Thank you, Bluebird, for your criticisms. Unlike many people, I very much appreciate constructive criticisms.

I don’t think I was wrong to use the word “Fund” in the name of the company in the broadly-defined way I did. But—because of the simple fact that you brought up the question—you’re right that the word “Fund” should be stricken.

We should be careful not to give any number of conscientious investors any reason to think the name we’ve given ourselves is razzle-dazzle or puffery (even if it is not). So, on second thought, I agree with you insofar as the word “Fund” is best left out (because it raises the wrong kind of questions). And, again, thank you for making me rethink this.

On the other hand, I cannot agree with your second objection. You cannot shake my conviction that having a long name—is not only not objectionable—it is actually praiseworthy because of the very fact it is long. In the business world—as is so in everyday life—often the popular wisdom is wrong. This is not one of those times. When it comes to Direct Marketing, the experts generally favor long names, should there be a good reason for it.

I, for one, will try to think of a long name containing “Fancamp Royalties,” in addition to words about our properties and the shares of stock we own. Everybody likes a name with a nice “ring” to it. But that’s a luxury we cannot afford. My preference would be for an inelegant or even a funny-sounding name, so long as it captures the imagination of investors and motivates them to look into what we have to offer them.