>On 21 Jul 2001, at 4:03, The Snipper wrote:
>
> > Looks to me like Pecunix is going to be the only 'private' gold
> > supplier available.
>
>Can you be more specific about what is not "private" in the other
>GBCs ?
>I think that you are seriously biased!
>It doesn't really matter if some shareholders of the GBC's issuers
>are in the USA or anywhere in the world. What counts is the
>corporate identity of the issuer, its corporate governance, its
>partners, and its product.
>
What you say about the corporate identity of the issuer, its corporate
governance, its partners, and its product is valid but I also like to know
who I am dealing with, not just a faceless company name.
As for the 'private' part, I was refering to private in the sense, free
from US government intrusion. Don't take what I say out of context. My
sentence was included as part of:
"Pecunix Incorporated does not have that disadvantage. The company is
registered in Panama and NONE of the major players are in the US. In fact
they are in New Zealand if you read the prospectus. And NZ does not have a
history of kotowing to the US government. This will only increase the
security aspect from the user point of view when it comes to US governmental
agencies.
Looks to me like Pecunix is going to be the only 'private' gold supplier
available."
In that regard, yes. I am seriously biased.
Yours,
Sniper
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
