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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Freeport McMoran (FCX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mad2 who wrote (81)	5/2/2002 6:49:05 PM
From: Lynn	Respond to of 141

Freeport-McMoRan Copper Combines Stock Into Single Class NEW ORLEANS -(Dow Jones)- Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s (FCX) shareholders approved the combination of its Class A and Class B common stock into a single class on a one-for-one basis. Each outstanding Class A common share will be converted into one Class B common share, the mining company said in a press release Thursday. The common stock will begin trading on a combined basis Monday on the New York Stock Exchange. "This combination will simplify our capital structure and avoid potential confusion about owning common shares in FCX for our existing and prospective shareholders," Freeport said. "The combination will enhance the trading liquidity of our common stock and generate administrative cost savings." The company's New York Stock Exchange-listed Class A shares were trading recently at $17.55, down 20 cents, or 1.1%. Class B shares of Freeport were trading recently at $17.57, down 25 cents, or 1.4%. -Jenny Park; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5388 (This story was originally published by Dow Jones Newswires) Copyright (c) 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

To: Mad2 who wrote (81)	2/2/2003 9:24:02 PM
From: Mad2	Respond to of 141

OT Mexican Farmers Play Chicken With President Fox By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed almost nine years ago. But down on the Mexican farm, it seems the news has only just arrived. And the farmers are mighty upset. Over the past month Mexico's agricultural lobby has been tying up highways, dumping bags of beans at the senate door and even threatening to take up arms. One news report cites a coalition of 14 groups that has said it is ready to block 48 border crossings on New Year's Day. Just why Mexican "farmers" are beating plowshares into machetes ostensibly has to do with the implementation of the next stage of Nafta, slated for Jan. 1. It is on that day that import tariffs on some 80 agricultural products traded within Nafta are scheduled to fall to zero. The January tariff reduction is a major milestone in North American integration. It is also a headstone for the cause of many left-of-center nationalists, who have made their political careers controlling Mexican agricultural policy in the spirit of the Revolution. As importantly it may mark the end of many quota privileges for Mexican agriculture. What these activists say they want is either a renegotiation of Nafta that will delay this process or a new round of subsidies. "What's driving this?" asks a former Mexican trade official. "Extortion. The lesson is the more you complain the more you get. This has nothing to do with Nafta. Only that after 2003, there are no more quotas to manage." It is reasonable to have some sympathy for President Vicente Fox, who the machete wielding campesinos seem to have on the run. But before his government acquiesces to new privileges, it should consider the costs to the rest of Mexico and the incentives created by responding favorably to militants. A better course would be to separate the legitimate gripes of farmers -- high electricity costs, a scarcity of financing, feed costs for livestock that can run above world prices -- from those of the organized extortionists, some of whom hardly even qualify as farmers. In doing this, the president might turn the tables on opponents who have blocked his modernization agenda and he could begin addressing Mexico's under-performance in agriculture on his own terms. Ninety-five percent of the products set to lose tariff protection on Jan. 1 already have negligibly low tariffs -- in the range of 2% -- on their way into Mexico. Yet even where the reductions are more substantial, like on chicken, the effects are not likely to be as dramatic as the industry would have you believe. Sure tariffs will plummet to zero on Jan. 1, from 49% the day before. But chicken legs, which Mexicans prefer, are already tariff-free in northern Mexico. Pork tariffs are low and only revert to a higher 20% after an annual quota is used up. This year, that didn't happen until the second week in October. The point here is that the Mexican agricultural market is already quite open. Moreover, the new zero-tariff schedules are not a surprise. Nafta was designed to phase out agricultural tariffs over 14 years and next month's reductions are on schedule. Even in the importation of corn, which will retain tariff protection until 2008, Mexico has unilaterally increased its duty-free quota above Nafta levels in order to meet demand. Government officials in the Nafta countries say there will be no renegotiation. If demands for renegotiation on one point are met, it opens the whole treaty up to reversal. This would harm all three partners but it would be especially dangerous for Mexico, which has made enormous and profitable inroads in the U.S. market in many sectors. Mexican Secretary of the Economy Luis Derbez recently noted that Mexico now holds close to 12% of the U.S. agricultural market. This is not to suggest that there will be no fallout from the tariff reduction or that the government doesn't have to consider some policy changes. For what it's worth, the chicken lobby, known by its Spanish initials UNA, claims that 25% of the 120,000 poultry work force could lose jobs in 2003. Still, it's not like Mexico is such a bad place to raise a chicken. It is the world's 6th largest poultry producer. It has also attracted foreign investment. Tyson says it has "integrated poultry operations in Torreon; two plants, hatchery, feedmill, and contract relationships with independent growers." Such cross-border operations mean that Tyson thought it could make money in the chicken business in Mexico, even knowing that the phase-out of protection was scheduled. In fact, difficulties competing with U.S. imports may say more about distortions in the Mexican economy than they do about Nafta. "Mexico is not competitive in many industries because of the same problems that many chicken growers are confronting: shortages of financing, energy and technology," says Roberto Blum, president of Cilace, a Mexican think tank promoting development through free markets. Instead of granting electricity subsidies, Mexico could open the corn and feed market before the 2008 deadline and remove the prohibition on private investment in energy, a prohibition that despite its pernicious effect on electricity supply is still a beloved symbol of the Mexican left. Another expert makes the point that, "If the government wants to help hog farmers, instead of giving them protection it should help them solve the hog cholera problem." U.S. protectionism has made Mr. Fox's job of fending off Mexican protectionists tough. Lobbyists are complaining bitterly about the latest U.S. farm bill. Since Nafta prohibits export subsidies Mexico could launch an investigation if it believes the case has merit. It could also invoke safeguards if an industry is being "harmed." So far, it has done neither. But the USA Poultry and Egg Export Council recently sided with Mexican growers asking for a delay in the market opening for chicken leg quarters. It says that it fears market disruptions after Jan. 1 could trigger Mexican anti-dumping action, something learned from the U.S. Any derailment of the Nafta schedule would be a pity. For to the extent that the process is forcing a reallocation of resources and giving consumers more, it's working. For the sake of so many Mexicans trapped in poverty the opening should be kept on course. Updated December 6, 2002 12:17 a.m. EST