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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (173654)	6/18/2002 6:39:46 PM
From: reaper	Respond to of 436258

prior bookings number for april was 982.0, so they revised up a little. Cheers

To: yard_man who wrote (173654)	6/18/2002 7:23:37 PM
From: MythMan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

>>AMD looks like a steal AH at 7.25<< So did Lucent -g-

To: yard_man who wrote (173654)	6/18/2002 7:43:54 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Look what I got in my real e-mail address from fchow7305u22@cc.umanitoba.ca: ------------------- Gold may have topped out due to the following reason: There is an out for the large lease traders to the pain caused by rapid rising gold price. Right now there is too much gold short, and not enough actual metal around to cover short is how I perceive present situation. Should language in original contracts be re-written to say for example, "we will accept cash instead of metal", that alleviates need for lease players to cover short. Those gold pumpers out there do not want you to know this is in the works, whether it materializes or not is to be seen. ------------------ Something seems screwy about this idea to me -- wouldn't somebody hedge their shorts instead? I can't seriously see contracts being rewritten unless the short-ee went into Chapter 11. Comments anybody?