[BMF] News and Updates.

[usagi]

[BMF] News and Updates.

[1714486839]

1714486839

[1714486839]

1714486839

[1714486839]

1714486839

[greyhawk]

In fact, one might even accuse Ian Bakewell.... of scamming!

LOCAL RULES: Do not post scammer accusations here

[Deprived]

Another example is DMC. Regardless of what you think happened, DMC passed an independent audit by an accountant hired by Nefario.

Occasionally you might like to get eevn basic facts right.

Here's what Diablo himself said:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77469.msg1224420#msg1224420

"nefario emailed me and said my account is now unlocked and also the one guy that he found that would do the audit backed out."

No audit was ever actually carried out.

[Deprived]

The reason why is simple. Consider an asset like BAKEWELL. The operator is totally transparent and he checks out, he's verified, he uses his real name -- he even has a shareholder protection contract with CPA in order to build trust in the community. He's currently in IPO, selling his shares for .15. BMF likes BAKEWELL. We like it so much, we bought 432 shares. So, what's BAKEWELL worth? Logic would tell you, it's worth .15. Why not, that's what he's selling shares at, and he does need to finish his IPO. If his shares were not worth .15, say... if they were worth .1343, why would anyone pay .15? They wouldn't. In fact, one might even accuse Ian Bakewell.... of scamming!

I've nothing against BAKEWELL - as you say it's transparent and the guy seems genuine.

However, YOU didn't pay .15 per share (at least not for most of your shares).  Private purchases get 110 shares for 15 BTC.

That works out at .... Wait for it ... 0.13636 per share.

So your case is that you buy the shares for 0.13636 and they then magically become worth 0.15?  I think not.  IF the IPO had sold out fast then you'd have a point - but it didn't and, as usual, you don't.

You COULD take an even more pessimistic view and include the additional shares he gets himself for free (i.e. work out the average price 'paid' per share including the ones he 'paid' nothing for).  That would be wrong of course - but so is taking the HIGHEST price (0.15) anyone paid for a share (when the majority sold for 9% less) and claiming that is somehow their 'value'.

The truth is that, when a company fails to sell out an IPO it's very hard to put a value on it.  The best you can say for SURE is that it's less than the IPO price (as all demand at that price has been fulfilled already - which is why it hasn't sold out).  I think Ian (and plenty of others) do themselves and their shareholders a disservice by starting off trying to issue too many shares.  Had he only initially issued enough shares for his first rig he'd have sold out already - and the market could begin trying to value his company.   Because he didn't do that, he's placed a ceiling on the price at 0.15 - meaning all remaining demand necessarily has to be below that.

[Deprived]

The reason why is simple. Consider an asset like BAKEWELL. The operator is totally transparent and he checks out, he's verified, he uses his real name -- he even has a shareholder protection contract with CPA in order to build trust in the community. He's currently in IPO, selling his shares for .15. BMF likes BAKEWELL. We like it so much, we bought 432 shares. So, what's BAKEWELL worth? Logic would tell you, it's worth .15. Why not, that's what he's selling shares at, and he does need to finish his IPO. If his shares were not worth .15, say... if they were worth .1343, why would anyone pay .15? They wouldn't. In fact, one might even accuse Ian Bakewell.... of scamming!

I've nothing against BAKEWELL - as you say it's transparent and the guy seems genuine.

However, YOU didn't pay .15 per share (at least not for most of your shares).  Private purchases get 110 shares for 15 BTC.

That works out at .... Wait for it ... 0.13636 per share.

So your case is that you buy the shares for 0.13636 and they then magically become worth 0.15?  I think not.  IF the IPO had sold out fast then you'd have a point - but it didn't and, as usual, you don't.

You COULD take an even more pessimistic view and include the additional shares he gets himself for free (i.e. work out the average price 'paid' per share including the ones he 'paid' nothing for).  That would be wrong of course - but so is taking the HIGHEST price (0.15) anyone paid for a share (when the majority sold for 9% less) and claiming that is somehow their 'value'.

The truth is that, when a company fails to sell out an IPO it's very hard to put a value on it.  The best you can say for SURE is that it's less than the IPO price (as all demand at that price has been fulfilled already - which is why it hasn't sold out).  I think Ian (and plenty of others) do themselves and their shareholders a disservice by starting off trying to issue too many shares.  Had he only initially issued enough shares for his first rig he'd have sold out already - and the market could begin trying to value his company.   Because he didn't do that, he's placed a ceiling on the price at 0.15 - meaning all remaining demand necessarily has to be below that.

Please delete this post as it contains accusations that I am misrepresenting the value of my company. You are welcome to post it in the Scam Accusations forum, where I will make a response.

It would only beolong in the Scam Accusations forum if I was accusing you of scamming.  That's not what I'm claiming.  But maybe we're talking at cross purposes.

If someone running a company is doing so badly do YOU believe that makes them a scammer?
If someone misrepresents (even through total ignorance rather than malice) a loss that heir company has made as a profit then do YOU believe that makes them a scammer?

I don't believe either of the above necessrily make someone a scammer (it's ONE explanation but the only one).  Sheer incompetence is a far more likely explanation.

Now if YOU believe that the two scenarios above are ones which would warrant a scammer tag then please say so.  I'd still disagree with you - but if YOU say that the only way YOU could end in either of those scenarios is if you were scamming then I'd have to agree that any such accusations should (and would) go in the Scam Accusations forum.

Until you make such a statement my position remains as it always has been - that you just aren't very good at what you do, other than at explaining it so badly (quite likely just from ignorance not malice) that potential investors are likely to be misled as to the value of investing in you.  And discussing whether or not investments are good value/well managed is EXACTLY what discussion in this forum is intended to be about.

If you just want to make announcements without criticism then post them on your website - not in a discussion forum.

[Deprived]

The reason why is simple. Consider an asset like BAKEWELL. The operator is totally transparent and he checks out, he's verified, he uses his real name -- he even has a shareholder protection contract with CPA in order to build trust in the community. He's currently in IPO, selling his shares for .15. BMF likes BAKEWELL. We like it so much, we bought 432 shares. So, what's BAKEWELL worth? Logic would tell you, it's worth .15. Why not, that's what he's selling shares at, and he does need to finish his IPO. If his shares were not worth .15, say... if they were worth .1343, why would anyone pay .15? They wouldn't. In fact, one might even accuse Ian Bakewell.... of scamming!

I've nothing against BAKEWELL - as you say it's transparent and the guy seems genuine.

However, YOU didn't pay .15 per share (at least not for most of your shares).  Private purchases get 110 shares for 15 BTC.

That works out at .... Wait for it ... 0.13636 per share.

So your case is that you buy the shares for 0.13636 and they then magically become worth 0.15?  I think not.  IF the IPO had sold out fast then you'd have a point - but it didn't and, as usual, you don't.

You COULD take an even more pessimistic view and include the additional shares he gets himself for free (i.e. work out the average price 'paid' per share including the ones he 'paid' nothing for).  That would be wrong of course - but so is taking the HIGHEST price (0.15) anyone paid for a share (when the majority sold for 9% less) and claiming that is somehow their 'value'.

The truth is that, when a company fails to sell out an IPO it's very hard to put a value on it.  The best you can say for SURE is that it's less than the IPO price (as all demand at that price has been fulfilled already - which is why it hasn't sold out).  I think Ian (and plenty of others) do themselves and their shareholders a disservice by starting off trying to issue too many shares.  Had he only initially issued enough shares for his first rig he'd have sold out already - and the market could begin trying to value his company.   Because he didn't do that, he's placed a ceiling on the price at 0.15 - meaning all remaining demand necessarily has to be below that.

Please delete this post as it contains accusations that I am misrepresenting the value of my company. You are welcome to post it in the Scam Accusations forum, where I will make a response.

It would only beolong in the Scam Accusations forum if I was accusing you of scamming.  That's not what I'm claiming.  But maybe we're talking at cross purposes.

If someone running a company is doing so badly do YOU believe that makes them a scammer?
If someone misrepresents (even through total ignorance rather than malice) a loss that heir company has made as a profit then do YOU believe that makes them a scammer?

I don't believe either of the above necessrily make someone a scammer (it's ONE explanation but the only one).  Sheer incompetence is a far more likely explanation.

Now if YOU believe that the two scenarios above are ones which would warrant a scammer tag then please say so.  I'd still disagree with you - but if YOU say that the only way YOU could end in either of those scenarios is if you were scamming then I'd have to agree that any such accusations should (and would) go in the Scam Accusations forum.

Until you make such a statement my position remains as it always has been - that you just aren't very good at what you do, other than at explaining it so badly (quite likely just from ignorance not malice) that potential investors are likely to be misled as to the value of investing in you.  And discussing whether or not investments are good value/well managed is EXACTLY what discussion in this forum is intended to be about.

If you just want to make announcements without criticism then post them on your website - not in a discussion forum.

Quote: LOCAL RULES: Do not post scammer accusations here (ex. that usagi is misrepresenting the value of his companies, ...
You are being given a chance to delete your posts before I report them.

My post did NOT accuse you accuse you of being a scammer (though I HAVE posted one that does in teh scammers forum).  You appear to misunderstand what "scamming" is.

"Do not post scammer accusations here (ex. that usagi is misrepresenting the value of his companies" tries to link two things that are not necessarily related.

1.  The accusation that you are scamming.
2.  That you misvalue your companies.

2. can occur without 1. being the case.  I did NOT accuse you of scamming by misvaluing your company.  I pointed out how you'd made a MISTAKE in a valuation.  A mistake is NOT a scam - it's just something unfrotunate that happens when someone tries to do something they aren't very competent at.  Being incompetent does not make you a scammer.

If you don't want any criticism at all then SAY so in your local rules - rather than trying to make ALL criticism into "you're accusing me of scamming".  I've no idea whether an unlocked topic CAN have local rules of "Don't disagree with me or point out where I'm wrong" - but if you actually SAY that in your local rules I'll check the site rules out before responding.

Until then: Nothing I have (or will) post in this thread is an accusation of scamming.  I don't care what examples you give of scamming as I already KNOW what scamming means and incompetence isn't a subset of it (which isn't, of course, to say that an incompetent individual is precluded from being a scammer as well).

Mods feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and I'll delete my posts from this thread.

[Deprived]

Motion passed by 100%. All of my shareholders are happy.

Motion ID:148
Ticker symbol: BMF
Expires:2012-09-28
Required to pass motion:0%

Motion text

This is an opinion poll with no actionable result. As a shareholder, are you satisfied with BMF's management style? Please carefully consider the performance of the fund, and the actions I have taken to protect shareholders including weekly letters to shareholders, full disclosure of assets and trading, motions 80 and 124, and the current daily dividends policy before answering. Thank you and have a nice day. Note: If you are at all unsatisfied with the performance of this fund, as a shareholder, please do not hesitate to contact us at bmf@tsukino.ca and maybe we can work together to resolve any problems you are experiencing. Thank you!
Voting result
% to pass motion: 0
Voted Yea:8148
Voted Nay:0

Meh :

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

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

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

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