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 : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: terry richardson who wrote (26758)	1/27/2003 12:47:13 PM
From: TheBusDriver	Respond to of 36161

No disrespect to you LJ, but this is exactly what I was trying to tell you in a PM. It is a very American thing to litigate. I could go on about what the UK thinks about no-win-no-fee lawers and the importation of a litigative mentalilty into the UK from the US. But in the end it is off topic and I did make my point in a PM. So I should shut up. Thanks Terry from an American living in the UK. Wayne

To: terry richardson who wrote (26758)	1/27/2003 10:05:13 PM
From: terry richardson	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 36161

Jim Sinclair has just published an excellent piece which explains the rise in gold and the lackluster action in the unhedged shares. ..........."What has occurred is that major ratio traders (those who develop mathematical relationships determined by back testing to balance potential loss and gain on either leg which is subsequently adjusted to their bullish or bearish desires) and hedge funds are the source of the gold share short, being long gold and short the shares. In truth, I cannot blame them where the gold producer hedgers are concerned but it seems they may have gone bonkers with this spread and simply shorted all listed gold producing companies from 100,000 ounces per annum and up. It also looks to me as if there might be a little hanky-panky going on since the short of certain shares seems to exceed that which is reasonably available to borrow. A requirement of a short sale is delivery of shares. These shares are obtained by borrowing. Every major brokerage concern has a loan clerk for this purpose. Only shares on margin are automatically available for lending. Fully paid shares require permission of the lender to qualify them as available to the short seller............" tanrange.com If Jim Sinclair's hypothesis is correct that major ratio traders and hedge funds are going long the physical and shorting the shares with the intention of selling the gold at the start of the war (buy the rumor sell the news) and covering their stock short positions during their resulting drop caused by their sale of the physical, and they miscalculate on being able to cover we could see a reversal of the current situation with gold being snapped up by large buyers waiting in the wings and a beauty of a short squeeze as they scramble to cover if the shares don't fall off a cliff like they are expecting. The more this possible scenario is publicized the less likely it is that shareholders will sell in a panic and the more likely a short squeeze will occur. Therefore I would urge anyone who is invested or interested to read Jim's report and see that it is circulated.. Good luck to us all. Personally I don't think Bush will start a war without the backing of the UN due not only to the cost of the war and the rebuilding but also the aftermath will tie up too many personnel. He knows he will get bogged down in the aftermath if he can't get the UN to administer the peace and won't be able to go on to the next target (Iran, Saudi?? anybody's guess). American personnel being sniped at and ambushed on a daily basis in a long occupation will not go down well back home. If the press reports it of course. So IMHO he won't go without the UN's backing. That is of course unless the economic situation is so bad that he needs the distraction. Kind of seems like a replay of Argentina going into the Falklands somehow.