieves]

Thanks for the update, any plans to put some LTC-ATF up for sale again?

[Deprived]

Thanks for the update, any plans to put some LTC-ATF up for sale again?

Not unless LTC falls back a lot further vs BTC.  The rise in LTC vs BTC meant our LTC-Denominated cash/assets increased massively in BTC value - so even after buying a back of units we're still very safely covering our bond exposure (bonds currently equal under 40% of NAV - with 150% the maximum we're allowed).  When that gets over about 75% is when I'd think about selling more units - which would need LTC falling to fairly near .01 vs BTC.  At present it looks like LTC may manage to stay well above that - at least for a while - though I still expect it to crash back below that eventually.  But if it delays crashing back then we may well have made enough profit by then not to need to sell more units anyway.

On a seperate point there's an absolute howler of a mistake in this week's spreadsheet.

If you look at the LTC cash on LTC-GLobal it says 8048 LTC then reports that as being worth 8100 BTC!  Obviously what happened is that at some point I typed the LTC balance into the BTC-value field and never noticed.  The mistake has no ramifications other than being embarassing - the BTC-value there isn't used in any calculations of significance and doesn't impact on the final NAV.  If (and it HAS happened) I enter a wrong figure into a cell that actually matters then I tend to notice it immediately as it causes a massive unexpected move in NAV/U - which lets me know I just made a cockup.

Before submitting the report one of things I do is check all holdings/balances match ones on the actual sites - that doesn't, of course, mean I'll notice changes in values that are calculated for display only and not otherwise used.

[usagi]

Deprived, I am really sick of your continuous stream of lies and trolls regarding me and my businesses. It's time you start doing some research before running your mouth and spouting lies like we have refused to make payments from BMF. You've lost ALL your credibility on this and I am asking you, seriously, what do you want me to do? It's obvious to pretty much everyone you are lying about me, and that you're not going to stop. If you are not going to tell me what you want, would you prefer I start responding to your trolls here in your asset thread? Perahaps your shareholders would appreciate knowing the obvious kinds of lies you are trolling people's threads with?

For example in the Ian bakewell thread, why did you state that

That company also deleted all posts, won't respond (thread is locked), won't provide updated information, refuses to pay out funds to shareholders...

All four of the above statements are complete fabrications you are fully aware of, especially as the thread was locked due to your own trolling on our April 4th update. Seriously, explain yourself. This is not logical. You need to stop trolling the Ian bakewell thread because you are derailing a serious investigation.

I am late for work and don't have time to respond to your other ridiculous lies, I'll just post this and ask you what you want me to do specifically to get you to stop lying about me, and see what you have to say.

[usagi]

Disagree with my agenda by all means - but at least accept it's my OWN agenda not someone else's.  And I'd keep all mention of BMF etc to their own thread - except you always either delete or lock threads about your own companies.

Fine, it's your agenda. What do you want me to do for you to stop your agenda? I asked you what you want me to do, not what think I did to deserve it. There's plenty of things you think I might have done to deserve it. For example, you might be connected to the R.M-A crowd who likes to shit on me because I like Kung Fu more than MMA. So go ahead and explain yourself, and let us all know what I need to do for you to stop.

With TU.SILVER for example. You've been told over and over to contact DeaDTerra who oversees our finances. But you have not done this. So it's obvious you haven't bothered to do any due diligence at all -- your comments are not made out of honesty -- but to cause financial damage to me and my companies. Example:

Code:

Session Start: Fri Apr 05 02:40:58 2013
Session Ident: DeaDTerra1
[02:41] <usagi> hi, you around?
[02:58] <usagi> I'm going to e-mail you this month's financial report. It's just figures from the spreadsheet. Please sign off on this when you can or let me know if there's a problem with the numbers. Thanks!
[03:24] <DeaDTerra1> Hi :)
[03:24] <DeaDTerra1> Yes I saw it
[03:24] <DeaDTerra1> I will do that 
[...question and answer period...]
[03:59] <DeaDTerra1> Yea then everythings seems correct

The books are fine, Deprived, it's you -- you're wrong. You're wrong on pretty much everything you say about me and my companies, but you won't stop and you won't check your facts.

So I want to know what you want me to do here, for you to stop your agenda.

[Deprived]

That company also deleted all posts, won't respond (thread is locked), won't provide updated information, refuses to pay out funds to shareholders...

All four of the above statements are complete fabrications you are fully aware of, especially as the thread was locked due to your own trolling on our April 4th update.

Well dealing with the 4 statements in order:

1.  Deleted all posts.  TRUE - after GLBSE vanished you deleted the vast majority of ALL your posts not just BMF ones.  How is that a lie?
2.  Locking thread.  TRUE - you admit so yourself.  That you did it because you didn't want to reply to what you viewed as me trolling is the reason WHY it's locked not evidence of it NOT being locked.
3.  Won't provide updated information.  TRUE.  My post that you believe was trolling pointed out that, contrary to your previous post, the information in OP was NOT up to date.  Have you updated it? No.
4.  Refuses to pay out to shareholders.  TRUE.  You HAD stated you weren't going to pay out more funds until your securities were approved for trading.  That appears to have been deleted from your contract on BTC.CO now.

What do I want you to do?  Pretty simple:

BMF:  Produce a proper accounting of what happened to all assets, ESPECIALLY the mining hardware and the funds raised from them.  If there's still significant assets left then, with proper info on what assets the shares have, I don't personally object to BMF being traded provided you dividend out further funds as they're received.  Right now I (and others) believe there's some very dubious crap going on over the hardware - and that some hardware listed as belonging to the company before GLBSE shutdown has vanished without trace.

NYAN.A: You promised to repay this in full personally.  Now you seem to want to weasel out of this. I wouldn't personally hold you to that promise (provided you acknowledge no longer keeping it) but if you don't intend to pay in full then you need to properly account for its assets.  And that also gos for whatever assets CPA and NYAN had - as those should go to NYAN.A investors.

NYAN.B/C: These have zero value - and should either be closed or left dormant indefinitely (in case obsi evr shows up).

NYAN/CPA: CPA had some assets - specifically BMF shares at least. Proceeds from this need to go to NYAN.A unless you're honouring your previous promise to repay NYAN.A in full.  Not sure if Nyan had assets or not.  If not then no reason to keep it open.  If it did then they should go to Nyan.A (and nyan.b if any overflow - unlikely) then it should be closed down.

TU.SILVER: You need to decide what it actually is and amend contract to reflect that.  If only a minority of the price of shares is silver then it is NOT a silver shop and any claim that is is just a plain lie.  If it's an investment fund that guarantees holding at least 1 unit of silver per share then cool - make that plain the contract - and stop lieing about it being in any way an economical or competitive way to purchase silver.

KONGZI: No issues with this one - other than that you're yet again asking for new investment without having properly closed down the old ones.

Basically sort out the mess on the old companies and decide what the new one is and stick to it (and have a contract that reflects what it IS not what is was, presumably, originally intended to be).  All the time you leave BMF/NYAN.A lieing around festering for no reason and with no clear accounting you can rely on me regularly raising it.  If you look at my last post in your TU.SILVER thread I believe I have a slightly less hostile than usual explanation there of what the problem is with what you're trying to do - selling options on shares than are 75% effectively just BTC is near worthless and dishonest when you portray them as being options on silver.

[Deprived]

Exchange-rate : 0.02
NAV/U : 61.617
Bid : 60 (lower if I'm AFK)

NAV/U is likely slightly wrong - Bitfunder is down for maintenance at present so can't check our holdings there.  No big deal as this isn't an end of week report.

It's turning into a respectable week - we're up just over 8% with abouth alf that from trading and the other half resulting from LTC's drop against BTC.  LTC has been incredibly stable vs BTC around hte 0.02 area for the last day or two - with the LTC/USD rate swinging around wildly in time with the BTC/USD one.  That's not too surprising - as the volume traded on LTC/USD is generally a LOT lower than on LTC/BTC, so moves in BTC/USD tend to get arbitraged into the LTC/USD rate with a much smaller impact on the LTC/BTC one.

The fall in LTC/USD has caused trading to resume a bit on LTC-Global - so some of the securities I'd had to mark down heavily in the last weeks have started selling again.  Some are being sold for less than we bought them for (inevitable with USD-valued securities - even at current price of $1.5, LTC is still a lot higher than it was when they were bought) but at least they're selling for more than we have them on the books for.  And some are selling for an actual profit (a few for very good profits).

Non-LTC trading has been going well on both Bitfunder and BTC.CO (with a bit from trading S.DICE/S.BBET on CoinBR as well).

If LTC stays where it is then it'll be close whether we manage to totally recover last week's losses.  But if we can get anywhere near - with LTC still over double what it was 2 weeks back - then I'll be happy.  Of course LTC will probably make its next big move before the end of week (in which direction I have absolutely no clue - I could make a case for either direction) and that will end up having a large say in where we end up.

19 units have been sold back to the fund.  The second 10 were sold back by me (at about 57-59 from memory) however about an hour later I personally bought 10 units at 75 off the market.  That may seem strange behaviour but there's a method in my madness:

I had no personal holdings on BTC-E at the time (they were elsewhere making me profit) - and BTC was just going into a crazy spell.
So I sold back 10 units on LTC-Global then traded the LTC with the fund for LTC on BTC-E (I use a seperate account there, as well as on LTC-GLobal, but DO do swaps with the fund - so as to minimise delays in transfers and also avoid the 0.5 LTC withdrawal fee on BTC-E).
I then used those funds to trade an easy profit on BTC-E (not something I could do with the fund - as it involved taking on a USD position which I never do with the fund unless for an instant arbitrage opportunity).
I then swapped 750 LTC back via the fund to LTC-GLobal and bought the 10 shares on the market - leaving me with a few hundred LTC profit.

So everyone won out of it:

I ended up with same LTC-ATF shares but a few hundred extra LTC.
The seller got their units bought at 20-25% over NAV/U.
The fund got to buy back 10 units reducing capital (which, with the rate stable, is what we want to do) meaning profits get shares over less units - so more gain/week for remaining investors.

In general I keep private funds and LTC-ATF funds seperate - I have my own private accounts on LTC-GLobal and BTC-E and have never done private trades (or held balances) on the other sites we trade on.  There are only two areas in which they sometimes overlap:

1.  Trades - such as above.  There's no confusion on these at all.  I send (e.g.) 750 LTC from LTC-ATF to my personal account on LTC-GLobal then (or other way round - order obviously doesn't matter) move 750 LTC using a BTC-E code between accounts in the opposite direction on BTC.E.  I do these for the benefit of either party (myself or the fund).

2.  Liquidity loans.  These only ever occur very short-term and only ever happen with me lending funds to LTC-ATF, not the other way round.  These aren't because LTC-ATF has run out of funds, just because the funds are in the wrong place and can't be moved quickly.  LTC-ATF rebalances funds on BTC-E to maintain the correct ratio of LTC:BTC.  If the rate moves fast then occasionally the fund can end up without sufficient funds of the right denomination to convert.  This can also happen if someone sells back a bunch of shares or if we sell a large amount in a pass-through.  In that situation, if I have funds of my own sitting idle on BTC-E, I'll lend a bunch to the fund so the fund can convert whilst waiting for its own funds to arrive from wherever (Bitfunder is only quick source - and that's an hour - BTC.CO/LTC-Global/CoinBR all need manual approval for the sort of amounts I usually move nowadays).  That transfer is done by 0-cost BTC-E code and repaid (with no interest of course) as soon as the fund's own coins arrive.

I'd hope everyone agrees that neither of the above two scenarios is at all dodgy or against the interests of the fund (the 1st is sometimes benefical - the 2nd always beneficial as it allows the fund to lock in a rate removing exposure to exchange-rate movements).  Right now there's no chance of me doing #2 as all the personal funds I had on BTC-E were converted to fiat when BTC was at 200+ and are making profit elsewhere (though will be moving some back into BTC/LTC today probably).

[Deprived]

WEEKLY REPORT




Not much change in the NAV/U since my previous post - we made a few percent more trading profit but LTC rose over 20% vs BTC and pretty much cancelled that out.  So we haven't quite got back to the previous HWM yet (we're still about 3% or so below it).  We ended the week with 8.16% growth with LTC only falling slightly vs BTC over the week as whole - so trading profits were over 7%.  A very good week in my opinion.

We're back to 85% cash - having dropped as low as 60% during the week.  The percentage of cash we have at the time of a report should not be misinterpreted as meaning we don't actually use the rest of the capital.  The easiest site to show this isn't the case on is actually Bitfunder - as it's very easy to get an estimate of total trade volume there.  This report shows we only have 14.6 BTC worth of securities on Bitfunder and 88 BTC in cash - but how much do we actually trade there in a week?  Well, Bitfunder fees are charged based on your volume of sales in the last 60 days - the more you sell the lower the rate you get.  Here's our stats:

Pricing tier's are by last 60 day sales.
This period you have sold: ฿350 worth.
Bonus Discounts: 0.00%
Actual Trading Fee: 0.80%

We need 500 BTC of sales in last 60 days to drop to next tier.  But from this we can estimate what we sell on average - and it's 350/60 or slightly under 6 BTC worth of sales per day.  So in a week we, on average, have been selling about 40 BTC worth of shares (and obviously we have to buy those as well - which is maybe 30 BTC worth of buys).  And our volume is increasing - at the start of the month our average for last 60 days was almost exactly 300.  So although we currently only hold 14.6 BTC of securities we can estimate we've actually bought and sold around three times that much during the week.  Which hopefully is a useful illustration of how misleading it can be if you look at the spreadsheet and then start interpreting the results as if we were an investment fund rather than a trading fund.

If LTC stays around current range and BTC settles down a bit (i.e. Gox starts actually working for more than a few hours at a time) then I'll probably release some more bonds this week.  We've been tight on liqudity on specific sites at times - the worst instance being running out of BTC on BTC-E after one of the sales back to the fund.  Why do we need BTC on BTC-E when that happens?  Because when someone sells back to the fund that reduces our LTC - and hence the percentage of the fund that is in LTC.  I then buy LTC on BTC-E to get us back to around the 15% LTC mark (I tend to act when it dips below 12% or gos over 18%).  If I don't rebalance immediately then we end up gambling on the exchange-rate with the funds that should have been converted - and can end up either making a significant profit or loss on the repurchase of the units.  Which isn't what I want to do.  In this particular instance I had funds of my own on BTC-E at the time - so just lent 20 BTC to the fund whilst I waited for funds to arrive there from elsewhere.

I'm not sure yet just how many bonds I'll sell - but we won't go over the 200 BTC face-value mark this week unless something unforeseen occurs (like a whole bunch of new securities being released somewhere).  I have no intention of issuing new units this week - that won't change unless LTC falls under .015 vs BTC (which is where I'd start considering it - though it would have to go a fair bit lower than that for there to be any great need to sell more units).

Why do I try to keep us at 15% BTC exposure?  Well that's actually two questions in one - here's the answer to both.  I'll assume everyone already knows we have to keep SOME BTC exposure to ensure the safety of our bondholders in the event of a collapse in the LTC price.

Why do we keep a fixed percent?  I try to keep a fixed percent so investors (including myself) can plan the exposure of their own investment portfolio KNOWING that they can estimate the extent to which LTC-ATF value will be impacted by sharp changes in the exchange-rate.  If I let the rato fluctuate (for example keeping us near the minimum to keep bond-holders happy) then it would be very hard to work out what BTC exposure LTC-ATF had after any change in the exchange-rate.  As it stands, investors can be confident that LTC-ATF will always stay in the vicinity of 15% BTC exposure - and that LTC doubling vs BTC will mean somewher in the area of a 10% fall in LTC-ATF NAV/U and LTC halving vs BTC a 10% rise.

Why is the fixed percent 15% rather than, say 10% or 20%?  When managing our BTC exposure there's three main requirements I face:

1.  That exposure remains fairly constant.
2.  That bond-holders are always protected in line with their contract.
3.  That I minimise our exposure without breaking points 1 and 2.

15% happens to be the lowest round number that meets all those requirements.  If I set the target any lower then, in the event of LTC falling a lot, I'd end up unable to keep us at 15% exposure without breaking our commitment to bondholders BEFORE we even reached the point at which we hit the requirement to recall bonds or issue new units.  If I set the target any higher then we'd be gaining unnecessary exposure.  I won't bother running through the math - but it's pretty simple to do if anyone wants to check it out.

As always, if anyone has any questions about why I do things the way I do - or why seemingly random values set by me are where they are (as with the 15%) then feel free to ask.

No management fee this week - as we haven't yet got back over the old HWM.

[usagi]

That company also deleted all posts, won't respond (thread is locked), won't provide updated information, refuses to pay out funds to shareholders...

All four of the above statements are complete fabrications you are fully aware of, especially as the thread was locked due to your own trolling on our April 4th update.

Well dealing with the 4 statements in order:

1.  Deleted all posts.  TRUE - after GLBSE vanished you deleted the vast majority of ALL your posts not just BMF ones.  How is that a lie?

It's a lie because you are not telling the truth. I did not delete posts germaine to outstanding contracts or the CPA liquidity loan. I also remained active and I posted during the timeframe where I was deleting my other posts. That is why it's a lie -- because you lied.

2.  Locking thread.  TRUE - you admit so yourself.  That you did it because you didn't want to reply to what you viewed as me trolling is the reason WHY it's locked not evidence of it NOT being locked.

It's a lie because you said "won't respond (locked the thread)". Here you re-arrange the order in which you give your excuse, dealing with "(locked the thread)" as if it were a sole statement of fact. It was not, you used the fact that I locked my thread to show that I was refusing to respond. Your lie is even more ridiculous due to the fact that the thread in question was locked after giving a response to your puerile accusations. You were fully aware of the fact I was responding. you just decided to lie about it.

3.  Won't provide updated information.  TRUE.  My post that you believe was trolling pointed out that, contrary to your previous post, the information in OP was NOT up to date.  Have you updated it? No.

Sorry, not up to date or not providing updates? Sure, there's some out of date info in the thread. I'm not a machine. But you didn't say that, you said I "won't provide updated information," -- in short, you lied.

4.  Refuses to pay out to shareholders.  TRUE.  You HAD stated you weren't going to pay out more funds until your securities were approved for trading.  That appears to have been deleted from your contract on BTC.CO now.

No, this is a load of horseshit. You are making it sound like there is a line of angry shareholders demanding payment. Sorry jack, that's a lie. I've made it very clear for months that I had not wished to shut down BMF and some of my other companies. You in particular suggested a liquidation auction which I did on the condition that you said you thought it would help me get listed. Well it didn't, and the companies still have assets. I've made it very clear how we will proceed with the companies. You are not running my companies. I don't have to pay anyone anything. I least of all have to buy anything back. Please show me where it states in my contract that I am forced to buy back or pay anything out to shareholders. Go ahead, the posts were un-deleted with my permission.

What do I want you to do?  Pretty simple:

BMF:  Produce a proper accounting of what happened to all assets, ESPECIALLY the mining hardware and the funds raised from them.  If there's still significant assets left then, with proper info on what assets the shares have, I don't personally object to BMF being traded provided you dividend out further funds as they're received.  Right now I (and others) believe there's some very dubious crap going on over the hardware - and that some hardware listed as belonging to the company before GLBSE shutdown has vanished without trace.

Done. See the final claims thread esp. the spreadsheets showing the payment of all funds refunded by BFL to shareholders.
There is still one BFL single for which BFL has ignored multiple requests to provide a shipping number. I think they walked off with it. Now it's your turn, please release the holdings of your company or stop running a LTC-GLOBAL moderated fund. I'm sure your shareholders would love to know more about how you committed securities fraud by issuing yourself 2,218 shares when it was time to pay the dividend and then cancelling them without placing a market order to buy them back. I'm sure you will claim they were sold back to the fund. Okay then, show us the books.

Oh, you don't want to show us the books? Well then don't ask me to show you my books either. You're a hypocritical liar. I published the books for BMF and they were updated almost every single day for months. Who do you think you are to ask me to publish my books like I have been hiding something? You're the one who refuses to publish his books.

NYAN.A: You promised to repay this in full personally.

Another lie. It was insured by CPA. There's a big difference. What I actually said has been posted on the forums since pretty much November.

NYAN.B/C: These have zero value - and should either be closed or left dormant indefinitely (in case obsi evr shows up).

Who are you to say what my companies are worth? If you have any sort of weight here at all, then get my securities listed like you said you would try to help me do if I ran an asset liquidation auction.

NYAN/CPA: CPA had some assets - specifically BMF shares at least. Proceeds from this need to go to NYAN.A unless you're honouring your previous promise to repay NYAN.A in full.

You are clueless. You have no idea what CPA's priorities are, what assets it holds/held, or anything. I've been in contact with the relevant people (for the most part). You? You're a tard, you know nothing because you are not involved in any of what we are doing. That is a fact. Here's a big hint. If CPA owed someone on a contract they signed, CPA's first priority would be to pay out on that contract, not liquidate it's assets and pay shareholders. And their second priority would be fufilling any other terms of their contracts before randomly liquidating all assets and paying out to shareholders. Seriously, are you retarded? Stop telling me how to run my companies.

TU.SILVER: You need to decide what it actually is and amend contract to reflect that.

You need to read our audited and approved financial reports and stop being a dink.

Basically sort out the mess on the old companies and decide what the new one is and stick to it (and have a contract that reflects what it IS not what is was, presumably, originally intended to be).  All the time you leave BMF/NYAN.A lieing around festering for no reason and with no clear accounting you can rely on me regularly raising it.  If you look at my last post in your TU.SILVER thread I believe I have a slightly less hostile than usual explanation there of what the problem is with what you're trying to do - selling options on shares than are 75% effectively just BTC is near worthless and dishonest when you portray them as being options on silver.

Done, thanks. You can get back to managing your own fund now. It has serious problems. You can't even beat your own HWM so I would suggest you go look after your own chickens before trying to tell me how to run my cattle ranch.

[Deprived]

I'm sure your shareholders would love to know more about how you committed securities fraud by issuing yourself 2,218 shares when it was time to pay the dividend and then cancelling them without placing a market order to buy them back. I'm sure you will claim they were sold back to the fund. Okay then, show us the books.

You really are full of shit.

An investor asked to sell back a bunch of bonds yesterday.

I bought 3500 from him personally and the fund bought back 2200-odd.  I don't have the right to release his identity to you without his agreement.

The 2200 odd were paid for by me transferring BTC to him on BTC.CO (at 99% of face value as per the contract).  The 3500 I bought personally were paid for by a BTC transfer from me to an address he provided.

2013-04-15 21:42:03    Internal Transfer To XXXXXX
txid: TXFR-Deprived-1366058523    22.28490000 BTC

There's the transaction, with recipient's name blacked out.  Complete with transaction ID.  Feel free to ask burnside if that transaction exists and matches in time 2200-odd shares being sent back by someone with the same account name on LTC.CO (he actually returned to my personal account by mistake and I promptly sent them on to the issuing account).

Incidentally, even someone as retarded as yourself should have realised that your claim that of me "issuing yourself 2,218 shares when it was time to pay the dividend and then cancelling them without placing a market order to buy them back." wasn't correct.  You just needed to look at the number of shares outstanding at time of each dividend and now.  And it would have been apparent that what happened was someone sold back.  Now that COULD have been me - but as it happens it wasn't.  And if it had been - so what.

READ THE FUCKING CONTRACT.

ANY investor can just send shares to me without placing a market order.  And I'll sell the relevant quantity of BTC and transfer them 99% of the received LTC.  It's in the contract.

Your level of retardedness is reaching new levels - which is one hell of an achievement.

I'm not that interested in wasting my time discussing your various failed/failing "businesses" in this thread.  If you ever have an unopened unmoderated thread about them we can continue the discussion there.  I'm assuming if I posted in your silver thread explaining how what you do doesn't match the contract my post would just get moderated.  If I'm feeling bored and have some spare time I'll make a seperate discussion thread for it one day.

I will however respond to the most obvious and blatant lie in a thread of its own - as it deserves a bit more publicity than it would get here.

[Deprived]

That company also deleted all posts, won't respond (thread is locked), won't provide updated information, refuses to pay out funds to shareholders...

All four of the above statements are complete fabrications you are fully aware of, especially as the thread was locked due to your own trolling on our April 4th update.

Well dealing with the 4 statements in order:

1.  Deleted all posts.  TRUE - after GLBSE vanished you deleted the vast majority of ALL your posts not just BMF ones.  How is that a lie?

It's a lie because you are not telling the truth. I did not delete posts germaine to outstanding contracts or the CPA liquidity loan. I also remained active and I posted during the timeframe where I was deleting my other posts. That is why it's a lie -- because you lied.

2.  Locking thread.  TRUE - you admit so yourself.  That you did it because you didn't want to reply to what you viewed as me trolling is the reason WHY it's locked not evidence of it NOT being locked.

It's a lie because you said "won't respond (locked the thread)". Here you re-arrange the order in which you give your excuse, dealing with "(locked the thread)" as if it were a sole statement of fact. It was not, you used the fact that I locked my thread to show that I was refusing to respond. Your lie is even more ridiculous due to the fact that the thread in question was locked after giving a response to your puerile accusations. You were fully aware of the fact I was responding. you just decided to lie about it.

3.  Won't provide updated information.  TRUE.  My post that you believe was trolling pointed out that, contrary to your previous post, the information in OP was NOT up to date.  Have you updated it? No.

Sorry, not up to date or not providing updates? Sure, there's some out of date info in the thread. I'm not a machine. But you didn't say that, you said I "won't provide updated information," -- in short, you lied.

4.  Refuses to pay out to shareholders.  TRUE.  You HAD stated you weren't going to pay out more funds until your securities were approved for trading.  That appears to have been deleted from your contract on BTC.CO now.

No, this is a load of horseshit. You are making it sound like there is a line of angry shareholders demanding payment. Sorry jack, that's a lie. I've made it very clear for months that I had not wished to shut down BMF and some of my other companies. You in particular suggested a liquidation auction which I did on the condition that you said you thought it would help me get listed. Well it didn't, and the companies still have assets. I've made it very clear how we will proceed with the companies. You are not running my companies. I don't have to pay anyone anything. I least of all have to buy anything back. Please show me where it states in my contract that I am forced to buy back or pay anything out to shareholders. Go ahead, the posts were un-deleted with my permission.

What do I want you to do?  Pretty simple:

BMF:  Produce a proper accounting of what happened to all assets, ESPECIALLY the mining hardware and the funds raised from them.  If there's still significant assets left then, with proper info on what assets the shares have, I don't personally object to BMF being traded provided you dividend out further funds as they're received.  Right now I (and others) believe there's some very dubious crap going on over the hardware - and that some hardware listed as belonging to the company before GLBSE shutdown has vanished without trace.

Done. See the final claims thread esp. the spreadsheets showing the payment of all funds refunded by BFL to shareholders.
There is still one BFL single for which BFL has ignored multiple requests to provide a shipping number. I think they walked off with it. Now it's your turn, please release the holdings of your company or stop running a LTC-GLOBAL moderated fund. I'm sure your shareholders would love to know more about how you committed securities fraud by issuing yourself 2,218 shares when it was time to pay the dividend and then cancelling them without placing a market order to buy them back. I'm sure you will claim they were sold back to the fund. Okay then, show us the books.

Oh, you don't want to show us the books? Well then don't ask me to show you my books either. You're a hypocritical liar. I published the books for BMF and they were updated almost every single day for months. Who do you think you are to ask me to publish my books like I have been hiding something? You're the one who refuses to publish his books.

NYAN.A: You promised to repay this in full personally.

Another lie. It was insured by CPA. There's a big difference. What I actually said has been posted on the forums since pretty much November.

NYAN.B/C: These have zero value - and should either be closed or left dormant indefinitely (in case obsi evr shows up).

Who are you to say what my companies are worth? If you have any sort of weight here at all, then get my securities listed like you said you would try to help me do if I ran an asset liquidation auction.

NYAN/CPA: CPA had some assets - specifically BMF shares at least. Proceeds from this need to go to NYAN.A unless you're honouring your previous promise to repay NYAN.A in full.

You are clueless. You have no idea what CPA's priorities are, what assets it holds/held, or anything. I've been in contact with the relevant people (for the most part). You? You're a tard, you know nothing because you are not involved in any of what we are doing. That is a fact. Here's a big hint. If CPA owed someone on a contract they signed, CPA's first priority would be to pay out on that contract, not liquidate it's assets and pay shareholders. And their second priority would be fufilling any other terms of their contracts before randomly liquidating all assets and paying out to shareholders. Seriously, are you retarded? Stop telling me how to run my companies.

TU.SILVER: You need to decide what it actually is and amend contract to reflect that.

You need to read our audited and approved financial reports and stop being a dink.

Basically sort out the mess on the old companies and decide what the new one is and stick to it (and have a contract that reflects what it IS not what is was, presumably, originally intended to be).  All the time you leave BMF/NYAN.A lieing around festering for no reason and with no clear accounting you can rely on me regularly raising it.  If you look at my last post in your TU.SILVER thread I believe I have a slightly less hostile than usual explanation there of what the problem is with what you're trying to do - selling options on shares than are 75% effectively just BTC is near worthless and dishonest when you portray them as being options on silver.

Done, thanks. You can get back to managing your own fund now. It has serious problems. You can't even beat your own HWM so I would suggest you go look after your own chickens before trying to tell me how to run my cattle ranch.

Quote for posterity in case it gets deleted or edited.

[ThickAsThieves]

The person selling the bonds back to Deprived and the fund was me.

I am very grateful he made himself available quickly, and made good on fulfilling their value with no hiccups whatsoever.

This enabled me to sell the BTC at market rate and buy during the dip to 51 last night, just as planned.

As I told Deprived, his assets are probably my favorite in all of cryptocoin investing, and I WILL be back for more. I just wanted to have as much loose btc as possible to play against the current volatility.