At 4:38 PM +0300 6/22/03, Danny Van den Berghe wrote: ... >> >And this gold ETF has no storage costs. >> ... >> >> Beware. ... Red-flags galore, IMO. > ... >The people who run the fund (a consortium of gold mines) will cover their >expenses by the commission they have on the trade. >
This may work for individuals, with relatively minor holdings, but think about the currency you proposed. The only commission they ever get is going to be on the way in, usually. Storage is a long-term expense. Not-accounting for it is silly or suspicious. If all they get is a commission (one way, in) and then get continual costs, the success of any currency could work against it, IMO. The mines are silly not to just do the simple thing and use what's already there -- e-gold, but they're welcome to try this scheme. I just want to see the fine print, I guess. ... > >Slow exchange process??? It will trade like shares of IBM, GM, or whatever >you like. Try getting a stock brokerage account, now. OK, create an e-gold account, right now. That's my point. >Can hardly be quicker. >And the costs? Same like an ordinary share order with any broker. >Most online brokers charge something like $10 for an order these days, so >that will be the costs no matter if you buy 100 shares (=10 ounces of gold) >or 100000 shares (10000 ounces). That is far lower than the spread of e-gold >if I am correct. Depends on who you're buying from/selling to and what they need/want at the time. :) Also, ten bucks ain't gonna cover the storage costs of 10000oz for even one year. I don't like or trust money-losing companies/ideas. I repeat, red flags. ... >> I also wonder why they force those with 400 oz (a STANDARD size >> of bar!) to get 10Koz (which means some non-standard segments!) >> for redemptions. > > >I guess they don't want to be busy with redemptions. > At first, especially, you HAVE TO BE. e-gold proved that, IMO, but then (thank Heavens!) got out of the coin business. I don't care if they "don't want to be busy," it's called BUSINESS, and 400oz isn't a trifling quantity, so IMO this new fund should prepare to cough those up one at a time, regularly, if they want to be trusted at all... >... >There is only one company listed on DBourse, so it will be a safe bet that >the NYSE will probably have the next scandal. > I agree. >But if a same number of companies were listed on DBourse , it would be a >very easy bet which exchange will have more scams /scandals. > I could not disagree more. DBourse appears TO ME, in my own, personal opinion which they'd be welcome to correct, to be making A POINT. Maybe a number of points. About e-gold and the good things you can do with it. About gambling, and free will. About the nation of Sealand. About Worldcom/Enron/regulators -- and stock markets gone-corrupt. Right now, ONE company has cleared the hurdles and made it: TGC. Maybe that's the only one that EVER will, but if ten do make it, I'd predict no-scandals still. IMO, YMMV, etc. I certainly wish them luck. The Gold Casino has been a lot of fun over the years for this community, and I like pioneers. JMR --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
