Climate Exchange Share Discussion Threads

[techmark] 19/5/2008 11:19

Back to CLE - £920 million for a company that may do revenues around £25 million and just about break even if lucky. That's some rating! Still no volume and you have that big fund holding 22%. If the price moves against them, it could be carnage.

[123chelsea] 19/5/2008 11:17

seen your posting queeny2 thanks - nothing more to add (for the moment)

[techmark] 19/5/2008 11:10

But why do think kings and queens wanted gold? It wasn't because it was worth nothing that's for sure. That was the point I was trying to make to Gsands. The fact the gold has been sought after for thousands of years and has historically been desired by the wealthy.

[queeny2] 19/5/2008 11:03

One example I find interesting is if gold is a currency, ie a store of value when your currency implodes like a Reichsmark or a Zimbabwe dollar, you would expect it to be used as such to protect capital and savings, and in all the crises of my working life, say handing Hong Kong over to the Chinese, or Yugoslavia imploding, it's never been gold that's been used, always the dollar, or bearer bonds, or in Yugoslavia the deutschemark. At the moment everyone knows sterling is possibly fvcked, and what do they do? Buy euros. I've never seen any real evidence that it is seriously used as a store of value, krugerrands under the bed and so on.

It's a small market, so the awful collapse from $800 to $200 or wherever and the rally from Gordon Brown level to $1,000 - it doesn't take much. But the kings and queens argument? - no thanks.

[techmark] 19/5/2008 10:59

Gsand,

A 3% dividend on a Dow of 381 ain't going to be much and don't forget tax! I can't be bothered with your ridiculous argument. I have met many of your sort when I stated buying gold at $290 and now they keep their traps shut. You will also when gold hits $2000 an oz

PS I don't have stops, just deep pockets.

Just remember Gsands, you said gold is worth nothing to you!!!!!!! Clearly an idiotic statement.

Regards

[gsands] 19/5/2008 10:53

We're not talking about 'these days'.

We're talking about the DOW and gold over the last 100 years.

Compound the dividends and you'll see how woefully inaccurate your calcs are.

Anyway, I haven't got time to teach the uneducated - got things to do.

Adios.

(don't forget your stop loss here)

[techmark] 19/5/2008 10:51

GSands,

In case you hadn't notice dividends in the states are well below the level of inflation these days, but you carry on with your savings being confiscated by inflation. And I will stick to hard assets that are running short of supply.

[gsands] 19/5/2008 10:48

You've forgotten the dividends in your calcualtions, therefore they are void.

[techmark] 19/5/2008 10:42

Gsand,

What planet are you on? I'm not arguing with Buffett I'm proving to you how and why gold has a value.

Something which you are clearly too blind to see.

Regards

[gsands] 19/5/2008 10:39

Well, there we go again. First you argue with the concensus opinion of all the climate scientists in the world.

Now you're arguing with one of the richest and most successful investors in the world.

There is a name for people like you...

[ted32] 19/5/2008 10:38

I thought this thread was for CLE!

[techmark] 19/5/2008 10:36

Gsands,

In 1929 the Dow peeked at 381, it took 19oz of gold to buy the Dow

In 2008 the Dow is now at 13,000. It takes about 14 oz of gold to buy the Dow.

So for somebody that had 19oz of gold in 1929, they could buy the Dow today with 14 oz and still have 5 oz left over despite the fact that the Dow has risen 12600 points since!

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation." (Alan Greenspan)

Regards

[gsands] 19/5/2008 10:27

Gold: ETF tickers GLD, IAU

Buffett: Gold is way down on my list, I would rather own assets that produce value. Dow went from 66 to 12000 and paid dividends. If you owned Gold you paid 20 and went to 400 a hundred years later, and you paid insurance and storage costs. It's really not a store of value. Farm, apartment, businesses have utility. I'd rather be able to sell someone candy in 20 years than holding gold. I see no reason why it will work well in the future.

[techmark] 19/5/2008 10:25

Warren Buffett has interesting view on the US dollar too.

[gsands] 19/5/2008 10:25

Warren Buffett has an interesting opinion on gold...

[techmark] 19/5/2008 10:24

GSands

There you go. You don't even understand what gold is.

[gsands] 19/5/2008 10:23

Gold has no value, except for what someone is prepared to pay for it.

It has little use, other than decorative.

It is rare - but platinum is ten times rarer - and more useful.

Gold is not an investment - it's a punt.

[techmark] 19/5/2008 10:17

Gsand,

Well that's why you didn't buy it when it was $290, because you were totally oblivious to what was happening to the dollar and the subsequent impact that would have on oil and inflation. If gold is worth nothing to you then what the hell is a dollar or pound in your pocket worth. They are pieces of paper that only have value because of a promise to pay the bearer. On top of that they are continually being devalued against real assets. I would also remind you that the promise to pay the bearer can disappear in a flash should certain circumstances arise. Money supply is at the whim of politicians with printing presses. Gold is created by nature and has been desired by kings and queens for thousands of years.

Regards

[gsands] 19/5/2008 09:54

Techmark,

What's gold worth? Nothing to me. But plenty pile in all the same.

No dividend. No returns. Just valued on the 'bigger fool' syndrome and the fact that people like gold jewelry.

[lasata] 19/5/2008 09:43

Breakthrough £20 and this will motor. USA politics dictate its future

[techmark] 19/5/2008 09:33

Gsands,

Have you seen the price of gold recently? I'm indebted to your socialist friend Gordon Brown for selling me a big chunk at $290. May I remind you that only a few people thought gold was a good investment at that time. At the time I seem to remember that most people were very excited about some tech boom or something, where investors paid ridiculous amounts of money for stocks with little or no assets. C'est la vie.

Regards.

[queeny2] 19/5/2008 09:04

chelsea. as before, having done more reading, I completely agree with you on this one, as I do on PDX. It's slightly unanswerable, but what's the catalyst (eg FD departure with PDX was my signal)? I have no idea what would upset the hard holders, just on timing.

I do find Harbinger's holding odd, £200m is a lot of money even for them, and they've marched up from 17% to 23% - did you by any chance watch the demise of Focus Partners, there's an echo of that maybe, but small cap euro was their business, whereas Harbinger are a credit based shop. They run $7-8bn I think, so $400m is pretty meaty.

I'll read annual report with some care. If you have any cracking off-line thoughts wing them to xxxxx and let me know you've seen this so I can delete that address.

[techmark] 19/5/2008 08:16

Market cap now around £920 million! So tonight I'm gonna to party like it's 1999!

How quickly investors forget what happens when you over pay for assets.

[123chelsea] 16/5/2008 16:59

2007 accounts just posted - assume price high due hope US legislation about to change but even climate admit "Our hope
is that legislation will be passed in 2009,
but even then, actual implementation
will probably only occur 3 years
thereafter."