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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (66394)	9/23/2010 10:48:33 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217662

news check, all truths included in a single number, and that number is 1294 :0) shall celebrate with unusual act, a third cup of coffee where two cups per day has been the so far limit

To: carranza2 who wrote (66394)	9/23/2010 11:31:07 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217662

c2, you be the lawyer, this should be of some interest, just in in-tray, i quote Further my email 22/9: Sovereign Immunity ?? Yes UN statistics are much better than CIA. So many reports quote the CIA World “Fact” book. It is a bit like The World according to Garp but with much more serious consequences. What one does not know is if CIA really believe in their own facts or these are facts to serve a different purpose. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FROM WINSTON & STRAWN LLP LAW REPORTS One Country, Two Systems in the Hong Kong Courts Introduction Prior to the change over of sovereignty over Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China, which occurred on July 1, 1997, one of the areas of concern was whether the Hong Kong judicial system could stand up to its new sovereign in cases where China had a strong economic or political interest, as well as cases near the border line of foreign affairs and defense, two areas reserved to China under Articles 13 and 19 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. For the most part, since 1997 up to the present, Hong Kong courts have admirably maintained their independence and, to be fair, the new sovereign, China, has often shown restraint with respect to Hong Kong judicial matters. FG Hemisphere Case A recent case, FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v Democratic Republic of the Congo, CACV 373/2008 and CACV 43/2009, where a ruling was announced in February 2010 by the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong, is an example of one country, two systems operating and is a strong performance by the Hong Kong Judiciary. Since the Hong Kong Court of Appeal is the SAR’s intermediate appellate court, a decision by Hong Kong’s highest appellate court, the Court of Final Appeal, is possible, and indeed likely, down the road. Nevertheless, the opinion of the Court of Appeal in the FG Hemisphere case is instructive. Facts The case involves two 2003 arbitration awards made in France and in Switzerland against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”). The original plaintiff was a Yugoslavia company,Energoinvest; FG Hemisphere is an assignee of Energoinvest’s awards. FG Hemisphere, a Delaware company, specializes in investing in emerging markets and distress assets. The total of both awards exceeds US$34 million, and, with interest, and less certain recoveries accomplished by FG Hemisphere in other jurisdictions, the amount payable stands at US$102,656,647.96. China Involvement Hong Kong became involved when it came to FG Hemisphere’s notice that a massive investment program in the DRC was being undertaken by Chinese state-owned companies. Under this program, these companies would acquire mineral exploitation rights for which sizeable entry fees were payable by them to the government of the DRC. The Chinese group included three companies incorporated in Hong Kong, each a wholly owned subsidiary of the China Railway Group Limited, a state-owned company established in the PRC, whose shares are listed on the Hong Kong and Shanghai’s stock exchanges. FG Hemisphere’s effort was first to freeze the payment of the entry fees to the DRC and then to seize them. Initial Decision FG Hemisphere’s initial effort resulted in a decision by the Court of First Instance that the entry fees did not constitute a commercial transaction. The court found that the transaction was a cooperative venture became two sovereign states, China, and the DRC. Accordingly, the court ruled in December 2008 that it had no jurisdiction because of sovereign immunity. The case at hand is the appeal from this decision. Sovereign Immunity The centerpiece of the Court of Appeal decision is an analysis of the doctrine of sovereign immunity under Hong Kong law. From 1978 until the change in sovereignty, the Hong Kong law on sovereign immunity was stated in the State Immunity Act of 1978 of the UK, which was extended to Hong Kong by the State Immunity (Overseas Territories) Order 1979. The analysis is complicated by the PRC’s resumption of sovereignty with the effect that, except for statutes enumerated in an Annex to the Basic Law, UK statues ceased to have effect in Hong Kong as of July 1997. Accordingly, the court determined that Hong Kong law on sovereign immunity is the Common Law and eventually concluded that the Common Law recognizes the doctrine of restrictive sovereign immunity. Broadly, under the doctrine of restrictive immunity, a state can be sued for its commercial activities. Historically, China has been a leading proponent, along with a number of African countries, of the doctrine of absolute sovereign immunity. That is, states simply cannot be sued without their consent in the courts of another state. The Secretary for Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region had intervened in the FG Hemisphere case for the purpose of pointing out the Chinese’s views on absolute immunity and to advise the court that under the Basic Law, the immunity of states from judicial process was a matter of foreign affairs and, therefore, to be decided by China, the sovereign. In addition, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also provided two letters to the court setting forth the view that China adhered to the doctrine of absolute sovereign immunity. Decision In a closely reasoned, 2-1 opinion that runs some 67 pages, the Court of Appeal concluded that the resolution of FG Hemisphere’s claims in a Hong Kong court was not a matter of Chinese foreign affairs. Rather, the court concluded that Hong Kong law applied and that the doctrine of restrictive immunity was the law of Hong Kong. The court went on to consider whether the DRC could have been said to have waived whatever immunity it might have by submitting to arbitration, and decided that submission to arbitration did not constitute a waiver with respect to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts to consider an application for leave to enforce the resulting arbitral awards. The court continued the injunctions and remitted portions of the case to the trial court for a determination as to whether some of the entry fees due to the PRC might be intended to be used for sovereign purposes, a question not previously considered. Conclusions The FG Hemisphere case should be reassuring to those concerned about the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary, more than a decade into Chinese rule. The case is a classic example of old school, common law judicial analysis, which includes a thoughtful rejection of two representations by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as arguments of the Hong Kong Government in favor of the Chinese position. While further developments are possible and a further appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is likely, as things now stand, the FG Hemisphere case is a good example of Hong Kong’s judicial system operating as it was designed

To: carranza2 who wrote (66394)	9/24/2010 4:09:09 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217662

the number is 1297.5 events must be horribly good even the london am fix cannot fix ;0)

To: carranza2 who wrote (66394)	9/27/2010 8:15:13 AM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217662

random just in in-tray stuffing player 1: There was a place in Knoxville that I wanted to buy a few years ago that was selling for $2 million when gold was $400 per ounce. That meant the place was going for 5,000 ounces of gold. It recently sold for $1.6 million when gold was $1,280 per ounce. That means it sold for a mere 1,250 ounces of gold.....a 75% drop! I wonder if I should look to buy it at 1,000 ounces of gold or be greedy and wait to buy it for 500 ounces of gold? <g> player tj: Be greedy, expect additional 98% drop of referenced knoxville property against referenced gold, but strike the deal at minus 80% level. We will get there, else hk blows up. player 1: Holy moly.... Got gold? And don't be short anything! He's firmly in the Marc Faber camp now! zerohedge.com SNIP: Recently the debate over when QE2 will occur has taken a back seat over the question of what the implications of the Fed's latest intervention in monetary policy will be, as it is now certain that Bernanke will attempt a fresh round of monetary stimulus to prevent the recent deceleration in the economy from transforming into outright deflation. Whether or not the Fed will decide to engage in QE2 on its November 3 meeting, or as others have suggested December 14, and maybe even as far out as January 25, the actual event is now a certainty. And while many have discussed this topic in big picture terms, most notably David Tepper, who on Friday stated that no matter what, stocks will benefit from QE2, few if any have actually considered what the impact of QE2 will be on the Fed's balance sheet, and how the change in composition in Fed assets will impact all marketable asset classes. We have conducted a rough analysis on how QE2 will reshape the Fed's balance sheet. We were stunned to realize that over the next 6 months the Fed may be the net buyer of nearly $3 trillion in Treasurys, an action which will likely set off a chain of events which could result in rates dropping all the way to zero, stocks surging, and gold (and other precious metals) going from current price levels to well in the 5 digit range. A Question of Size One of the main open questions on QE2, is how large the Fed's next monetization episode will be. This year's most prescient economist, Jan Hatzius, has predicted that the minimum floor of Bernanke's next intervention will be around $1 trillion, which of course means that he likely expects a materially greater final outcome from a Fed that is known for "forceful" action. Others, such as Bank of America's Priya Misra, have loftier expectations: "We expect the size of QE2 to be at least as much as QE1 in terms of duration demand." As a reminder, QE1, when completed, resulted in the repurchase of roughly $1.7 trillion in Treasury and MBS/Agency securities. It is thus safe to assume that the Fed's QE2 will likely amount to roughly $1.5 trillion in outright security purchases. However, as we will demonstrate, this is far from the whole story, and the actual marginal purchasing impact will be substantially greater. player tj: Am on bus ride homeward bound, and am giddy with anticipation for qe2. Issue: at what point do we leverage? At what do we leverage? player 1:Any comments on these "smart mortgages?" bochk.com Seems like this does nothing except encourage people to buy more flats and leverage more! I am told that this type of mortgage is wildly popular in the Mainland. player tj: the schema may encourage home ownership per limits of down payment requirement (30-50%). probably not available for 2nd - nth homes. and otherwise astutely encourages cash savings per imperative to keep interest cost under control, so little would be lost to the crazier stock market. bullish. to be commended. had team usa adopted same approach, the GFC would be LFC. player 2: Apparently the ft says gold is oversold... Europe’s central banks halt gold sales By Jack Farchy in Berlin Published: September 26 2010 22:08 \| Last updated: September 26 2010 22:08 Europe’s central banks have all but halted sales of their gold reserves, ending a run of large disposals each year for more than a decade. The central banks of the eurozone plus Sweden and Switzerland are bound by the Central Bank Gold Agreement, which caps their collective sales. In the CBGA’s year to September, which expired on Sunday, the signatories sold 6.2 tonnes, down 96 per cent, according to provisional data. The sales are the lowest since the agreement was signed in 1999 and well below the peak of 497 tonnes in 2004-05. The shift away from gold selling comes as European central banks reassess gold amid the financial crisis and Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. In the 1990s and 2000s, central banks swapped their non- yielding bullion for sovereign debt, which gives a steady annual return. But now, central banks and investors are seeking the security of gold. The lack of heavy selling is important for gold prices both because a significant source of supply has been withdrawn from the market, and because it has given psychological support to the gold price. On Friday, bullion hit a record of $1,300 an ounce. “Clearly now it’s a different world; the mentality is completely different,” said Jonathan Spall, director of precious metals sales at Barclays Capital. European central banks are unlikely to sell much more gold in the new CBGA year, according to a survey by the Financial Times. player tj: given the math of gold in ozs, it is neither oversold nor over bought, and is also not over owned or under owned. it has simply been shuffled around, in alignment with reassessment of imperatives, at some price, one could command half a swimming pool of gold and still feel short gold at some other price, one could hold a few grams floating in pink champaign held up to the flickering candle light, and be sated knowing that will be better in this galaxy gold is useless 99.99 % of times getgold 0.01% this way comes player 3: This is still rough form. But our Taiwan weather girls are coming to an internet screen near you with daily web updates. Pls see below. Should be fun,,, player tj: We like Taiwan, and girls, even at 5:13am. xxxx [player 3], where are you these days living n working? player 3: I am all over. I am in taiwan this week. family is in a serviced apartment in New Jersey. I am working on closing a home, but it is simply exhausting. I am buying a house as I want the interest deduction, but these fricking clowns ask for every damn document you can think off. I sold some gold, only about USD $20,000 and they want to see the paper trail. I sold to a friend and put in cash as a counter deposit. HSBC gives me a good citizen letter and shit,,, these guys give me a hard time... I am so pissed... (oh god, if china would just stop beating up disidents i would joing up)... Hope you and family are okay... player tj: all is well on this end. my son, 36 days young, seems so far to be a calmer version of my daughter at the same age, a blessing for now. hong kong is at what i believe to be the starting stages of a bubble. i say starting because people seem shy about leverage, and without leverage, hong kong should not be considered bubbly, regardless of how high the prices go, especially if half the buyers are not of hk. re the communist, i too would vote for them if i thought anyone such as i, an anarchist capitalist wannabie, deserves to be able to vote. as and when you are in hk, please shout beforehand so that we can organize a boyz lunch around you and take in the news flow.