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.

Politics : Gold and Silver Stocks and Related Commentary -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (6788)	2/18/2005 12:14:39 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18308

PS oldbird re cosmological constant-lol. Ironically, physicist are now reconsidering the cosmological constant-lol. Recently they found out that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate which it is not supposed to do. Here is what they think. As the universe expands the vacuum energy also increases because the universe is getting larger ergo more vacuum to derive energy from, so now they think the vacuum energy has become more powerful than the inherent gravity, so Einstein might have been right-lol. A great book on vacuums is called "Nothingness"by Henning Genz. He is a theoretical physicist in Germany. the entire book is on nothing but vauums and particle physics. I have been reading it for years now as it is way over my head, but just facinating. In fact many believe the big bang may have been nothing mroe than a vacuum fluxuation. All vacuums have inherent energy and virtual particles. Vacuums can borrow energy from one part to another part, but they have to repay it at some time. The more they borrow the faster it has to be repaid. If virtual particles are dragged through vacuum energy then they become real (that never made any sense to me (like what is a virtual particle-lol? other than one without mass). The virtual particles are the result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. None of this stuff surprises me anymore after I had to accept that the universe exploded out of a point smaller than a proton and doubled in size a billion times in less than a second - OUT OF NOTHING. Once one swallows that magic everything else is easy-lol. It all seems nuts to me anyway, but facinating. Cheers

To: koan who wrote (6788)	2/18/2005 12:33:47 AM
From: Lhn5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18308

You don't mention what the warrant exercise price is, but what if BWR goes up 10% a year for the next 4 years...would you still be better off with the warrants?

To: koan who wrote (6788)	2/18/2005 12:59:18 AM
From: maxncompany	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18308

No, percentages does not cloud the issue. Comparing 1 share to 1 warrant does. You say you could lose more from your 1 70 cent share than from your 1 27 cent warrant. Well of course you can.....because you've put more $$$ into the share. Any comparison of the BWR shares to BWR warrants only makes sense when you talking about the same amount of $$$. That's elementary. Don't get me wrong. I often buy warrants instead of shares. I have $2800 to invest in BWR. I'm not going to say to myself I can either buy 4000 shares or 4000 warrants. I'm going to tell myself 4000 shares or 10,370 (approximately) warrants. That's real life trading. Comparing different $$$ amounts makes any attempt at comparison a non-starter. It has no place in real life trading.