Quote from: velacreations on July 17, 2013, 11:03:19 PM

Quote from: notme on July 17, 2013, 10:46:45 PM

Quote from: velacreations on July 17, 2013, 10:42:12 PM

People have a limited supply of btc, and they want to invest the whole amount of BTC, not just whole shares.

This is the strongest point I've seen so far, but IMO is balanced by convertibility of whole shares.

not in the eyes of smaller shareholders. why would anyone want to wait a week for FC to approve of a share transfer when you can just sell them on an exchange?

I'll give you a real life example. I bought some shares on an auction when AM-PT was trading around 5.1. I bought the shares for 4.7. Meanwhile, the price crashed, and by the time the share transfer had gone through, the price had dropped to 3.6, back to 4.7, back down to 3.9, back up to 4.5, then to 4, then back and worth between 4 and 4.5.

Had I had those shares, I could have bought and sold them a number of times during that volatility period and increased my holdings and overall value considerably.

Now, I knew what I was getting into, so no big deal, but for a small holder, than has 5 btc to invest and is not looking at a several month investment, converting to direct shares is a liability, not a benefit.

The point here is that these valuations depend a lot on the investor's goals. Short term, long term? different valuation. under 10 btc, over 100btc? different valuations. day trading or hands off? different valuations.

I can see several cases where TAT.AM is a smarter investment for a small holder than full AM-PT or direct shares.

I'm not reading your example. I understand your point from your sentence. As I've said repeatedly, I'm looking at this from a long term investor perspective, not a trader perspective. The balance of market participants in each camp is impossible to know, but the correct valuation is somewhere between the two camps.