After issuing shares for money
company assets have risen by amount
paid for shares .. to ME thats
not dilution .. ( I prefer it to
borrowing generally. ) Cash is not
used for directors to throw tea
party but to acquire new assets.
Issuing stock dividends IS
dilution ( to me ) , as company asset
base is not increased as shares
are issued .
Coverting preferred stock to
common stock is obviously not
dilution ( to me ) .
Issuing stock options at a
stike price twice where stock
ia trading is not dilution ( to
me )
Deep have VERY few shares
outstanding 39 mill versus
lihir ( say ) at 900 mill or
ABX ( say ) at 373 mill.
Deeps issued new stock when
they absorbed Blyvoor and Buffels.
Do you believe that their stock
was diluted as they gained
reserves and capacity per share??
Please answer that question.
IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, then I
respectfully suggest that you
Never buy any Dbn Deep, and
dont bother to ask any more
questions about it .. Buy
something else like ABX for
example .. or microsoft. Be
happy ..
IF your answer is NO then you
are beginning to understand.
Remember Deeps has risen 2.5 time
since stock was "diluted" by your
definition. Assume you did not buy
it.
Subject is closed ( for me ) .
I am buying DD prefs. I have no
common stock until conversion.
I have some options. That is
all.
Im not "selling" deeps to you
or anyone. I dont care what you
or anyone does really. This is
after all a zero sum game. Good
luck.
Maybe Leaky Nasty has been Diluted...
I should've double checked spelling and typed "Loose Cannon" instead. You are right that the religious "Canon" does not apply to you. {Confounded language anyway!}
For readers of this give & take I include dates/times of relevent posts.
Jeil on Mon May 11 1998 02:06 takes issue with my Sun May 10 1998 16:17 response to his post of Sun May 10 1998 02:19.
Jeil,
What do I take personally? Hmmm. I reacted in defense of most of our country's founders when you stated:
"My guess as to the character of most of them is that they were collectivist jerks, just as are most who are attracted to government."
You stated most recently that:
"It is my experience that people discussing issues usually address the issues and only bring in words like ignorant and loose cannon when there is something that has hooked them emotionally."
You are quite correct.
But I venture there was sum underlying emotional hook that grabbed you as well. We are both wrong in bringing such deprecative terms to bear.
"On the issue:" ( and I agree )
It is my understanding that there was considerable debate before compromise was reached concerning the wording of both the Constitution and the Declaration. Neither Hamilton's & Washington's Federalists nor Jefferson's & Madison's "strict constructionists" or Democrat-Republicans got all they wanted.
We got a compromise that leaves us divided yet today. But I do believe the Constitution gave the Federalists, at least at the beginning, the short end of the stick. But the nature of government is such that even the short end of said stick was enough of a wedge to allow further consolidation of government most notably under Lincoln and FDR and with ever accelerating speed under recent Presidents and Congresses.
I agree the initial balance was toward the advocates of state's rights. I agree that State governments then as now have been as tyrannical over their people as the Federal government has been over the States.
Case in point:
Colorado and Governor Romer treat non-urban, non-Denver Coloradans just as colonially as Washington treats Colorado. The hypocrisy is that Governor Romer and his legislature object to Washington's behavior while they do the same to their local governments.
While running for county commissioner a few years ago I had occasion to address a local dinner which included U.S. Senator Campbell and candidates for Congress and Colorado legislative and administrative seats. I implored them to not just delegate Federal programs to the States but to keep those programs moving down to the community level. I was remiss in permitting my time to expire before I could hammer on returning those responsibilities and authorities all the way back to the individual - where they belong.
But individualists don't form governments - neither on a Federal level nor on a local school board level. You are correct in your "assessment that those attracted to governemnt, both past and present, suffer a personality misdevelopment that prevents them from seeing themselves as separate individuals." I would only add that they can't see others as individuals either.
And Individualists ( notice I capitalized the term ) also rarely get together to fight governments. It is against their nature. You can't get them to join fraternal clubs, let alone to form effective groups to stand up to government at any level. I have tried - perhaps not hard enough - though perhaps conditions are not yet bad enough.
Thank you for your rebuttal. You give me cause to more closely read and question our founder's words. That is the educational nature of debate.
But perhaps now for a while we should free up Bart's bandwidth for a return to discussions concerning GOLD and other PMs.
We will see today if the rumored big silver buy at 5.75 is the stuff of champions, or the demented ravings of whacked out floor trader. The charts look pretty good here and a 50 million oz purchase would put us on the way back to $7 in no time.
Indeedy
The legislators, bureaucrats, CEOs, and CIOs need to panic, whilst we tell everyone else, This is just a drill, please move toward the exits in an orderly fashion.
Why don't we all just enjoy our last year on the Titanic: send a letter to an old friend, get right with God, and sit out on the deck with a drink and a good book.
Am I clear? Just curious.
away....
Gold: 301
Platinum: 398
Palladium: 324
These are spot prices as of a few minutes ago
Yes
And don't come back with any counter challenges to try to confuse issues for us otherwise shy and retireing and forgiving souls. You are the braggart here. Either sh#t or get off the pot! ;^] )
Mike, Mr. Disney, Farfel and all the folks LGB has teased take note!
Mon May 11 02:59:21 1998
By Sue Chang, Bridge News
Seoul--May 11--A decision by Moody's Investors Services to lower
ratings of 19 South Korean banks shaved 3.5% off the benchmark index today
and drove the Korea Stock Price Index to a year-low close, brokers said.
The KOSPI slid 13.18 points to close at 361.58. Trading volume reached 39
million shares.
* * *
"Amid a lack of incentives, Moody's downgrade of domestic banks' credit
ratings pushed the market one step closer to the edge," said Kim Myung-
Kwan, a broker at Daewoo Securities.
Moody's lowered the long-term debt ratings of state-run banks such as
Korea Development Bank, the Industrial Bank of Korea, Export-Import Bank of
Korea as well as 16 other major banks today. ( Story .11049 )
Aside from the downgrade, the mood in the market remained frigid amidst
persistent worries over regional economic problems.
"There were no hints of the market even attempting a rebound during the
day and in some sectors, stop-loss sales were detected," said a broker at
LG Securities.
President Kim Dae-Jung's pledge on Sunday to ferret out weak companies
and banks within 2 months to speed up reforms did not help the market as
that is likely to bring on more uncertainties, brokers said.
While foreign investors are estimated to have recorded about 3 billion
won in net buying on bargain-hunting today, foreign buying interest is not
likely to strongly recover soon.
"Until the dollar/won rate climbs to 1,450 won, we are not going to see
foreigners coming back in force," said Kim.
Losers swamped winners by 722 to 104 shares. Most sectors ended lower,
led by electronics, insurance and pharmaceuticals titles.
On Tuesday, the KOSPI is likely to continue its downward spiral with
some brokers hoping for a technical rebound at about 350 points.
"We are now almost back to the level that we were at in December when
the country was facing moratorium and all we can do is to pray for some
relief soon," said the broker at LG.
FUTURES
The June KOSPI 200 futures contract closed at 42.00, down 1.20 points
versus Saturday. Volume was 46,497 contracts. End
Bridge News, Tel: ( 822 ) 775-6462
Send comments to Internet address schang@bridge.com
All financial news is Copyright 1997 Bridge Information Systems, Inc.
All rights reserved. Used with permission.
http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/floor/7953/
has even contacted me on occasion, and that's pretty low on the gold chain. He is a supply/demand guy basically, by training, and is looking for where is it going to and coming from. It was his insight after a Vronsky piece on the FED's NY desk's gold operations ( ~ 18 mos ago ) which led to blowing the official gold sales denials to smithereeens ( great 50's term! ) and untangling the volume of business BS which had been going on a long time. BUT......he also has to pay the office bills and feed his family, so how does one market the info? The conference calls are a marketing game to cover overhead and titillate the gold faithful, some of whom hopefully will have institutional dollars to spend. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. You don't get NIH grants to study the gold market, as I will be the first to attest. Think it's hard to invest in gold in a bear market? Try selling info on it!
Silver:
Down 5 or 6 cents on the open before a strong rebound, will close up.
Platinum:
All these shorts have to be covered..... soon.
Palladium:
Hold above 300 before rising above platinum before end of June.
Gold:
Who cares?
OK....OK... I was just kidding. It held up nicely in the face of today's drops in the other metals. Gold will stay here. Right here.
I knew I shouldn't have written this
Uh Huh
Find out more about Kitco at info@kitco.com, or call 1-800-363-7053.
Copyright © 1996 Kitco Minerals & Metals Inc.
Good Luck and Fortune!
May You Live Long and Prosper!