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 : Ride the Tiger with CD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: philv who wrote (112214)	4/19/2008 10:57:34 PM
From: robnhood	Respond to of 312953

After what fact? The guy just got voted in a year ago. I have said this before. ARU sold at a low valuation because of the political discount. ABCP paper sold at a premium because of the rating agency endorsements. If you have more money than you need , well then you takes your chances with what you do with it. Buy CSB's. Or Treasuries--- ha ha ha

To: philv who wrote (112214)	4/19/2008 11:20:56 PM
From: The Vet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 312953

philv, I think your comments really get to the crux of the matter. Nobody really minds playing the game as long as the rules are set down and don't change halfway through. Countries and governments (not just those in the third world either) desperate for investment and jobs for their people have a habit of encouraging exploration and development in many fields and offer tempting deals for outsiders to risk their money, only to demand a changed deal the moment that that risk looks like paying off. In democratic countries this sort of bait and switch can't be pulled too often on the voting population, but it can, and is, often tried on the external investors who are not direct voters in the region of influence. Nobody can assume that any country is safe. Look at Alberta a couple of months ago changing the existing rules re oil, gas and oil sands royalties and taxes. Look at the circular routes of legislation and regulation adopted by many US states (Montana and California come to mind) where governments suddenly impose new "environmental" regulations designed to specifically stop one or more projects that don't have an official blessing, or which have become a political "hot potato". Just because a third world country does the same thing in a more "in your face" manner doesn't make it any worse or any better, but it's galling in every case regardless of whether it is a sudden about face on mining or a sudden change in taxation, or the investment rules which are only applied after risk money has been expended and cannot be recovered under the changed administrative rule. I wonder if the government of Ecuador would have changed anything if the recent exploration results had not been positive and the companies involved were now packing up their exploration teams and leaving? This attitude, which is especially common in third world countries, but is also pervasive elsewhere, that everyone is welcome to spend a small fortune exploring for hidden treasure, but they can't expect to take any value away should your search turn out to be successful, will keep the resources in the ground, commodity prices high and the third world countries in poverty indefinitely. The third world especially in South America looks to their peers for examples, when their peers are often in the same dire straights that they are and have no good profitable working industries. What they should be looking at for mining models are the first world countries that survive and prosper by having a vibrant mining industry. Australia is a good example of a resource rich country where all of the mining is done by private companies from all over the world and where the government maintains a low key regulatory role, but never tries to actually take over or rob private operations. It is no accident that so many of the world's major mining companies have their roots in Australia. The government maintains strict environmental controls and provide certain infrastructure and in return get royalties and taxes which are in line with the rest of the country's enterprises. Companies know the rules before they even step onto the ground and the rules are predictable and stable. The Aussie model works and the government and citizens of Australia are the winners in this model.