At 10:36 PM -0700 08/21/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Craig Spencer wrote:
Jim was right. You should try opening a commodities account yourself
and learn something about the futures markets!
Boy, you are a sadistic SOB. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
(MAJOR Just Kidding!!!
The weird thing (to me) is, there are now FAR
more ways to get lots more kinds of physical gold for your e-gold
than there ever were in the days of the coins, and to me the
only other difference is semantic, between get and redeem I
end up with a piece of yellow metal in my hand if I
Craig Spencer wrote:
Most derivatives are like that. Consider a futures contract, say
for pork bellies. Very very few people who trade in pork belly
futures have the capacity to execise the rights that give their
contract value and take delivery of a few tons of pork bellies. Many
don't
James M. Ray wrote:
Gosh, I'd say just about any comodity plays like that.
We're talking about derivatives in general.
Presumably,
it's planned that 99% or so of the people who trade in pork bellies
never will redeem a contract for them, but as long as about 1%
of the players CAN,
Jim,
Viking Coder wrote:
The important thing to keep in mind is that the *only* reason you
can get *any* coins is because it is possible to redeem (even if
this right is almost never exercised). This is *not* a mere semantic
distinction.
The point being made is that it doesn't matter if
Boy, do you have the wrong impression of how futures work!!!
(From a professional futures trader),
Hans.
Bob wrote:
I would say the opposite. Most pork belly futures contract owners do
have the financial capability to take delivery. Say a single contract
is worth USD 100,000. And the
Bob wrote:
it's planned that 99% or so of the people who trade in pork bellies
never will redeem a contract for them, but as long as about 1%
of the players CAN,
Jim, it doesn't work like that. The brokers aim for 100% of players
that *CAN* take delivery of the underlying security.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob wrote:
Uh, definitely WRONG. You can open an account with some brokers for
only a couple G's. Presently Belly margin is around $2.5K, and that
is ALL you need. No need to show/prove the ability to assume the
whole contract.
I noticed you said some. I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Boy, do you have the wrong impression of how futures work!!!
(From a professional futures trader),
Hans.
Bob wrote:
quote buster
I would say the opposite. Most pork belly futures contract owners do
have the financial capability to take delivery. Say a
Bob,
Hans is right. Your conception of how the futures markets work is
entirely wrong.
Many don't even have the financial capacity to do so;
I would say the opposite. Most pork belly futures contract owners do
have the financial capability to take delivery.
I said many not most.
Bob wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob wrote:
Lyris buster
Uh, definitely WRONG. You can open an account with some brokers for
only a couple G's. Presently Belly margin is around $2.5K, and that
is ALL you need. No need to show/prove the ability to assume the
whole contract.
Bob:
I would say the opposite. Most pork belly futures contract owners do
have the financial capability to take delivery. Say a single contract
is worth USD 100,000. And the owner put down 5% to buy it. Where did
the other USD 95,000 come from? The broker loaned it to the owner.
Craig Spencer wrote:
Jim was right. You should try opening a commodities account yourself
and learn something about the futures markets!
Boy, you are a sadistic SOB. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
(MAJOR Just Kidding!!! Really!)
For most futures contracts there never was any
At 11:07 AM +1000 08/20/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...(much discussion deleted)
I'm fascinated by the debate in general, and I am only uncomfortable
with the idea of a human (especially me) instead of a machine in:
where you fone up Jim for a spend,
...(ULP!)
Some people have that job,
Also, from http://www.e-gold.com/unsecure/terms.htm it seems that
the word bailment works better than deposit, which has banking
connotations IMO. (IANAL, though.) Also, just because it usually does
not make sense to redeem something doesn't mean it's never going
to be redeemed. Stuff
Craig Spencer wrote:
snip
No. I only included the under certain circumstances qualifier so
that people would not introduce an irrelevancy by objecting that they
couldn't redeem a 1oz coin. But then Bob did it anyway!
that makes it not-storage/ownership/non-backyness?
They are storing
At 08:33 PM -0400 08/20/2001, Bob wrote:
...
Now there may be some under certain circumstances derivatives
other than these so called GBCs, but I don't know of any. Do you?
Gosh, I'd say just about any comodity plays like that. Presumably,
it's planned that 99% or so of the people who trade in
Maybe I'm not getting this, but I think the answers are all in the
user agreements. The weird thing (to me) is, there are now FAR
more ways to get lots more kinds of physical gold for your e-gold
than there ever were in the days of the coins, and to me the
only other difference is semantic,
Maybe I'm not getting this, but I think the answers are all in the
user agreements.
Jim, I think that's absolutely correct. Do you 'own' gold when you have
e-gold in your account, or is the gold a contractual obligation? The Terms
of Use should tell us, because that's the agreement under which
The weird thing (to me) is, there are now FAR
more ways to get lots more kinds of physical gold for your e-gold
than there ever were in the days of the coins, and to me the
only other difference is semantic, between get and redeem I
end up with a piece of yellow metal in my hand if I want
bravo -- perhaps at last a straight answer on this from egold? one day!
JP, I would argue that that answer has already been provided:
3.3.4. Right of Redemption - Except as provided in Section 4.6.1, will
Issuer will not attempt to suspend or revoke User's conditional right of
Redemption.
Craig,
{Firstly,
Namely, that altho they are right about ownership transfer and the
depository nature of the system the key issue is NOT the fugibility
or (non-allocated nature) of the gold storage.
Yes, Ken Snowy are wrong that that issue is relevant, IMHO.
However, IMHO, you're wrong
JP,
However, IMHO, you're wrong that the fact that it is a derivative is
the clincher.
Both are transferable *derivatives* of gold. That is, they are
contractual obligations whose value derives from that of gold. The
principal contractual commitment is the obligation to redeem e-gold
23 matches
Mail list logo
