Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Winter in the Great White North -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russwinter who wrote (708)	5/18/2001 10:19:43 PM
From: ralfph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8273

Thanks to all the replys to my post. <ggg> LAB was what I was thinking about talk about being dirty . I do not remember if I got out with my shirt or not but I sure remember talking to the company . VERY SLIMEY.Now I have a better handle on the original PLY group. I used to get the two above mixed up LAY, LAB , and I wanted to make sure I was not about to mix em up again. MR- Whats with this thing? I saw the news and did not jump in on monday. My reasoning was based on my impression that MR is done with the drilling for the season. I figure it should bounce for about 3 days then pull back into sleepy time mode and in 4 months time I will load up. Now the thing has legs. XCL- Holly bat inerds Marcos . What on earth have you put a saddle on? Looks like you are in for a ride. WEEEEEEEEE ITE- remember that one ? S - Hell of a PE ratio even if it is over 5 bucks. QBX- Lets see a break out to 1.17 and then several false starts to what? 3.50 would be nice and it did it in 99 and 98 when no one was watching. Thats what threw me last year... those 3.50 highs in 98 and 99. I mean why wouldn,t it run when the markets have gone nutso but would run in previous years PVO- Still has 12million cash and a absolute meatstick trying to raid or plug something into the company. GTT- darn I was only looking for a little bounce. The Chiefs sardonic comments and put downs to other people who hold the stock has kinda put me off..... both GTT and Mr C. The responses to Todd as well. NBL- has a large short position. Sure would be fun if the stock got halted or they pulled some good results. regards ralfph

To: russwinter who wrote (708)	5/20/2001 2:05:52 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

Russ, pick something for Al's contest - #reply-15824901 ... rules are canadian listings under 3.00 only, you get 10kCdn and 'buy' at friday's closing ask price ... finish is at the last trade price next friday ... your mnp.v is taken already, swg.to is not eligible as its ask is 3.15 ... what about this moy.to you mention? - #reply-15822526 ... imr.v maybe, hasn't had much bounce yet It's quite fun and educational imho, there have been a number of which i've been made aware through Al's effort ... and a civilised thread too, i like it .... welcome to Winter, btw -g-

To: russwinter who wrote (708)	5/22/2001 5:25:32 PM
From: tyc:>	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

Does anyone understand the theory of the "option value" of mining stocks ? I think it goes something like this; The value of a mining stock can be likened to a call option where the strike price is cost of producing the metal. Clearly, if the price of metal falls below the cost of production ( the strike price) the mine still has market value based on the the probability that metal prices will rise in the future. The higher the volatility of the metal price, the higher the value of the mine even though currently uneconomic, or marginally economic.. When metal prices rise, the stock prices that will show the most leverage are those that are closest to the strike price, i.e. the marginal mines. More precisely, it is like a whole series of options extending into the future for the life of the mines reserves. Given the volatility of metal prices, distant production becomes more valuable because of the possibility of ever higher metal prices. It seems to me that this is where the hedged miners lose out. Imagine a marginal mine that has hedged its production very close to the cost of production. Clearly there would be very little leverage. Their hedging has forfeited the "option value" of their stock by eliminating volatility of metal prices as it refers to them. Is this bafflegab or sense ?