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: Riskmgmt who wrote (71460)	3/3/2011 6:16:08 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 217925

<I miss the NASDAQ bubble days> General Atlantic, a $17 billion investment firm, agreed to buy one-tenth of 1% of Facebook in a deal that values the social-networking website at $65 billion marketwatch.com What are the PE and Price/Sales ratios of Facebook? I'll bet it's higher than CSCO was in early 2000. The Bubble is like some monster that can't be killed, rising from its grave repeatedly.

To: Riskmgmt who wrote (71460)	3/5/2011 7:07:01 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217925

engaging with freedom and escaping from tyranny, let us watch n brief on hsbc uk.finance.yahoo.com HSBC reveals plans to quit London for Hong Kong Saturday 5 March 2011 HSBC (LSE: HSBA.L - news) has told its biggest shareholders that it is preparing to quit London in a shock move that the bank has revealed to key investors is now "more likely than not". Britain's biggest bank, which has been headquartered in the capital for 19 years, warned key investors that last week's disappointing full-year results have made arguments for shifting HSBC's domicile to Hong Kong "overwhelming". The shareholders have been surprised by the swift gear-change in HSBC's review of its domicile but some have already told the bank that they would support the move. The loss of HSBC's headquarters in London, although threatened for months because of the increase in financial regulations, would be a severe blow to the Coalition which, despite some of its 'banker bashing' rhetoric, is relying on a private-sector-led recovery. One top institutional investor in HSBC told The Sunday Telegraph : "HSBC has a review of its domicile every three years, normally it's a formality, this time we were told that a move is now more than likely." Another shareholder added: "Instinctively we were very surprised by the change of tone. But you can't argue with the numbers. Moving to Hong Kong could deliver a 30pc premium [to the share price] overnight." Last week £6bn was wiped from the value of HSBC's shares as the bank admitted it had suffered surging costs which had fundamentally undermined its targeted return on equity. Shares in the bank plunged 4.7pc to 678p after it revealed pre-tax profits of $19.1bn (£11.7bn) $1bn less than analysts had expected. The bank said operating expenses had soared to $37.7bn a rise of 9.6pc from the previous year. Iain Mackay, finance director of HSBC, blamed the bonus tax in Britain and France and the large swathes of new bank regulations for the higher costs. Senior (Xetra: 852271 - news) figures at the bank have also pointed out that the Government's banking levy, recently increased by the Chancellor, means that the bank will ultimately pay out as much to cover the tax as it gains in profit from its UK businesses. Last week the bank said that the return on equity target of 15pc to 19pc was no longer viable. Mr Mackay said higher capital requirements demanded by UK regulators and the lower prospective returns had led to the target being abandoned. Britain's capital requirements for the UK's leading banks are now the toughest in the world and, with the introduction of the Basel III regulations, the bar is expected to go even higher. HSBC explained to shareholders that the more relaxed capital requirements in Hong Kong would cost less and generate more profit by allowing it to make greater use of its balance sheet. One source close to the situation said: "Investors were very disappointed with the spiralling costs revealed in the results. The bank's reply was that the swift solution is to fast forward the review." HSBC was founded in 1885 in Hong Kong, and moved its headquarters to London in 1992 after acquiring Midland Bank. Every three years since then, the bank has undertaken a review of its domicile to check that London still makes the most sense financially and strategically. For almost two decades, the review has been seen by the bank and its stakeholders as a formality. However, this time the review has come in a year when the bank faces regulatory change and uncertainty as well as pressure from investors over its performance. Last month Douglas Flint, the bank's former finance director who is now chairman, told the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee that HSBC was "not trying to leave London". But he warned that the banks faced regular questions from investors about the "costs and benefits" of being based in the UK. Mr Flint described the Government's bank levy as a "tax on being headquartered in London". Mike Geoghegan, HSBC's former chief executive, issued similar warnings last year. In November he said that the bank levy amounted to a "tax on emerging market growth". An HSBC spokesman said: "London is ideally positioned as an international financial centre and we have been clear that it is our preference to remain headquartered here. However, we are routinely asked by institutional investors about the costs of being headquartered in the UK and it's clear that the City's competitive position needs protection."

To: Riskmgmt who wrote (71460)	3/8/2011 7:57:03 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217925

just in in-tray From: A Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 3:35:33 AM Subject: RE: Comments - Week of March 7 And that is why silver wheaton has been such a star performer for a few people on this email roundtable.. From: H Sent: 08 March 2011 19:38 Subject: Re: Comments - Week of March 7 none left in gold, except a few project development related hedges by small players, but in silver many of the base metals producers that have it as a by-product have hedged silver up to ten years out. since silver isn't a big part of their revenue it doesn't really matter all that much to them I guess. still, they produce the bulk of the silver. haven't heard of anyone buying back silver hedges, except Barrick. On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM, G wrote: Who are the known hedgers among the miners? From: r Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 10:38:42 PM Subject: Re: Comments - Week of March 7 Dunno but just for fun...can anyone think of a shorter/cheaper fuse to setting off the derivatives bomb than someone standing for delivery for Comex silver inventory? with over 100+ billion shorts?? I can't. On Mar 7, 2011, at 6:27 PM, M wrote: Vancouver physical metals dealer told me last night that if you tried to buy US$50-100 million in silver, it would take 6-8 weeks to take delivery. Physical supply is that tight. Would be very wary of any miner that is hedging production. Even if they can eventually deliver, in the short run if silver moves high enough, they may not be able to meet margin calls and go bust in spite of higher prices! On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:10 AM, B wrote: news.silverseek.com