Developer McGoff started construction this week on the first phase of its Downtown PRS project on the Salford side of Castlefield following completion of a significant funding deal with Wellesley Finance. The funding facility is believed to be the largest debt package issued by Wellesley Finance, which usually lends between £2m and £20m. Chris McGoff said: “Downtown has already been a huge success. Having achieved sales on well over 200 units, it’s great to be able to see the scheme ready to come to life after more than two years in the planning. Success has not only been founded on the building’s hotel-style services, great riverside location and proximity to local amenities and transport links, but has also been influenced by our purchaser’s confidence in the McGoff Group’s offering and longevity which has had a direct positive impact on sales.” Derek Bradstock, head of origination at Wellesley, commented: “It’s great to conclude this deal with the McGoff Group. Offering flexible finance for a wide range of different developments, we are committed to supporting ambitious and experienced property developers like Chris and the team and very much look forward to seeing the scheme start to take shape.” The funding will be drawn down over four-and-a-half years to deliver the development in two phases. Phase one will contain 160 units and phase two 208. The project will be built and block managed by the McGoff Group, which includes contracting arm McGoff & Byrne and McGoff Group Facilities Services.
Law firm Fieldfisher advised McGoff. The first apartments are due to complete in 2019.
0 Comments
It’s important to diversify your source of income to ensure that you and your loved ones are financially secure. “The current South African indebtedness levels show that people’s incomes are not sufficient to fund their living and their aspirations and as a result, many resort to using debt. It is estimated that only 23% of South Africans have money left over at the end of the month, therefore we can assume that up to 77% of South Africans will borrow money to fund their needs,” she says. She adds that there are two types of income streams:
How to establish an additional active income:
How to establish a passive income Passive income is more difficult to establish without an initial investment.
BY NAZLEY OMAR
Sharing By Corwin Group The Payless shoe company was already on its way to becoming another retail victim of the internet when the private equity guys showed up. That the firms -- Golden Gate Capital Inc. and Blum Capital Partners -- weren’t able to turn Payless around after acquiring them in 2012 isn’t so surprising. That they’ve still made out so handsomely is. As Payless shutters hundreds of stores and struggles to repay $665 million of debt, Golden Gate and Blum turned a profit on the deal. How? By having Payless borrow millions in the financial markets, a move that’s pushing the company to the brink. The firms have collected $350 million from Payless through debt-funded special dividends. Golden Gate and Payless declined to comment and Blum didn’t respond to requests. Private equity firms have always borrowed to buy companies. But now, with debt so cheap, they’re layering on subsequent borrowing at an unprecedented clip to pay themselves, putting an additional, and at times fatal, financial strain on their newly acquired companies. From the start of 2013, private equity owners have taken out more than $90 billion in debt-funded payouts, according to data compiled by LCD, part of S&P Global Market Intelligence. “Private equity firms are hastening the demise of companies that are already troubled by siphoning off money for themselves,” said veteran litigator Ronald Sussman, who has represented creditors in retail bankruptcy cases. Online Shopping Tough times for employees, bond investors and mall neighbors haven’t meant shared suffering for private equity executives. The signature Wall Street business of this century has reshaped companies big and small and, some say, ushered in a new era of American capitalism. In a testament to the industry’s rise, several prominent figures, including Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone Group LP, are now advising President Donald Trump. Certainly, the primary responsibility of private equity firms is to make money for their own investors, and sometimes that conflicts with what’s best for employees or bondholders. How they make the money is often dictated by the markets. If equity investors are clamoring for new stock, the businesses sell stock. If not, they can be recapitalized through a new debt sale to generate a dividend for the owners. “You just sell them if the sale market is good, and if not, you recap them and you make money that way,’’ Schwarzman told analysts during an October 2015 conference call. “So we just sort of go with the flow, if you will.’’ Annual Returns Private equity firms have generated 14 percent annualized returns after fees in the past five years, according to Cambridge Associates’s U.S. private equity index. That’s almost double the 7.4 percent returns on high-yield bonds in roughly the same period. Retailers, who’ve been savaged by online shopping, just endured one of the worst holiday seasons in memory, with earnings in the fourth quarter declining for the third time in four years. Chains such as Macy’s Inc., Sears Holdings Corp. and J.C. Penney Co. are closing stores and already this year regional department-store chain Gordmans Stores Inc., outdoor outfitter Gander Mountain Co., and appliance and electronics seller HHGregg Inc. filed for bankruptcy. RadioShack filed for the second time. Firms like Golden Gate, Sycamore Partners and Sun Capital Partners are among those that have scooped up retailers in debt-fueled buyouts. As the industry stumbles, some of the companies are getting choked by borrowing. Balance Sheet Doug Allen, a spokesman for Sun Capital, said the firm sold three retailers last year that remain thriving businesses even after they distributed cash to investors through debt-funded dividends. “As we can see across the current retail landscape, the business challenges that lead to a Chapter 11 filing are often broader and more systemic than a decision to return capital to investors,” Allen said. In 2014, Lone Star Global Acquisitions took a $180 million dividend from the balance sheet of South Carolina-based supermarket chain Bi-Lo Holdings, just as its prospects began to falter. The company’s 2013 bonds, that were used for an earlier payout, are now trading at a level which indicates investors expect to recover less than half of what they paid. The same year, Sycamore Partners’s Nine West borrowed $445 million from loan investors partly so it could reduce its equity stake in the company. And last week, 102-year-old discount retailer Gordmans Stores filed for bankruptcy less than four years after Sun Capital borrowed money to pay itself a dividend. Representatives of Sycamore, Cerberus and Lone Star declined to comment. Paying Themselves Paying dividends has become increasingly important to buyout firms that can’t sell their flagging businesses back to the public markets or to peers. If a firm can show its investors it’s generating returns from investments, even struggling ones, then it has a far greater chance of raising new money, said a senior private equity executive who didn’t want to be identified discussing strategy. Retailers usually borrow for dividends while they’re still making money. That enables the private equity firm to pay down debt, then borrow more, called re-levering, said Frank Maturo, vice chairman of equity capital markets at UBS AG in New York. Cash Flow
“So if the cash flow is there, they could take out whatever they need to take out” to show investors good returns, Maturo said. The buyout firms “keep taking out dividends so they’ve gotten all their investment back. Then it’s just gravy and they just keep re-levering it.” It’s later, after sales sag, when it becomes apparent that the company is carrying too much debt. “You can lever up an asset tremendously and return that cash back to shareholders in a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose,” said Brent Beshore, who runs Columbia, Missouri-based adventur.es, which buys equity stakes in small private businesses. “It’s a great gig if you can get it.” by Bloomberg Market, Nabila Ahmed and Sridhar Natarajan Sharing by Corwin Group Belden, a global leader in signal transmission solutions for mission-critical applications, demonstrates how automation networks will evolve in the future, from the field level to the control room. Visitors to SPS/IPC/Drives 2016 in Nuremberg were able to experience “The Journey to the IIoT”, Belden’s vision on the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). Introduced by Oliver Kleineberg, advance development manager for Belden’s Hirschmann brand, “The Journey to the IIoT” reflects Belden’s ongoing investments in products and technologies for the development of tomorrow’s automation networks. “Automation networks usually have a very long lifecycle and experience only very little change throughout their operational time of life. With this in mind, it is no surprise that the models, which are used as a basis to build automation networks, have been refined over decades and as such they have also experienced little fundamental change. However, due to the new requirements from Industrie 4.0 and the IIoT, change is becoming more profound and this will significantly change the face of the automation networks of the future.” Kleineberg outlined how automation solutions are evolving from the classic Automation Pyramid to a new model that is designed around the requirements of the IIoT and Industrie 4.0: “The Automation Pyramid model has been at the very core of industrial automation systems for over a decade. It is a proven model that is able to separate complex industrial networks and applications into functional levels with high horizontal interaction. Within each layer of the pyramid, the networked devices exhibit strong interaction with each other. In addition, a significant amount of interaction happens with devices on the directly adjacent layers, but pervasive communication through the entire automation system is rare. Through localizing and limiting functionality to separate layers and locations in the pyramid model, automation systems as well as the supporting networks are very resilient against large scale outages and faults. Yet, the systems build according to the automation pyramid tend to be strictly hierarchical and not very flexible.” With the emergence of higher flexibility requirements from the Smart Factory/Industrie 4.0, such as individualization of manufacturing and mass-production quality orders with very small lot sizes, the automation pyramid is slowly becoming an outdated concept. With the addition to new technologies such as TSN Real-Time Ethernet, wireless communication, miniaturization and field level control, as well as remote access solutions to automation networks, many vendors are already on a transitional journey, away from the strict pyramid model to a more open and flexible network model that can support their customers’ requirements. At the end of this long-term transformational process is a network structure that no longer resembles a pyramid: the Automation Pillar. The key elements of the Automation Pillar are a much more diversified and larger field level and a much more important and functionally stronger backbone layer. In the transition from the pyramid to the pillar, most of the functions from the control layer of the pyramid will transform either into the factory backbone layer and will be provided by virtual PLCs, or it will transition into the field layer into dedicated or distributed control units. The control layer itself will transition into a connectivity layer that utilizes high bandwidth real-time technologies such as TSN to provide the necessary high bandwidth – low latency connectivity between the backbone and the field layer. Since communication will be ubiquitous between most devices on the whole network, the inherent stability of the automation pyramid will be replaced in the Automation Pillar through providing robust network planning, configuration and monitoring, seamless fault-tolerant communication and cyber security. A fully automated production line at BOE Technology in Chongqing © Bloomberg Oliver Kleineberg concludes: “Since communication is the central element of future automation networks, Belden focuses on the transition from the automation pyramid to the pillar – Belden products from the Hirschmann and Lumberg brands will continue to play a significant part in this new automation world.” As an early innovator in industrial Ethernet, Belden knows industrial IT and delivers the next generation of industrial networking solutions, including wired, wireless and embedded products. With its global brands – Hirschmann, GarrettCom and Tofino Security – Belden helps companies minimize downtime and take advantage of the real-time data access and control made possible by the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). Through a seamless, secure and scalable industrial Ethernet infrastructure, companies are equipped to revolutionize their operations and achieve improved efficiency, productivity and agility. The growth of equity crowdfunding has been spectacular. It has delivered the kind of shot in the arm for the funding of small businesses that policymakers have been seeking for decades. And what is particularly interesting is that crowdfunding has done this without two components that most investors view as vital before they invest: proper due diligence and clear signs of profits, or a route to profitability. Should we be worried about this?The recent failure of Rebus, a claims management company that raised £800,000 via an equity crowdfunding platform, has brought these issues into sharper relief. A study by Mattison Public Relations of 115 companies seeking crowdfunding on UK platforms in December 2015 showed that 90 per cent of them are either unprofitable or have no trading history. Too many platforms are asking their investors – whose levels of experience range from virtually nothing to expert – to invest their money in businesses that actually have zero revenues. So is it time to improve standards or are the naysayers yet again simply failing to get a new paradigm? Failures of some crowdfunded businesses are inevitable, and investors know that, or should know that. However, it is worrying that this is a sector that often seeks to market its wares to very inexperienced investors without giving them the helping hand they deserve. Many investors on crowd platforms lack the experience or the time required to undertake a detailed examination of a company’s books, or to conduct the peer and sector analysis necessary as basic steps to appraise and value the business. Passing the buck The assumption among some is that, if the private investor is not doing that due diligence, surely the crowdfunding platforms are? Unfortunately not – many make it quite clear that they have no obligation to do this whatsoever. Based on many of the early-stage companies offered on these platforms, little effort has even been made to check if a realistic basic business plan is in place, let alone a proper business model and a roadmap towards an exit. Without data and guidance, many investors have little more to base their investment on than a hunch – a worrying thought indeed when you are talking about hard-earned money. As the sector advances, more of us in the industry are beginning to feel that crowdfunding platforms do have a duty to undertake the due diligence necessary to radically improve the chance of investors achieving acceptable returns. Just filtering out the more obviously low quality companies will minimise the number of business failures which – if they continue – could lose this sector valuable popular and political support. This is not to say that the due diligence required would be without cost. Providing more robust checks requires platforms to employ executives with significant experience of working in private equity or corporate finance. However, these costs should easily be outweighed by the superior returns for investors that follow. Private equity lead At present, to the eyes of more experienced private equity investors, it looks worrying that crowdfunding platforms are so overstocked with loss-making businesses or businesses that have never sold a product or a service. There is a perception in some quarters that it is alright for startup businesses to take years to generate a return. Perhaps this is driven by the fact that some of the world’s most famous startups (and now big firms) are still more concerned with growth than profit. Our contention is that those companies that can remain loss-making but solvent for years are an exception and not the rule. The rare success of Google and Facebook should not lead crowd investors to believe that investing mainly in loss-making companies is a sensible strategy. We fear that a little complacency over what is investment ready and what is not has crept in. Companies that are loss-making need a more compelling and rigorously tested business plan before they can justify attracting investment. As investors experience more company failures, they are going to demand that platforms become more than just conduits for investment. Platforms need to start undertaking proper due diligence on, and have ongoing involvement with, investee businesses. This approach should mean that those businesses are of a better quality both at the point of investment and as they grow. The crowdfunding industry should take its cue from the approach used by private equity. Before any deal is made available to investors, platforms need to talk to the company’s existing customers – and potential customers the business didn’t secure to find out why. They need to know the company’s market in detail themselves. They need to compare the owners’ exit plans with similar deals in the industry to assess how realistic they are. They need to look into the owners’ backgrounds to see if they have suitable past experience. And on an ongoing basis, platforms themselves need to be reporting to investors regularly on the performance of the businesses they funded – not just gently encouraging the businesses to report. They should be putting experienced board members in place, and giving the companies access to sector specialists to advise them on their growth. After all, apart from scale, what is the difference between an investor in equity crowdfunding and a private equity investor? Why should the former accept lower standards than the latter? Written by Gary Robins Sharing by Corwin Group Look at the modus operandi of today’s internet giants — such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, or Airbnb — and you’ll notice they have one thing in common: They rely on the contributions of users as a means to generate value within their own platforms. Over the past 20 years the economy has progressively moved away from the traditional model of centralized organizations, where large operators, often with a dominant position, were responsible for providing a service to a group of passive consumers. Today we are moving toward a new model of increasingly decentralized organizations, where large operators are responsible for aggregating the resources of multiple people to provide a service to a much more active group of consumers. This shift marks the advent of a new generation of “dematerialized” organizations that do not require physical offices, assets, or even employees. The problem with this model is that, in most cases, the value produced by the crowd is not equally redistributed among all those who have contributed to the value production; all of the profits are captured by the large intermediaries who operate the platforms. Recently, a new technology has emerged that could change this imbalance. Blockchain facilitates the exchange of value in a secure and decentralized manner, without the need for an intermediary. But the most revolutionary aspect of blockchain technology is that it can run software in a secure and decentralized manner. With a blockchain, software applications no longer need to be deployed on a centralized server: They can be run on a peer-to-peer network that is not controlled by any single party. These blockchain-based applications can be used to coordinate the activities of a large number of individuals, who can organize themselves without the help of a third party. Blockchain technology is ultimately a means for individuals to coordinate common activities, to interact directly with one another, and to govern themselves in a more secure and decentralized manner. There are already a fair number of applications that have been deployed on a blockchain. Akasha, Steem.io, or Synereo, for instance, are distributed social networks that operate like Facebook, but without a central platform. Instead of relying on a centralized organization to manage the network and stipulate which content should be displayed to whom (often through proprietary algorithms that are not disclosed to the public), these platforms are run in a decentralized manner, aggregating the work of disparate groups of peers, which coordinate themselves, only and exclusively, through a set of code-based rules enshrined in a blockchain. People must pay microfees to post messages onto the network, which will be paid to those who contribute to maintaining and operating the network. Contributors may earn back the fee (plus additional compensation) as their messages spread across the network and are positively evaluated by their peers. Similarly, OpenBazaar is a decentralized marketplace, much like eBay or Amazon, but operates independently of any intermediary operator. The platform relies on blockchain technology to ensure that buyers and sellers can interact directly with one another, without passing through any centralized middleman. Anyone is free to register a product on the platform, which will become visible to all users connected to the network. Once a buyer agrees to the price for that product, an escrow account is created on the bitcoin blockchain that requires two out of three people (i.e., the buyer, the seller, and a potential third-party arbitrator) to agree for the funds to be released (a so-called multisignature account). Once the buyer has sent the payment to the account, the seller ships the product; after receiving the product, the buyer releases the funds from the escrow account. Only if there is an issue between the two does the system require the intervention of a third party (e.g., a randomly selected arbitrator) to decide whether to release the payment to the seller or whether to return the money to the buyer. There are also decentralized carpooling platforms, such as Lazooz or ArcadeCity, which operate much like Uber, but without a centralized operator. These platforms are governed only by the code deployed on a blockchain-based infrastructure, which is designed to govern peer-to-peer interactions between drivers and users. These platforms rely on a blockchain to reward drivers contributing to the platform with specially designed tokens that represent a share in the platform. The more a driver contributes to the network, the more they will be able to benefit from the success of that platform, and the greater their influence in the governance of that organization. Blockchain technology thus facilitates the emergence of new forms of organizations, which are not only dematerialized but also decentralized. These organizations — which have no director or CEO, or any sort of hierarchical structure — are administered, collectively, by all individuals interacting on a blockchain. As such, it is important not to confuse them with the traditional model of “crowd-sourcing,” where people contribute to a platform but do not benefit from the success of that platform. Blockchain technologies can support a much more cooperative form of crowd-sourcing — sometimes referred to as “platform cooperativism”— where users qualify both as contributors and shareholders of the platforms to which they contribute. And since there is no intermediary operator, the value produced within these platforms can be more equally redistributed among those who have contributed to the value creation. With this new opportunity for increased “cooperativism,” we’re moving toward a true sharing or collaborative economy — one that is not controlled by a few large intermediary operators, but that is governed by and for the people. There’s nothing new about that, you might say — haven’t we heard these promises before? Wasn’t the mainstream deployment of the internet supposed to level the playing field for individuals and small businesses competing against corporate giants? And yet, as time went by, most of the promises and dreams of the early internet days faded away, as big giants formed and took control over our digital landscape. Today we have a new opportunity to fulfill these promises. Blockchain technology makes it possible to replace the model of top-down hierarchical organizations with a system of distributed, bottom-up cooperation. This shift could change the way wealth is distributed in the first place, enabling people to cooperate toward the creation of a common good, while ensuring that everyone will be duly compensated for their efforts and contributions. And yet nothing should be taken for granted. Just as the internet has evolved from a highly decentralized infrastructure into an increasingly centralized system controlled by only a few large online operators, there is always the risk that big giants will eventually form in the blockchain space. We’ve lost our first window of opportunity with the internet. If we, as a society, really value the concept of a true sharing economy, where the individuals doing the work are fairly rewarded for their efforts, it behooves us all to engage and experiment with this emergent technology, to explore the new opportunities it provides and deploy large, successful, community-driven applications that enable us to resist the formation of blockchain giants. Written by HBR, Primavera De Filippi Sharing by Corwin Group The digital currency world got long-awaited news from the Security Exchange Commission on Friday—but it wasn't the news that investors hoped to get. Citing the possibility of fraud, the agency turned down a proposal to alter stock exchange rules to allow the creation of an exchange traded fund (ETF) for bitcoin. It said that the proposal was at odds with the requirement that "national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect investors and the public interest." The decision to turn down the EFT, which would have significantly improved the liquidity of bitcoin, caused the price of the crypto currency to plummet. While prices had broken $1,300 this week in anticipation of approval, they fell steeply on Friday. As of 4:30pm, the price was around $1,050. The SEC ruling is a blow to bitcoin backers because the creation of the ETF, designed by the Winkelvoss twins who played a role in the creation of Facebook, would have opened the door to institutional investors and made it easier for retail investors to buy bitcoin. The decision is not the end, however, since other companies also have proposals for ETFs before the SEC, including one proposal that calls for the digital assets underlying the ETF to be insured. This could make the agency more likely to grant approval since there would be less risk of harm for ordinary investors. On the other hand, language in the decision suggests the SEC remains deeply skeptical of bitcoin. Blake Estes, an alternative investment expert at the law firm Alston & Bird, likewise suggested the SEC ruling meant the agency took a dim view of ETF as a vehicle for bitcoin.
“After reading the SEC’s order disapproving the BATS rule change that would have allowed for the first bitcoin ETF to come to market, it is clear that the SEC believes that the bitcoin markets do not currently have the structural protections and controls necessary to support an ETF product. It seems unlikely that the other two bitcoin ETFs currently in registration with the SEC will be able to overcome the SEC’s discomfort with the fundamental deficiencies that it has identified in the bitcoin markets. The future may be bright for bitcoin, but the SEC seems to have determined that this emerging asset class is not yet ready for the retail investing public in the U.S." said Estes. While bitcoin has become more of a mainstream investment in recent years, it still has something of an outlaw reputation among regulators who are wary of the digital currency's history of wild price fluctuations and its popularity for use in criminal activities. On the other hand, a growing number of investors regard bitcoin as just another class of alternative asset by which to diversify their portfolios. Article by Fortune, Jeff John Roberts Sharing by Corwin Group This Industry had created seven years ago by a person or group using the name Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin is a virtual currency that can be used to buy and sell a broad range of items—from cupcakes to electronics to illegal narcotics. The surge in a Bitcoin’s value has made millionaires out of people who loaded up on them early on—however briefly. Many of them are self-described libertarians, drawn by the idea of a currency that exists outside the control of governments. Some were so taken with the concept that they launched Bitcoin businesses, such as exchanges where people can buy the coins or exchange them for dollars. Future of the Cryptocurrency Market
Bitcoin is at a critical juncture. Any time now, the Securities and Exchange Commission will issue a decision that could throw open the door to a flood of new capital, and change how many investors regard the digital currency.
The SEC's bitcoin decision, which is over three years in the making, is due by Friday. Here's a plain English guide to what might happen, including why the decision is so important and how it could affect the price of bitcoin.
What's the SEC decision?
The agency must decide if the BATS stock exchange can change its rules to offer a bitcoin ETF (exchange traded fund), which would let people buy bitcoin like a common stock. The ETF—called the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust ETF—is the creation of the Winklevoss brothers, who once fought Mark Zuckerberg for control of Facebook, and now own a large stock of bitcoins. Why is this ETF such a big deal? It's all about liquidity. While there are plenty of places to buy bitcoin, many investment funds can only hold assets that meet certain regulatory standards—such as approval from the SEC. If the agency approves the ETF application, money managers who want to include bitcoin in their portfolio are likely to jump in. Meanwhile, millions of ordinary people will have an easy new way to buy the digital currency. I can't really phrase it any better than this quote from Ethtrade.
If the SEC approves the Bats rule change, all manner of American muppet retail investors can yolo into Bitcoin via a regulated ETF. The pool of eligible money that can easily obtain exposure to Bitcoin will dramatically rise. There are various predictions about the amount of money that could flow into Bitcoin. In short, it will be Yuge.
Where and when will we see the decision? The SEC is obliged to make the decision by March 11, which is this Saturday. That means the ruling is almost certain to come out on Thursday or Friday. According to Blake Estes, an alternative asset expert at the law firm Alston & Bird, the decision will appear on this SEC web page, and everyone will find out at the same time. Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter. What are the odds the SEC says yes? People are calling this a coin toss. Those who think the SEC will approve the ETF point to the skillful work carried out by the Winklevoss lawyers, and to the fact that bitcoin is far more mainstream than it was even two years ago. Today, many more people—including regulators—are familiar with digital currency and how it works. There is also a sense that a bitcoin ETF is sooner or later inevitable. Pessimists, on the other hand, can point to two sets of concerns that could lead the SEC to give the thumbs down. The first of these relates to how the Winklevoss intend to run the operation. Some people are uneasy that the proposed ETF would use Winklevoss-controlled businesses to source and store the bitcoins that would back the shares. The other set of concerns lie with bitcoin itself. The digital currency has been subject to wild price fluctuations, driven in part by heists and insider antics. According to Estes, the SEC may worry the agency's approval of an ETF could lead to a bubble inflated by bitcoin novices—a bubble that could then pop. "Some fear it could be a good opportunity for legacy players to find the next sucker to take it off their hands," said Estes. How will this effect the price? Bitcoin has been on another tear of late, nudging a record of $1,300 per unit—more than an ounce of gold. Some of this likely reflects investor optimism the SEC will approve the ETF, meaning a future price rise is partly baked-in. Nonetheless, there are broad expectations the short term price of bitcoin will go crazy if the SEC says yes. If the SEC says no, it will have a negative effect, though probably not a very dramatic one. The reason is there are two other ETF application before the agency. One is called the Bitcoin Investment Trust, and was developed by Barry Silbert, a well known figure in the digital currency world. The other, called SolidX, is distinct in that proposes to insure its bitcoin assets. As noted above, there is a general feeling that approval for a bitcoin ETF of one type or another is inevitable, and so a rebuff by the SEC to the Winkelvoss proposal would only be a temporary setback.
Should I buy bitcoin?
That's something only you can decide—preferably after a lot of research. Today, many people see bitcoin as another alternative asset class to add to a diversified portfolio. But bitcoin has an extremely volatile history, and has been prone to spectacular crashes, so if you're averse to risk, it's probably not for you. Article from Fortune by Jeff John Roberts Sharing by Corwin Group
|
CORWIN GROUPLatest News Archives
October 2021
CategoriesBy submitting this form, you provide consent for Corwin Group to email you occasionally with industry news and promotions. You may unsubscribe from these emails at any time.Testimonials & Disclaimer
Important Disclosure: By visiting this site, you agree to be bound by CorwinGroup’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. CorwinGroup.com is intended for accredited investors and otherwise qualified investors who understand and accept the risk associated with private investments. Investing in private investments on CorwinGroup involves risks, including, but not limited to market and industry risks, risks related to a specific property, currency fluctuation risk and liquidity constraints. Investments are not bank deposits and are not guaranteed. There is a potential for loss of part or ALL of the investment capital. CorwinGroup does not endorse any of the opportunities that appear on the site, nor does it make any recommendations regarding the appropriateness of particular opportunities for any investor. No correspondence or information provided on CorwinGroup.com or by any representative of CorwinGroup should be construed as a recommendation of a security. Each investor is advised to conduct his/her own due diligence as CorwinGroup does not provide any investment advice, business advice, or tax or legal advice. CorwinGroup is not registered under the Securities & Futures Act or the Financial Advisor’s Act. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission in the country nor any federal or state securities commission or any other regulatory authority has recommended or approved of the investment or the accuracy or inaccuracy of any of the information or materials provided by or through the website. Please read Corwin’s Terms of Use for more detailed terms and conditions to which users of CorwinGroup are subject. |