The sky may not be falling but is the LindeX bleeding?

It does appear to me that my initial fears did in fact come true. It could of course be coincidental but it does appear as if the decrease in the value of the $L has accelerated since the telehub buy-back offer.

When you think about it, it can only make sense since during that short window of time these telehub land sellers took the $L from their sales and simultaneously flooded the market raising the $L by approximately $L8-$L10.

Now, that doesn't seem like much, and certainly not enough to call it a "tank", but when one considers the trend of the past couple of months of supply sharply overwhelming demand, and the consistant and relentless downward pressure the $L has been experiencing of late, it does give the appearance that unless something is done by LL by way of further sinks or monetary policy, a rebound may not be forthcoming. And this is certainly something that should raise concern.

Heres hoping that the recent accelerated downward trend of the $L *has* in fact been caused by a flood of the market by the telehub land buy-back offer, and once it is over the LindeX will recover and begin trending upward.

IMHO i do believe that the down trend may slow, but it may not completely rebound until LL implements more sinks into the system. The elimination of DI is a start, but it is not enough. Dwell has to go also, and it should go sooner rather than later.

In the end, though there may be many answers to the question of "which sinks to implement" and this could certainly be debated ad infitum, there is only one answer to the question of "when more sinks should be implemented"...

and that is immediately, if not "yesterday."

The value decrease of $L started with the announcement of ending the hub system. Since then the value has floated up and down, but has remained relatively stable.

The land buy back didn't affect the value of $L because that land was worth more than the $L10 per sq.m. that LL paid. Then, LL sold it, or is selling it in $L to remove that money from the economy.

One thing I think should be pointed out... The price of $L has to do more with competition in selling. When a seller needs a fast sale of $L the seller will likely decrease the price by $L1 to cut in line for a fast sale. If there are several sellers in a hurry, the price will drop quickly, until their $L sells.

If LL locked all sales at one price, say $L250 per $US1, the same number of $L will sell, but it won't allow people the power to cut the price in order to cut in line.

When a person wants to buy $L, they don't stop and think "hmm, the cost is too high, I won't pay $US4 for a thousand $L, I'll not buy until I can get $L265 for my dollar".

They just buy what they need, regardless of a few cents.

It's probably more useful to look at the volume than the exchange rate. If the volume remains steady it doesn't say much. If the exchange rate keeps dropping it says more about the people posting their L$ for sale and trying to undercut everyone else than it does about the actual value of the L$.

This is nothing yet, 70K sim buyers sold their lands to decrease tier usage so they ls be able to buy new sims without upgradint tier too much. And they put the L$ to the market to sell. So L$ lost value this is normal.
Next step is middle sized land barons, they also started to sell cheap lands to decrease tier to buy new 5-10 block sims, and other sims in auctions. Usually LL were selling 5-20 sims in a month but this time they sold over 70 sims in a week and the main reason of value loss in L$ is this. Please watch things more carefully, telehub buy-back is nothing. 70 sims means near 20 million L$. And this value loss in L$ is nothing yet.
BUT, when 70 sims buyers start to sell these lands, people will buy L$ to buy these lands, and L$/usd rate will reach a new balance. At short term L$/usd can reach 280 but in my opinnion it will reach a balance near 265-270 at long term.
Now, SL needs more residents. To save the balance. send invitation to ur friends to SL

I always wonder about the radio announcers, who five minutes after the stock market closes say "the market did X because of concerns over Y and Z..."

No analysis of data behind the numbers, no interviews, no facts - making statements literally minutes after the exchange closes.

If they are so smart without facts on a daily basis, how come they aren't rich?


Now, prediction is quite another matter entirely. If someone can accurately predict the market, that is evidence of real understanding (or dumb luck) - but certainly better than any hindsight quarterbacking.

So, I'll make a prediction.

$L are going to slide for a bit longer, months in fact, but never crash too hard on a 30 day scale because the Company will react.

On less than a 30 day scale, yes we might see market turmoil associated with developer incentives going away, or similar issues not announced yet. But nothing that doesn't correct itself.

I wish I could do better, but I just don't know enough to make a better prediction. We'll see if I'm right or not.

The volume has remained steady, but it has done so since the spike in volume since the December 29 telehub buy-back announcement.

And although I do believe volume is indeed important, doesn't it seem as if it is sending mixed messages in the context that it is presented by the LindeX. I say this because the LindeX is not a trading market in the same vein as say the stock exchange. It is more a "one-time-sell" "one-time-buy" type of market, not a "day-trading" multiple-buys, multiple-sells by one trader type of thing. So that yes, although the volume in sellers has increased recently, isn't it also encouraging that the number of buyers has also increased during that span in time. Granted, not as much as sellers since the supply is still overwhelming demand, but it has still increased none the less.

It has to also be taken into consideration that the increase in volume may be due to the increase in population. So there is a lot to consider when attempting to assess this market.

*sigh* So many questions not enough answers

The market is down because of fears over fuel cost increases due to the war in Jesse.

Duh!

I have seen several people make similar statements, and IMO they are just wrong.
The elimination of the DI awards is actually helping to fuel the downward trend of the $L.

The DI awards were USD awards, not $L.

People relying on DI awards to help cover tier have been selling off portions of their land and cashing the $L out, decreasing the value of the $L.

People using the DI awards to fund their camping chair programs would have to use a portion of those awards to purchase $L to fund their camping programs, increasing the value of the $L.

I was thinking about this too.

In many circles it is believed that the elimination of DI was a direct response to the "camping chair" dilema. The thing is that, as you've already mentioned, the DI awards are given in USD and not $L. Taking this into consideration then, what exactly does the elimination of DI "alone" accomplish?

In order for the DI elimination to be effective as a deterrent to the "camping chair" dilema, it has to be coupled with the elimination of dwell. Without this two-prong approach, I fear that not much will be accomplished by the elimination of DI other than to save LL a few USD.

Is Dwell compensation alone not enough of an incentive to those property owners who use camping chairs, to continue using them even after DI is history?

If the answer is a borderline "yes," then it can be said with a certainty that Dwell plus the advantages made available to said properties owners by virtue of the high traffic numbers gained through dwell would certainly still justify the continued use of these camping chairs long after the elimination of DI.

So then, once again, what exactly have we accomplished?

Unless of course, the tail end of this "two-prong" approach is looming across the horizon.

*sigh*

So many questions. Not many answers.