Table On-Topic Summary - 28-Sep-2002
A compilation of this board's financial/economic posts From 42823 to 42860

Post  42823  by  pmcw       Reply
sr, You might have it. The split adjusted high was 163.72 in Jan 2000. That's a 99.8% drop which beats NT hands down. Regards, pmcw

Post  42824  by  ferociousD       Gold Output Up 16%
Post  42825  by  maniati       OT: fD:...but he speaks highly of you! ROFL

Post  42826  by  maniati       Reply
Tin: Sorry, bankrupt companies were specifically excluded from the discussion. As for the others, you didn't compute the % decline.

Post  42827  by  maniati       OT: Hi, EZ! Where have you been?

Post  42828  by  Arkural       Reply
UIM-Aye, yup! Funny how these (commodities rather than equities) instruments are gaining in popularity, I wonder why..................................actually, no I don't.

Open Interest in CME S&P 500 Futures Surpasses 700,000 (09/18/02)
Open interest in S&P 500 futures traded on Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) for the first time surpassed 700,000 positions yesterday, Sept. 17, with 711,777 open positions at the close of trading.

CME Posts Record Open Interest (09/12/02)
Open interest on Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) reached a record 20,199,000 positions yesterday, Sept. 11, surpassing the previous record of 20,149,753 set on Sept. 9.

CME Open Interest Reaches Record 20.1 Million Positions (09/10/02)
Open interest on Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) reached a record 20,149,753 positions yesterday, Sept.9, surpassing the previous record of 20,128,904 positions set on Aug. 14.

CME Marks Five Years of E-Mini™ S&P 500 Futures (09/09/02)
Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) today marked the fifth anniversary of the launch of E-mini™ S&P 500 futures—the first smaller sized, electronically traded futures contracts and the fastest growing product in the exchange’s history.

Post  42829  by  uponroof       Reply
Once-mighty JP Morgan on the rack after disastrous fees-for-loans foray

"...Today, JP Morgan Chase looks more like a Frankenstein than the finely tuned athlete it aspired to be. In

Post  42830  by  ribit       Reply
...actually the death penalty probably does save lives in the long run. If the Nebraska bank robbers are executed, it is unlikely they will ever kill anyone else. If ya want to hear something ridiculous, about 20 years ago the state of Georgia spent ten thousand dollars renovating their electric chair because, and I quote, "It wasn't safe!"

Post  42831  by  ribit       Reply
...the draft should only be instituted if the iraqi's are storming ashore somewhere on our coasts. Otherwise the military does not need the headache of having to deal with a bunch of malcontents that do not want to be there. If the military can't get enough people, they should raise the pay. That's what everybody else does.

Post  42832  by  ribit       Reply
...have ya noticed the Saudi "Allies in Peace" commercials? They have a problem over there that the folks in power are in a minority and are teeter tottering on the edge of collapse. They have to keep the great unwashed masses happy. (...kinda like the democrats) or they lose it all. Don't pay too much attention to what they say. When the time comes, they will be there for us. The United States doesn't need a U.N. Resolution to go kick Sadaams's fanny. The Saudi's do need one to offer their support though.

Post  42833  by  ribit       Reply
...that would be my plan.

Post  42834  by  uponroof       Reply
ABX and JPM connected?

Are you holding ABX? Time to do some careful reasearch! The following is speculation but worth a look. ABX was the king of hedging during the gold supression schemes of the late nineties. They were as they say, a 'hedge fund in golden drag'.

Some rumors going around out there that ABX and JPM are derivative Enron and Citi were. This might explain their problem with underperformance after loudly trumpeting last week their grandious plans, only to deliver disapointing news shortly thereafter.

KRY's 12 million clear ozs might become even more attractive to them if in fact they're negatively bound to JPM through less than attractive exotic hedges.

From MIDAS (9/27)

"...What are they (JPM) going to do with their $45 billion in gold derivatives? Morgan says they are for clients. But, even if that is the case, these derivatives all have counterparty issues. How comfortable can Morgan’s clients be with Morgan itself?

Barrick Gold is one of those major counterparties. Now Barrick’s stock is disappearing too. It closed today at $15.09, down 81 cents. What a dog that one is. Last November, with gold at $273, Barrick traded $14. Gold has rallied $46 since then, but Barrick has gone nowhere. WHY? Midas and GATA have been on Barrick’s case for more than 3 years. As a result, we have saved our followers the ignominy of owning Barrick. Many Café members switched out of Barrick into other gold companies whose share prices have doubled or tripled already. Thank you very much.

One has to wonder if kissing cousins Morgan and Barrick are not at each other’s throats. Two people, whom I have a great deal of respect for, listened to Barrick’s conference call yesterday and both think that Barrick might be attempting to cover up a derivatives problem.

We shall see. I can’t help but keep in mind that Enron and Morgan were best of buddies at one time. Barrick dragged around Dinsa Mehta, JPM's chief gold dealer and overall derivatives specialist, at some of their presentations. Mehta spoke at a gold conference in Australia not too long ago. The Congressional Committee investigating Enron has subpoenaed Mehta's correspondence in various matters. Mehta was relieved of his duties by JPM this past April.

As such, let us zero in a bit on Barrick as they relate to Morgan, since we have jumped all over both of them for so many years. Barrick reported an unrealized $251,000,000 loss on their hedge book at $314 gold in their second quarter report. They also reported that 3/4 of their projects had increased costs which makes no sense whatsoever. That is not the way it works in mining unless there is some major increase across the board on a major mining expense, like labor, which there isn't. All those projects did not just change their economic structure all at once. It simply does not work that way. It is totally illogical.

Yesterday, Barrick reported production on one project would not even be what was expected in their last report. Barrick has maintained a reputation as having great mining operations. Suddenly, it is all going bad and FAST. COINCIDENTALLY, Morgan is falling apart at the EXACT SAME TIME.

Dicky The Dunce could even connect these dots. It would appear that all the GATA camp has written and warned of IS HAPPENING. Barrick’s $251,000,000 loss on the hedge book at $314 it is certain to be a $Billion in the not to far future.

Gold companies still short gold are totally insane; that includes Newmont and Placer Doom. Who knows what is going on out there in dangerous derivatives land?

I can offer you this. On CNBC today, at least two people spoke up about a "potential" financial market disaster brewing. Another spoke of a couple of banks going down before the financial market debacle ends. For what it is worth, I know for a fact that the GATA ARMY’s rantings over Morgan and their derivatives structure is spreading at the highest levels around the world.

Most gold shares rallied LATE today. But, not Barrick..."

Now from the Globe and Mail:

ABX: Beware of companies bearing promises

Globe and Mail Update

Barrick Gold is the latest market favourite to suffer the wrath of investors for overpromising and then under-delivering. The mining giant just finished boasting to anyone who would listen about its expanded global production capabilities just over a week ago — only to turn around and warn on Thursday that some of those expectations will not be met after all. Analysts say the problems are short-term, but the disappointment that investors feel might take Barrick a little longer to overcome.

The gold miner has no shortage of company: Nortel and Bombardier are just two of the other former market stars that have handed out depressing revenue forecasts or slashed their operating numbers, after assuring investors that everything was humming along just fine. In fact, Nortel deserves some kind of special award, given its almost unprecedented run of reassurances followed by disappointments — a pattern that has been going on for over a year, and has driven Nortel's stock well below $1.

Barrick isn't in that category, obviously. The company is still one of the leading players in the gold sector, with an enviable portfolio of mines and a sterling balance sheet. So why did the market knock the stock down by more than 13 per cent at one point on Thursday — its biggest fall in more than 10 years — and continue to hammer it on Friday? Because Barrick has traditionally been given a premium multiple compared with other stocks in the same sector, in part because of its solid track record.

Research Capital analyst Barry Allan, for example, said the news was a disappointment, particularly in the wake of several less-than-positive reports from Barrick (both the company's first-quarter and second-quarter results came in well below forecasts). "Historically, ABX has been a company that provided guidance of 'x' and delivered 'x-plus' results," he wrote. "The last three quarters have been 'x-minus' results. Furthermore, 'x-minus' results have been delivered after a 'positive news' event."

Mr. Allan stuck with his "buy" rating and price target of $30, but cut his earnings forecast for 2002 to 33 cents a share from 44 cents. Canaccord Capital also maintained its "buy" rating, but commented in a research note that while "the operational issues appear short-lived, Barrick may have damaged its credibility with investors considering that the negative news comes hot on the back of a major new development plan." The brokerage firm says that this "could lead to further price weakness."

All kinds of companies have been hit by lower-than-expected results over the past year or two, and it's certainly no crime to get blindsided by the fact that customers aren't buying as much of your product (although using that excuse nine or 10 times in a row, as Nortel has, seems to be asking a lot). The issues that Barrick is dealing with are even farther from its control: a strike at one mine, lower-quality ore at another, and so on. Again, these kinds of events are not out of the ordinary.

The problem is that Barrick just got finished trumpeting its planned expansion a little over a week ago. It was a fairly major marketing effort — designed in part, no doubt, to counterbalance the merger of Newmont and Normandy, which is expected to create the world's largest gold miner. In any case, Barrick went to some lengths to promote the fact that it is spending $2-billion (U.S.) over the next five years to double its production from various mines, and thus reclaim its rightful place as industry leader.

Why would the company go to that kind of effort only to turn around a week later and roll back many of those ambitious assumptions? For some investors, it raises the possibility that the company knew the information was coming, but withheld it until the marketing push was over. Others will assume that Barrick simply got hit by a number of unknown negative factors — but neither conclusion is all that appealing. Either the company was trying to manage the release of the news, or it didn't really know what was going on at some of the mines it was busy boasting about a week ago.

One revision, however substantial, isn't enough to turn a leader like Barrick into another chronic disappointment like Nortel. As several analysts have pointed out, the company has almost $1-billion in cash and equivalents on hand, and more than $500-million in working capital. It is also reducing its hedging activities, so that it can benefit from the strong spot price for gold (in the past, the company was one of the most aggressive users of hedging as a way to make up for weak spot prices).

At the same time, however, as Research Capital mentions, this is the third time Barrick has overpromised and under-performed — and that's enough to get the skeptical investor worried about a nasty pattern forming. If the market becomes convinced that the company has lost its forecasting "mojo," so to speak, then Barrick could find itself trading at a lower multiple for the foreseeable future. The kind of premium it used to enjoy is built up over time, but can be wiped out in an instant.

Post  42835  by  pmcw       Reply
PALM is close, but at only a 99.6% drop ($165 to $0.71) it still isn't up to CMGI standards. I would have loved to see PALM win. If they did, we could nick name the prize after their leader, Benhamou. Can you imagine how a company that once had over 80% market share in the operating system for PDA's can't even turn a profit today. Diamonds to coal - no one but Benhamou could have taken those assets and ground them into losses in only two years. Regards, pmcw

Post  42836  by  gjwigginto       Reply
LU: "That's a 98.4% drop"


INKT, 4/3/00 $191.00 high, now $.30.


Post  42837  by  pmcw       Reply
I don't think CDDD has filed for bankruptcy yet. I know of this company only because they used a spam house to hype their stock. You'll find several warnings on the CDDD board from me about this and the total lack of fundamental value of CDDD.

One 2/16/2000 they hit a high of $63.625 (fraction trading - remember) and closed Friday at $0.04. That is a drop of 99.94%! The last I checked there are still posters on that board who feel the technology is so sound that the company will come back. IMO, CDDD was a scam from the first day it traded.

Regards, pmcw

Post  42838  by  Userisme       Reply
Arkural: Yes, I too have noticed the record open interest numbers. I think the reason is that there are now many computerized futures trading programs on the market. Many futures brokers will operate and trade them for a client according to the program's signals. "You don't have to watch a computer screen all day, send us $100k plus and we'll do it for you." Because of the gearing would be traders are seduced by the potential profits and ignore the potential for geared up losses. They forget that when futures markets were introduced they were only meant to be an insurance type hedge against adverse movements, up or down, in a future commitment. Futures have have escalated into trading vehicles in their own right. Most people who enter it do so from stock & options trading. They fail to realize that unlike stocks & options one's liability is virtually unlimited. The daily price limits mean little because the overnight gap can move against one several days in a row. In many commodities after several limit moves in a row in the same direction the daily limit the next day expands. Any other tablers reading this thinking of trading futures take some advice from an old guy. Before you place your first trade spend 2 hours a day for 3 months reading and learning about futures and multiply the capital you think you'll need (and can lose) by at least three.

Post  42839  by  Decomposed       OT: Table ON TOPIC SUMMARY Sep 27, 2002

Post  42840  by  Decomposed       Reply
re: maniati's contest

I haven't read the later posts, but let's see how this one stacks up:

CMGI. Topped out at 138.43 in December, 1999. Closed at 37 cents on Friday.

That's a loss of 99.73%

Post  42841  by  Decomposed       Reply
re: maniati's contest

What can I say? srudek beat me to it with the CMGI post!

HOWEVER, even as I posted CMGI, it occurred to me that it could be argued that CMGI didn't really qualify. According to maniati's rules, the company had to be (1) still in business, and (2) a technology company. (3) The price had to take into account splits, etc.

Yes, CMGI is still in business... but, if you recall, it was a holding company for other highly speculative companies -- MOST of which did, in fact, go bankrupt. So, while CMGI didn't go bankrupt, most of its component companies DID. Does this disqualify it?

Second: CMGI had about as much to do with technology as a BANK with Microsoft and Oracle as its customers. I forget what CMGI was involved in before it starting buying up internet startups... I think it might have been a Marketing firm that got excited at the opportunity represented by the Internet and started selling portals. Did they ever develop anything, or were they simply the first to buy what others came to want?

Third: I have NO idea what the answer to this might be, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if CMGI divested itself of some of its holdings as their prices plummeted. After all, that's what usually happens to congolomerates as their price falls. IF CMGI sold off some of its assets, it's likely that shareholders received stock in some other companies that might still be around. If so, you'd have to add their value to the 37 cents CMGI closed at Friday.

srudek? Did you do that? I certainly didn't.

Post  42842  by  maniati       Reply
So far, the current record-holder is Inktomi (INKT).

Thank you, gjwiggingto, for that entry. However, I think you got the high wrong. It wasn't $191 on 4/3, it was $231.62 on 3/17! That makes the drop to .30 a 99.8705% drop! Note that it would be even worse if we used the intra-day high of $241.50 and intra-day low of .29.)

That edges out all the others suggested thus far.

srudek, pmcw, tin, Iggy (how's it goin', Iggy?), Decomposed: Thanks for some really great contributions. You have really taken me down memory lane with some of those.

For example, here's an excerpt from the Yahoo profile on CMGI: The Company's subsidiaries have been classified in five operating segments: Interactive Marketing, eBusiness and Fulfillment, Search and Portals, Infrastructure and Enabling Technologies and Internet Professional Services. Well, I guess that explains it, doesn't it?

Then there's this from The Motley Foole:

Internet backbone services company Genuity (Nasdaq: GENU) went public today after selling 174 million shares at $11 each after the market closed last night. The IPO price came in below the expected range and the shares promptly sank about 14% to $9 13/32.

While this may be viewed as a belly flop on Wall Street, I wouldn't be so quick to call it a failure. After all, a wildly unprofitable company just raised $1.9 billion.

Yeah, they're right, it was an incredible success! Except for the buyers.

Well, I won't bore you all with my reminiscences. But, at some point, we should all go back into the archives on a weekend scavenger hunt, and see what pearls we can retrieve from circa 1999. I'm sure it would be a real hoot.

BTW, it's easy to think that, say, 99.8 and 99.9 are very close, so we're splitting hairs. Well, not exactly. Granted, they are close in the sense that, either way, someone lost a ton of money, and that's the bigger picture. But don't forget that, if 2 investors make the same initial outlay, the guy who only loses 99.8% still has 100% more than the guy who loses 99.9%. Not so close when you look at it that way, right? In some cases, that extra 100% might even cover round-trip bus fare to Starbucks.

Anyway, the number to beat is 99.8705%. (The intra-day number to beat is 99.8799%.)

Post  42843  by  maniati       Reply
Decomposed: Actually, the issues you raised are well-noted. In particular, I gave serious thought to whether CMGI qualified, on the basis that it was a holding company and venture capital investment vehicle. I didn't address any of that, but only in light of INKT.

Post  42844  by  SummerOne       Reply
INIT % loser eom

Post  42845  by  StockmanI7       OT: Turkish police seize weapons-grade uranium
Post  42846  by  ferociousD       OT: Opposition To War Increases
Post  42847  by  ferociousD       15 kg is not enough-but a start:
Post  42848  by  drm9f       OT: Critical Mass
Post  42849  by  tinljhtkh       OT: Since maniati is taking us down memory lane! <
Post  42850  by  pacemakernj       OT: Stockman, how much more proof do these people
Post  42851  by  Decomposed       ot: Thank you, drm9f. I was going to correct fer

Post  42852  by  uponroof       Reply
pace...impending financial institution doom
and FOMC forecasting from Dr. Allen Sinai


Dear Readers,

Last night, Ron Insana (very astute) on CNBC interviewed
BOTH Jerry Frankel of Harvard (former member Council of
Economic Advisors) and Allen Sinai (President, Chief
Economist, Decision Economics, formerly with DRI).

Both were extremely nervous about the current debt
levels, and Sinai, in particular, worried that a few
major financial institutions might fail in the near

I note, for the record, this negative foreboding is
similar to what Sinai provided on "Wall Street Week"
on the Friday preceding "Black Monday" in 1987.

Draw your own conclusions.


Dr. W. Curtiss Priest, Editor, Sr. Economist

W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
Center for Information, Technology & Society
466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176
Voice: 781-662-4044 BMSLIB@MIT.EDU
Fax: 781-662-6882 WWW:

Sinai's analysis of 9/24 FOMC statement:

Sinai's market reports:

Good Luck


Post  42853  by  uponroof       Reply

Just out October issue of Gold Stocks Analyst has John Doody making KRY one of his top 10 picks. Doody was not always pro KRY, and in fact anti KRY in previous years.

He speculates on why KRY shares are weaker than expected given the very bullish news:

1. Market disbelief

2. Shareholder selling to take advantage of rumored PP

Doody sums it up as follows:
"BUY!!! KRY way, way underalued!"


"I thought I would share with you the name of a very good analyst, John Doody, who puts out a terrific gold research letter ( Anybody who is going to own gold should make the few-hundred-dollar investment for his research as he puts out thebest product. I have a lot of confidence in his research, which is the most thorough.

– Bill Fleckenstein, contrarian money manager and frequent commentator on CNBC

Post  42854  by  lkorrow       Reply
ribit, saw one awhile ago. Think/hope you're right. A lot of mixed press on it. We're mass media driven . . .

Post  42855  by  lkorrow       OT: There's a major disconnect between sadaman --
Post  42856  by  lkorrow       OT: Pace, didn't see your note, I second it!
Post  42857  by  ferociousD       drm9f - only if implosion is used:
Post  42858  by  drm9f       OT: Yup. The fact that the Russians are on the li
Post  42859  by  ferociousD       The concern for me is-

Post  42860  by  pmcw       Reply
maniati, Was I mistaken about CDDD's financial status? I realize they've been dumped to the pink sheets, but I'm pretty sure they've not filed for bankruptcy. When they hit their high in 2000 they were NASDAQ listed (reverse merger) and obviously convinced quite a few people their new FMD technology would revolutionize the media storage business. Heck, I even tracked down a scientist at IBM who had experimented with their stuff just to be sure I wasn't out of line in calling them a scam.

From high to Friday's close, they are down by 99.9371316%.

Regards, pmcw