You need to register separately on the Chart Forum
- see Chart Forum Help
Edit Profile Profile Help Help
Forum Rules Forum Rules Advanced Help/Instructions Advanced Help
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Latest Posts Latest Posts
Search Search Forum Tree View Tree View
   
Trade Trends with Bollonger Bands and Twiggs Money Flow

Archive through June 16, 2010

Chart Forum » Hilarius' Hall Of Fame » Our Daily Bread » Archive through June 16, 2010

««  «  Previous  Next  »  »»


Author Message

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
jaded
Member
Username: jaded

Post Number: 210
Registered: 03-2010

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, June 11, 2010 - 11:06 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



eblode,
buying any materials stocks that you think are 'depressed' because of the RSPT?
I'm thinking that over this long weekend,our Kev could 'modify' thus making even Tuesday's open too late.

I chose GRR this morning and am thinking of Cockatoo but the latter still hasn't proven up any decent reserves of the high grade coal,only thermal.

The new negotiations on Iron Ore seem to be at a further increase and Grange[GRR] is Producing top grade Iron Ore at the moment so it's worth a Go.

No good waiting for the Actual backflip on the RSPT,one has to anticipate it and I don't think the Momentum Jump will be significant in BHP.

Happy Trading.


" Hear what you Say...
But see what you Do!"

Sir Zelman Cowen c 1970.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3518
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, June 11, 2010 - 11:07 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



ETF GOLD

Just an update on the ETF GOLD stock that I have spoken about so often in the past. One of the problems with this stock is the combination of the POG and AUDUSD can make it extremely volatile and spiky.

I have long held the view that for the longer term the POG would probably eventually get to around the $1320~$1350 level. I suggest that the AUDUSD could probably get to somewhere in the region of US$0.78 in the short term.

I anticipate that the market will continue to be extremely volatile in the next few months but ETF GOLD may be getting close to a short term play. A bounce from somewhere near the $140 level would not surprise me at all however I think the this stock will become even more spiky in the short term and it will require some agility to get the maximum returns out of it during this time.








The one caveat that I would put on the above comments is that if the XJO is able to clear 4550 and stay above that level then all bets are off.







I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1395
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, June 11, 2010 - 11:52 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Jaded,
Always nice to hear from you and your present views. I'm punting on AGO, CEY, and BHP to have a nice bounce once the imminent retreat of the mining tax is either removed or substantially reduced. I will immediately sell out afterwards as I have no confidence in iron ore's future. China is definitely cutting back on its housing projects and this will effect the steel and iron ore sector. I'm going back to the fundamental businesses of IRE, GPT, RHC and IIN. The mineral era is cooling down in my opinion.

Eugenio


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
jaded
Member
Username: jaded

Post Number: 211
Registered: 03-2010

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, June 11, 2010 - 07:29 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



well,eblode you are quite old so it is not surprising that you've gone all 'defensive' in your point of view.

You'll probably outlive me,eugenio.I sure hope so!!

I just want to make a point amongst d'Intellectuals who follow Daily Bread.

It's to do with Government Infrastructure Spending.

Yes,instead of Pink Batts and Open Space Assembly Rooms for schools it would have been much better to spend the Billion$$ on Real Infrastructure.

Problem is that Governments can no longer Do Infrastructure "In House" like say the Snowy Rivers.

No,the Government has to Tender it Out and only Companies like,say,Leightons,fit all the Governance Requirements to take up such Tenders.

The Government,State or Federal cannot be seen to be spending tax payer Money virtually exclusively with Leightons.Do you follow what problems that would bring?

IMHO if the Government[State or Federal] can't organise Directly the build of Significant Infrastructure?
It just leaves itself wide open to Private Enterprise "Corruption" ie dodgy tender acceptance systems.

Now,I'm the first one to be AMAZED by the use of Billion$$$[over 5/10 years] used in Budget Speeches and Re Election Promos.Headline Rubbish.

but when talking Infrastructure Improvement?it's Amount dedicated over Time that is the ONLY Equation.
The Alternative?Billions in a Year or so?
well...gives a 'problem'.

Anyhow,it's Friday Night. Forgive me if I'm barely Compis Mentis in the above 'rabbit/rave' but...well...I am jaded and getting really tired of armchair,self interest motivated
'readings'

like do you realise your ETF Golds MAY have no actual In Specie Backing?like those home mortgage "Thingos" that started this problem?

best leave it at that.I'd rather be GOing with Iron Ore [Infrastructure] than some Heart HINny!!

regards


" Hear what you Say...
But see what you Do!"

Sir Zelman Cowen c 1970.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1396
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, June 11, 2010 - 10:48 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Jaded,

About that remark about being "quite old". Just remember that not only am I old but also very valuable. I've got Silver in my hair, Gold in my teeth, Lead in my feet, and plenty of Gas. So take it easy Old Buddy.

Eugenio


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2418
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 06:10 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Eugenio
Perhaps you can "float" as a hearty, diversified resource stock?
More seriously,I have been following the proposed resource tax issue and regard the mining lobby as excessively stupid, despite the fact they are winning the "minds" of the public.
Far from being a disincentive, the proposed tax now sets new standards in project "robustness". That is, mining companies are unlikely to proceed with marginal projects as the returns on investment simply won't be there anymore.
From an analysts point of view, the job of determining a successful outcome will get much easier.
From in investor's perspective it's a little early to worry about the proposed tax as it won't have an impact for several years. And by then we will all have enough information at our fingertips to determine if companies that are profitable now will continue to be so after the tax is bedded-in.
At a personal level, during the recent downturn I added CBA and STO (both on 20 May) and WSA (21 May). I had a few other conditional orders come within a whisker of being filled, but am in no rush as this market seems able to turn on a sixpence.
Like Rudy, I think more downside is on the cards, and I have some price targets in mind, such as SGM at $15. Am still 30% cash, so if the bargains present themselves I will be waiting.....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1397
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 09:24 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob,
Always a pleasure to hear from you on the forum and catch up with your views.
Personally I feel that investors will be discouraged to invest in the mining sector and this in turn will slow up drastically progress of new projects in Australia. For this reason I'm searching for new stocks in other industries. Looking forward to meeting up with you in July.

Eugenio


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5123
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 12:15 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob, - Very good to hear from you, but we disagree on the mining issue: however, I feel that Eugenio has already made the central point well enough for me not to need to add much to it! Indeed, you have probably seen my previous posts on the matter, and I personally feel that all the evidence, and all the voices now turning against Rudd, very much confirm the objections I raised from day one and after ... The point is not that there is no room for improvement in the area of taxation, but that THIS tax, with its present structure and lack of proper examination of what it would produce, is already a clear source of harm in that a great deal of money has left the country already, our industry simply cannot be competitive against e.g. Canada's, etc.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2419
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 09:36 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Ody
The same was said when the Australian Petroleum Resource Rent Tax was introduced, and our oil producers are doing pretty well.
As for money going overseas - to Canada and elsewhere - I say so what.
If that leaves us with only the most profitable companies continuing to mine, then I will stay with their strength rather than "risk" my money on a marginal play.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5124
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 10:49 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob: RSPT

Of course, whenever matters are made harder for a business it is likely to complain. That is not to say that all such complaints are unreasonable. The Australian Petroleum Resource Rent Tax was carefully worked out, and only introduced after genuine consultation with the industry. Neither factor applies in this case. It has by now been repeatedly shown, and by several very well qualified people who have no vested interest in the mining industry, that this tax is not at all similar in its operation, and that moreover you cannot make simple across-the-board comparisons like the one you mention. Indeed, there has been a great deal of work done to show that quite different taxes should be applied to quite different commodities, as appropriate for the commodity in question. So the point you make is really too simplistic altogether.

Moreover, even if you do impose a tax which does damage, that indeed does not, of course, mean that companies will all of them totally collapse. It is odd, however, to justify the introduction of a tax on the basis that it will leave us inevitably with a better situation as though somehow a high tax on a company guarantees that it will be a great performer with it, and a poor one without it. I reject this to my mind bizarre logic entirely. And so do not only the mining companies which decide to seize opportunities elsewhere, but also investors, from overseas and here, who take money out of Australia.

I am amazed that this seems to leave you cold and that you genuinely seem to believe that it is in fact a GOOD thing if investment here is reduced. If you were in a position to make a choice between a country (Canada) where you pay 23% tax and one (here) where you pay 57% (to mention characteristic figures), would you think that it is GOOD for your business to pay the higher tax? Or that your shareholders, if they see you as competent, think that you will do LESS well in the country where you pay less tax? It seems to me that such assumptions defy logic.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3519
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 11:06 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi Ody,

I don't really have much time for any of the major (or minor) political parties at this time. Both parties come across as unorganised rabble and it's difficult to feel confident that either of them could do a professional job of running our economy. The coming election is going to be one where we will be forced to vote for a party that will do the least amount of damage to our economy.

I will never be able to understand the logic where increasing tax on cigarettes will be an incentive to reduce smoking and yet increasing tax on profitable sectors (that have to compete overseas bot in terms of investment and company performance) will be an incentive for increasing the ability of those sectors to perform well in the future. Sounds Irish to me.


I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2420
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 11:43 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rudy
Your cigarette analogy is logically flawed and is an insult to the intelligent reader.
Smoking is not good for people and places a tax burden on me and you (through the health system) irrespective of whether we smoke or not.
The mining tax places no tax on you or me, yet provides a capacity to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, and provide a pool of funds that will actually assist mining companies get their projects off the ground.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5125
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 12:24 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob: mining tax as a supposed good

1. By far the greatest percentage of Australia's wealth arising from exports is generated by the MAJOR mining and energy companies. These derive in principle no significant benefit from the tax, as neither does the average Australian.

2. Not only are the minor companies of far less importance to the economy, but the 40% "insurance" which the RSPT would offer as compensation for failures comes directly from the taxpayer, who is thus exposed to what will often prove very serious risks.

3. In any case, neither the major nor the minor companies are at all happy with the tax. If it were so good for them, they would not be unified in rejecting it. The mining industry has made it very plain that it is not, in fact, interested in this attempt at "off-setting" the new 40% tax on so-called "super profits", i.e. that part of the earnings where the miserly exemption of about 6% does not apply.

4. Finally, by now all these arguments are actually largely academic. It is quite clear that Labor is in very deep trouble and will probably lose the election. That means that the tax will, in that case, not get up. I agree with Rudy that the coalition is not an attractive proposition either, but at least it is unlikely to prove QUITE so incompetent as Labor, and particularly when it comes to handling the economy. Alternatively, if Rudd is to stay in office, it has been made quite clear to him by influential Labor figures that he has to come to a real deal with the miners within a fortnight or else he is OUT.

Succinctly put, Rudd will have no option but to surrender, by striking a deal that is acceptable to the miners. Even then Labor may well lose, but it almost certainly will do so if the tax is in place. This is now clearly indicated by all the polls held. So, one way or another it is looking increasingly likely that this tax will never see the light of day, as Eugenio argued from the beginning. I am more cautious than he, but I must concede that by now I can find no longer any evidence that Labor can win the elections under any leader who supports this crazy tax, and much evidence to the contrary.

Incidentally, the hazy idea (not yours, Rederob) that Gillard would see Labor through disregards (a) her unwillingness to take on the job, and (b) the fact that the new candidate would still need to come to an agreement with the miners if s/he is to be electable.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
bridog
Member
Username: bridog

Post Number: 132
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 04:24 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Eugenio,

In the heady years of 2004-06 when resource commodity prices were rising and LME stocks disappearing, I did very well indeed. Then went down in the lift when it all turned to crap.

I don't see any euphoria now in base metals resource stocks and now retain only minimal interest in Mincor and Perilya mainly to make sure they don't completely drop off my radar.

With the exception of a few minnows like Bandanna I have turned my attention to Gold including Andean thanks to you, Woodside for oil and gas and New Hope for thermal coal. I sold out of BHP having held and traded them for years, I gotta thank them for buybacks which saved me a shipload of CGT.

At some future point I expect to get back in to BHP and also RIO, but not sure the time is right atm. They have the most to lose from the RSPT as far as I can see. I know nothing happens for 2 years, if at all, but the market will price in the RSPT long before that. As I argued in an earlier post I believe that on the basis of the shares continuing price at a P/E of 15, the share price will always be 25% lower than otherwise post the RSPT.

While I keep an eye on Jaded's iron ore minnows (thanks J)the charts are not encouraging at present.

Recently I have gone all conventional and bought ANZ, COU, SEK, TCL and WOW.

My tips for minnows are BND and KGL both grossly undervalued but bear in mind sovereign risk for KGL.

Cheers


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1398
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 05:06 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Bridog,
I believe you are doing the right thing by staying out of resources until this tax business is settled, which I believe will not be too long. In the meanwhile I too have been picking up some interesting shares that have all the potential to go north without much trouble. MMS. RHC, IRE, and IIN for solid results. For long term punts I'm into GPT, DCG, and HIN. For the cheapest and safest punt of all with super dividends I feel you can't beat DWS. Meanwhile lets get that leak fixed in the Gulf of Mexico, see Europe solve it's Euro, the USA fully recover, and China going "bananas" with a 12% "problem". That's all I ask.

Eugenio


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3520
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 05:53 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob,

I find your posts extremely insulting. The last time we had a difference of opinion was when you suggested that CBA was going to keep rallying and I suggested that it had reached a peak and would decline from that level. You once again posted several insulting posts in which you questioned my technical abilities and praised your own in-depth analysis of the company. I eventually said I would let the market be the judge as to who's thinking processes were correct or not.

History shows that you were wrong and I was spot on. I would suggest that you play the ball and not the person. If you think that slugging the mining industry is good for the country then you have a right to your opinion. I happen to disagree with you. You would probably have a different opinion if you had run a business yourself as some of us have.

Your argument that because you are not having your own taxes raised and that the money could be used to improve other parts of the economy clearly indicates that you have only half thought through this whole tax scenario. You have looked at the benefits and completely discarded the down sides.


I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
jaded
Member
Username: jaded

Post Number: 212
Registered: 03-2010

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 06:41 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Ahhhh,I could weigh in but I have no Credibility.

Mining/Material Shares are "Special".
a]Various Materials like Nickel have 'processing' problems.
b] Some Materials like Coal and Iron Ore are exported Straight from the ground [in Oz] to the End User.
c]Others like Nickel and Copper say have to go thru "
Processing".

Frankly,I think Rudy/Ody my opinion is you both have No Idea whatsoever about the Material Sector beyond BHP/RIO.

rederob does!
at least,more than humble I.

Canada is Garbage.Like it runs it's Materials Market as Secondary.The "ASX' of Canada is re Materials..??.. not very "Pure".
ie even shonkier than Us,de'Aussies.[Aust. doesn't have the "System" that is Running in Canada]

Look Canada is NO Threat.Companies who would rather go find Significant Deposits there,rather than here?
Go right ahead.What is found in d'Tundra?
So bleeding What!!!

Pleasse,Ody/Rudy let rederob,who KNOWS about Materials shares Get his Angle across.
Without this 'Babble' of you[Ody/Rudy]of latest interpretation.IE rederob re Commonwealth Bank whenever is IRRELEVANT!!!

I wish to Encourage Rederob on MATERIALS to post.
I care NOTHING for whole of market 'predictions' by Wave or blkeeding WHATEVER!!!

BACK OFF!! is what I'm saying.

give rederob[ready2rob/r2r] a GO!!


" Hear what you Say...
But see what you Do!"

Sir Zelman Cowen c 1970.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5126
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 11:38 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



jaded: Let me make it perfectly clear, please, that I for one have great respect for rederob's comments on mining companies, as indeed I have for your own, likewise. I think I am amply on the record in having expressed that respect for both of you, and indeed my gratitude for what I have learned from both of you. This does not bind me - even in the area of resources proper, so to speak - to accept or agree with everything you or rederob say about such matters, however great my respect: I weigh everything critically, no matter who it comes from.

However, if it comes to the specific matter of the resources TAX, I frankly do not feel at all disqualified to comment, and I note with pleasure that the very points which I made on this issue, here on ODB, virtually immediately after the policy was announced, have in practice been again and again supported by people who are generally held to be qualified to judge such matters from their particular expert point of view. This includes both sundry people within the mining sector and a whole array of commentators outside it. I fear that I have not heard anything either from you or rederob that looks like being some sort of telling point I did not know of, or which makes me look at the matter afresh. But unlike you, jaded, I shall not at this point stoop to making unsubstantiated and unwarranted generalisations about the real or supposed competence of people whom I generally respect but happen to disagree with on this particular issue.

I would add here, jaded, that - as a good friend of both you and rederob - I do not believe that anyone on this thread is trying to prevent rederob or yourself from posting on materials, or indeed anything else. We should probably all make a genuine effort at this point not to take things over-seriously that we shouldn't, and to understand each other as best we can.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5127
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 11:51 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



As it happens, the following article on aspects of the RSPT is one that I personally find instructive, as it shows for one thing how complicated the issues become in practice. Sure, this speaker is part of the mining industry - but that does not mean that we should not listen.
-----------------------------------------------------

Casello says RSPT has design flaws

By a staff reporter [at Business Spectator]

A giant of Australia's mining industry, Giulio Casello says that the federal government's proposed 40 per cent resources super profits tax (RSPT) is complicated and flawed in its design, and will result in issues for mining companies focussed on raising capital for projects over the next few years.

Mr Casello, who is the chief operating officer of Chinese-owned Sinosteel MidWest and chairman of the Geraldton Iron ore Alliance told ABC television's Inside Business that the RSPT is problematic, as its project-by project approach to taxing miners does not take into account the inter-connectedness of projects and infrastructure.

In the key resources state of Western Australia, Mr Casello noted that mid-west iron ore producers will have to negotiate an uncertain future in terms of funding.

"Even though we've had consultation with the panel, to have clarity on what it actually does to your cash flow isn't all that easy."

"The system is complicated. It'll depend on whether it's value-add or before value-add, whether it's at mine head or whether it's at the port, but you'd expect that it's going to have an NPV (net present value) impact of somewhere between that 12-20 per cent of NPV value on average across the projects," Mr Casello told the ABC.

He noted that the proposed rent tax means much greater risk for projects, and there's no way of telling whether the levy may end some projects or not at this point.

When asked about China's concerns, Mr Casello said that key, large investors remained committed to Australia.

"They understand the potential of the region."

However, he said that while supportive, China was concerned and would be monitoring what impact it has on cashflows.

Mr Casello said that meetings with the government's consultation panel had been productive and said resource representatives got a better understanding of the tax, while the government were told about issues specific to the Western Australian region.

"But this is where the nub of the problem is. They were very consulting in the areas that they could be. Their scope of work is very limited. They couldn't talk about the 40 per cent, they could talk about how the tax would be applied to individual projects."

He said there were some problems the government simply could not yet address satisfactorily for the five companies operating in the middle of Western Australia.

Mr Casello said that financiers had obvious misgivings about the debate and unknowns surrounding the RSPT.

"Financiers hate uncertainty. I suppose as miners we live with risk and we have done for many many years and that's a big part of what we do in our business."

"They want to understand the tax better, they want to understand the impact on the cash flows better. Because don't forget we're talking about five companies, each in different phases of looking for financing," Mr Casello said.

He said that some project funding arrangements which were more advanced were progressing quite well, but warned that some others may find it much more difficult in the short-term.

Mr Casello said that the RSPT issue needed to be resolved quickly for the sake of the resources industry, but said that he was aware negotiations would probably stretch on well into next year.

"Delays of six months are very, very bad for the area. We need to resolve this quickly. I think the region needs to be looked at on what value it creates, because there's very little value in getting tax out of something that doesn't go ahead."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
6batt
Member
Username: 6batt

Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2008

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, June 11, 2010 - 08:43 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Well, I seem to share your mood tonight Jaded.
My thinking suggests that if ETF Gold has 'no actual In Specie Backing' then by that stage were all at guns, gold and tinned food anyway, so goodbye to my paper gold !!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2421
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 11:02 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rudy
How about you read what I post and understand the words, rather than sinking into some personal decline.
If you present an analogy and want to defend it, then please do. I thought it was pretty dumb, but am open to your substantiation.
As for CBA, without me going to those posts it was my thinking that CBA would present itself as a reasonably good investment with the longer term in mind. I did not own it at the time, and believe I said I hoped to pick it up a fair bit cheaper, which I did some weeks ago.
I have seldom offered a short term view of the markets, as I do not follow the markets in detail and frankly care very little about what happens to CBA, BHP or any other stock in the next few weeks or months. A caveat is that I care when I am proposing to buy or sell.
Back to the proposed new mining tax.
The losers will be some exceptionally wealthy people who do not want to pay more tax.
To suggest that Australian mining projects that are likely to be quite profitable will not go ahead because of the tax is wrong, pure and simple.
The petroleum tax has shown us that marginal projects will remain in abeyance until pricing structures make them viable. Yes, the two taxes are different in structure but essentially have the same effect. That is, to prove the project you need to show its robustness.
Too often our mining industry goes cap in hand to the markets for funds to turn themselves from explorers to producers, or little producers to big producers. And too often we rely on the success stories rather than the "numbers".
As an investor I will be more confident in a post-RRST world than today's, in terms of putting money into mining companies.
As an investor in the resources sector I will apply the same principles as previously, in looking for no/low debt, low cost, unhedged producers.
Anyone who followed the Oyu Tolgoi project will know that large, long life, low cost ore bodies will be developed despite onerous Government stipulations. Our proposed tax is not onerous although it might frighten away or defer some weaker projects: So what!
Rather invest with confidence than hope.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3521
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 11:48 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob,

Like Ody, I have always respected both your views and those of jaded and to a large degree in fact supported jaded during many of his previous issues with other posters. I do understand his wish to hear your views which is why he came up with that extremely negative post recently about Ody and myself.

What I objected to in your post was the following comment:


"Your cigarette analogy is logically flawed and is an insult to the intelligent reader.


and you most recent one:

I thought it was pretty dumb.

Those sort of comments do nothing to advance your arguments. I am interested in your objective views, not your insults. It is you and not me that tends to make things personal in your posts as the above comments clearly demonstrate.

The logic, if you missed it was that if you wish to reduce a particular activity then what you do is increase the cost of that activity. I take your point about the actions of some parts of the industry who go cap in hand to the market to raise capital on marginal projects. There is no question that his happens but to generalise that all segments of the materials sector is totally incorrect. The reality is that any one in business will determine whether an investment is worth making by looking at the input costs and the potential profits to be made....pure and simple.

I have no objection to the concept of providing a share of the profits created by wealth creators of this country with those less fortunate provided that that share does not cause the wealth creators to decide that better profits could be made by carrying out their business in other countries.

Playing on the divides between the so called nasty rich people and the unfortunate poor has been a tool used by socialists since time immemorial. As the many failures of communistic regimes have demonstrated in the past the thoughts of making all people equal by taking from the rich to give to the poor whilst very noble, they fail miserably in the end.

The reality of life is that there are those who are wealth creators and others that can only wastefully spend the wealth created by others and the great bulk of people in between who make up the work force. It is the role of government to carry out the fine balance of wealth distribution such that there is still an incentive for the wealth creators to keep creating wealth in this country. It is that approach that will bring the greatest benefits to the entire country.

This government with its wasteful spending and poor project management practices that is causing the need to reduce debt and raise money. They are proving themselves to be spenders rather than wealth creators and I find the use of class warfare arguments to swing the poor to their point of view to be pathetic in the extreme.


I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
colin_twiggs
Moderator
Username: colin_twiggs

Post Number: 629
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 12:06 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob,

I agree with Rudy: cut out the insults.

Also, your statement "The losers will be some exceptionally wealthy people who do not want to pay more tax" ignores millions of Australians whose super funds invest in mining stocks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
cat_lady
Member
Username: cat_lady

Post Number: 702
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: 
Votes: 3


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 02:28 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



hi all

rederob,

you said:
.........
The same was said when the Australian Petroleum Resource Rent Tax was introduced, and our oil producers are doing pretty well.
As for money going overseas - to Canada and elsewhere - I say so what.
If that leaves us with only the most profitable companies continuing to mine, then I will stay with their strength rather than "risk" my money on a marginal play.
.........


PRRT became labour Policy in 1982 and implemented by legislation in 1987. No greenfield gas projects were committed during the first decade after PRRT was implemented. The most significant gas projects to be committed to didn’t occur till 2001. (that’s a long time between drinks). Major expansions go aheads didn’t happen till 1995. So far as oil is concerned there’s only been one large oil project (1999) to get the go ahead, although there have been a number of smaller oil projects.

So to claim that our oil producers are doing pretty well doesn’t seem to be backed up by these figures at least. Yet from what I’ve read, the PRRT, is a more generous system than the proposed RSPT. The assessable profit calculations for the RSPT are different and way more complex. PRRT has several uplift rates which taken into account the class of expenditure. Capital expenditure is immediately deductable. The whole 40% “backing” of the government is a dog’s breakfast and not worth the paper it’s written on. Of course, the major difference is its treatment of existing projects. Notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of this tax the implications are profound and unsettling. so I feel it is a long bow you draw to say, hey, the PRRT didn't effect the oil gas sector (questionable), so neither will the RSPT because it's pretty much the same (false).

The information provided by the government outlines the benefits on new projects and how it will benefit marginal projects. However, I’m not sure where the benefit to “all working Australians” is in that, because marginal projects wont be paying much tax under the RSPT.

Your comment that you will stick with the low risk strong companies rather than “risk” your money on marginal plays is understandable when you take into account your risk profile. However, to say that you don’t care if capital flows to Canada rather than Australia has me bamboozled. I’d be interested in an extrapolation of this argument as to how reduced capital flows will benefit Australia as it was my understanding that our historic shortfall in domestic saving has been dependant on foreigners supplying Australia with the necessary capital. This has allowed Australia to enjoy higher levels of consumption and investment than would have been possible if we had relied only on domestic savings

cheers
cat lady


Without my morning coffee I might as well be a dog

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5128
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 02:43 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



cat lady

A champion's post: factual, with plenty of evidence, and setting forth a superbly reasoned argument. Also, admirably playing the ball, not the man. Many thanks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2422
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 04:40 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Colin
At no time have I insulted Rudy.
If he can't substantiate his analogy then why present it?
As for the millions who are invested in super funds, the impact is transient. That is, if you, I or or a super fund is invested in mining companies we now have an opportunity to rotate into other sectors.

Catlady
You said, "So to claim that our oil producers are doing pretty well doesn’t seem to be backed up by these figures at least."
My remarks were aimed specifically at the profitability of oilers. WPL remains my longest held equity and has paid for itself through dividends. I have bought and sold STO several times and recollect my initial purchase was near $4 about 10 years ago. STO is now trading three times higher.
Any suggestion that the PRRT has severely affected greenfield or brownfield projects in Australia needs to be contexted with both the small number of major discoveries in Australia AND the viability of those projects in a global price setting.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2423
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 04:59 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rudy
The proposed tax does not seek to "reduce" activity in the mining industry. It seeks to redistribute some of massive profit.
In fact, it seeks to enhance the capacity of companies to get good projects off the ground.
The fact that the construct of the tax is complex, and possibly needs tweeking, makes it difficult to sell to all and sundry.
And on a personal note, I am a company director in a business of 10 year's standing. Perhaps you would like to retract your earlier statement that "You would probably have a different opinion if you had run a business yourself as some of us have."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
colin_twiggs
Moderator
Username: colin_twiggs

Post Number: 630
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 05:46 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob,

The imposition of a new tax on any company is far from transient. It will affect future after-tax earnings and diminish the current market value of the stock (and your/my super fund).

I am not against royalty taxes on non-renewable resources, but this current effort is ill-conceived and the manner of its introduction is likely to de-stabilize future investment plans in the sector.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2424
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 06:22 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Colin
Your point related to people with money invested in the market. If people think the tax will be detrimental to their exposure, then they can put their money elsewhere. There is plenty of time as the tax isn't within cooee.
The long term effects of the tax will remain to be seen. Although Labor's chance of introducing it anyway appear thin.
I think there is a lot of posturing on the part of the mining sector as projects fall by the wayside every week without the hint of a tax: It's just what happens.
Australia has world class deposits of many minerals, and an extremely efficient mining industry. I doubt if our world class deposits will get overlooked in the longer term, if at all.
On the other hand, seeing that financiers will want to ensure their money is not at risk, they will be investing their money in robust projects rather than marginal ones.
The mining sector knew full well that Henry had it in its sights. And they say they are willing to pay more. So where is their counter proposal to government?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5129
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 07:30 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob:

If the government had consulted properly with the miners, and an acceptable way forward had been found, there would be no need, as there is at present, for investors to move their money out of the country or into other stocks than resources companies.

I must say I find the whole idea that people should smoothly and without regret put their money somewhere else - by your own admission possibly for years - absurd, given that we are talking about one of the most profitable and biggest sectors in the country. And of course investment in companies like BHP and RIO is so massive, and the job of transferring all that money in good time would have been so ridiculously impractical, that one can hardly blame people who did not do so at once. Indeed, the government and the left (ALP and others) at the time made plenty of reassuring noises to the effect that there was nothing to fear.

But there most certainly was: both commodities stocks and our dollar fell massively after the announcement. Our dollar is still at a much lower level, as as a result, than the Canadian currency, which was not nearly hit as hard during the same period. To you all these things may not matter, but to many other people they do. And do you think that THEY should all have foreseen that the government would introduce anything like THIS scheme??

The miners are under no obligation whatever to come up with a counter proposal. If there was to be a change, the government was the party to introduce that, and to make a case for its scheme. It has miserably failed to do that, and it is now experiencing the political consequences of its incompetence. If I were myself in favour of a significant change, as you appear to be, I would be enraged with the "gang of four" for making a mess of what might have been a good idea if it had been properly approached. Indeed, it is possible that a structural change of some sort or other could have been a good thing. But there is now a considerable likelihood that the tax will not even get up in ANY form, so that even the chance of a sensible compromise may be lost - most likely for years.

Which, in that case, raises the very serious question: from which other source is Rudd going to get the money that he needs, having squandered and still squandering billions of taxpayers' money?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
cat_lady
Member
Username: cat_lady

Post Number: 703
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 07:43 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



hi rederob


to be sure, your investment in WPL has done very well but it's just as well the northwest shelf was excluded from the PRRT!

cheers
cat lady


Without my morning coffee I might as well be a dog

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1399
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 08:33 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Gentlemen & Cat Lady,

Let's relax for a moment. Keep cool. This mining tax will never ever become law in it's present form. It's virtually impossible. It won't happen. Impossible. Next week I expect the government to compromise....or go down in flames. Not only the monied people but when my sister-in-law phones me in a rage that her Super has gone down in value then I KNOW this tax will be either removed off the table or severely compromised. So get back to business laddies and watch the DOW take off tomorrow.

Eugenio


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
cat_lady
Member
Username: cat_lady

Post Number: 704
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, June 14, 2010 - 09:28 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



found this article rather interesting on the ABC website:

Memo Kevin: Leadership is other people

By Alan Kohler

Posted Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:36am AEST



My early years as a journalist were spent in the 1980s watching Bob Hawke and Paul Keating run the country. I grew up fast in those years and I learned that Labor Governments don't have to be as chaotic or anti-business as Whitlam's.

I was writing the Chanticleer column in the AFR when the Hawke Government was elected and quickly floated the dollar in December 1983, and then I moved to Sydney the following year to help run the paper. I took over the AFR from Paddy McGuinness in 1985 and got to know Paul Keating, John Button and a few of the other ministers pretty well.

At the time I used to talk to mining and manufacturing CEOs who individually had great relationships with Button, then Industry Minister, and Peter Walsh, Resources Minister. Not only did they trust them completely, but they also knew they were very influential in Cabinet - that they were listened to and through them the CEOs had a voice as well.

In fact those ministers were so prominent and were pushing through so much dramatic reform, and were doing it so much better than Whitlam and his rag-tag crew, that you tended to forget about Hawke. It was only later that I realised it had actually been Hawke all along: he created the culture in which the ministers had authority to do their jobs and he genuinely delegated their portfolios to them and then listened to them in cabinet.

It was his leadership that produced that incredible period of reform that was actually carried by out by an extraordinary group of ministers.

Last week I spoke to a mining company chairman who quite likes Martin Ferguson, the current Resources Minister, and gets on well with him, but he told me Ferguson didn't know about the RSPT until after it was announced. I don't know whether this is true and I find it hard to believe, but after the Environment Minister Peter Garrett revealed two weeks ago that he didn't know the CPRS was going to be dropped until he read about it in the paper ... maybe it's true.

If so, that's why Rudd is failing as a Prime Minister.

The RSPT is a disaster because it was developed in a vacuum - first by the head of Treasury, Ken Henry, and then by Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan, not talking to anyone else, including their own Resources Minister.

I'm told that a few days before it was due to be released, the tax was going to actually replace royalties, so that the states' royalty revenue would be added to their Commonwealth Grants instead of coming directly from the mines.

That was until someone told Kevin Rudd that if he did that, no state would ever approve another mining project again because even though environmental concerns are always a big political negative, the revenue stream usually outweighs the political cost. Why would a WA Premier push through the Gorgon processing plant on Barrow Island against ferocious opposition if there wasn't state revenue attached to it? So it was changed to a royalty rebate system at the last minute.

Now Rudd is being hoist on the petard he made. My former boss at The Australian, Paul Kelly, wrote on Saturday: "The government is being suffocated. Labor cannot get clear air: it cannot convey its political message, from economic success to its health package. The polls show it; the media coverage proves it; the fears of affected Labor MPs cannot be permanently repressed. Blind Freddy knows Labor faces a political dead end on the resource tax. The government must obtain a reprieve in its war with the mining industry."

But Rudd hasn't got a minister with any authority who can broker a deal. He set up a consultation panel with no authority that no one wants to talk to any more, and when Rudd talks directly to mining leaders, he just lectures them.

The RSPT is both a real point of crisis for the government, as Paul Kelly says, and a metaphor for why the Rudd Government does not function properly.

There is no proper delegation and no genuine consultation, either with businesses affected by policies or - laughably - with the ministers who have to deal with those firms.

Kevin Rudd is clearly very hard-working and smart but he is, in the end, a human being who can't run a country single-handedly on four hours sleep a night while making good decisions.


Without my morning coffee I might as well be a dog

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5130
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 03:54 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



We are seeing rising prices on stock markets right now - the bear trap of which Colin speaks - but it won't be long before attention gets aroused yet more by such news as we find below. Bearishness will certainly return.
----------------------------------------------------
Europe's debt is 'a repeat' of the global financial crisis

* David Uren, Economics correspondent
* From: The Australian
* June 15, 2010 12:00AM

Source: AP

THE powerful Bank for International Settlements has judged that the European sovereign debt crisis is shaping up as a repeat of the US subprime mortgage debt meltdown.

The Swiss-based institution, which acts as the official banker to the world's central banks, said wild swings in markets over the past three months had been caused by a global loss of investor confidence.

"The swift reversal in market confidence evokes painful memories of (the northern) autumn 2008, when the collapse of Lehman Brothers brought money and capital markets to a virtual standstill," the bank said in its quarterly review of world financial markets, released yesterday.

"In both cases, market sentiment deteriorated rapidly . . . with problems in one region spreading globally through the network of interbank funding markets and counterparty credit exposures."

The bank said the European crisis in fact bore closer resemblance to late 2007, when the subprime crisis began, than to the Lehman collapse. Market volatility had been even greater in the past three months than it was in 2007, although the rise in bank funding costs had been lower.

It said worries about the safety of European banks meant they were finding it harder to get access to US dollars. "Faced with growing uncertainty, investors cut risk exposures and retreated to traditional safe haven assets."

BIS said Australia had been caught up in the turmoil with investors selling what they believed were risky assets, including the Australian dollar, which has fallen from US91.23c to US85.71c in the past three months. Australian stocks are down just over 10 per cent from the 18-month highs reached in mid-April.

The bank said investor nervousness was overwhelming positive developments in the economy. "Market participants focused on the deteriorating financial market conditions while often ignoring positive macro-economic news." It cited US sharemarkets falling by 1.5 per cent following the release of surprisingly good employment figures.

The E750 billion ($1 trillion) rescue package mounted by the members of the European Union had brought only temporary relief.

"Investor confidence soon deteriorated on worries about the possible interactions between public debt and growth."

Besides growing doubts about the sustainability of the sovereign debts of a number of European nations, BIS said: "Economic policy tightening in China, Brazil and India, among others, fuelled doubts that emerging economies could provide the necessary global growth momentum."

Although world sharemarkets rallied late last week on the continuing strength of the Chinese economy and good GDP figures from Japan, the European crisis will receive fresh attention this week as leaders try to settle their differences in policy response.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were scheduled to meet last night. This is to be followed by a summit of all 27 European members on Thursday.

British Foreign Minister William Hague has already ruled out any co-operation with a EU plan to require consultation on national budgets.

The BIS said the loss of investor confidence had postponed any move by the central banks to start returning interest rates to normal levels. The first tightening by the US Federal Reserve was not expected until the first quarter of 2011.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5131
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 04:06 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



This is something Rederob might benefit from reading. I can't imagine that he won't take news like this seriously. It's different with Rudd. He has tonight declared once again that he will stick to his 40% (cooked up with Swan, it turns out, not even with Gillard and Tanner!). His level of despotism and closed-mindedness is beyond rescue, I would think. As I said a while ago, his policy is that of wellknown tyrants from history who decide either to crash through or to crash. They'd rather crash than change their minds and - particularly - to be SEEN to change their minds.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Super tax a chance to take investment from Australia

* Matt Chambers
* From: The Australian
* June 15, 2010 12:00AM

CHILE, the world's biggest copper producer, has joined Canada in describing the Rudd government's planned resource super-profits tax as a chance to strip global market share from Australia.

But rather than focusing on the level of the tax making Chile more competitive, Chile Mines Minister Laurence Golborne said it was the unstable nature of Australia's tax regime that could send investment dollars to Chile.

"The situation in Australia is a tremendous opportunity for Chile, if we can offer the mining sector stability and tranquility," Mr Golborne said in Santiago.

The focus on the changing of the tax rate, rather than the rate itself, plays to comments by Rio Tinto chief executive Tom Albanese and his Xstrata counterpart Mick Davis that the tax is a major sovereign risk issue.

"Just because you have resources doesn't guarantee investments," Mr Golborne said.

"There are plenty of countries with mining potential, and investments will go to the countries which offer the best economic conditions."

Chile produces about 40 per cent of the world's copper, including from the Escondida mine, in which Rio and BHP Billiton have an interest.

The South American nation is trying to put in place a temporary and non-compulsory change in copper royalties to help finance reconstruction after a devastating earthquake in February.

The additional tax proposal, for this year and next, has a variable tax rate between 3.5 and 9 per cent, depending on margins and copper prices. It then reverts to 4 per cent from 2012 to 2017.

Canadian politicians applauded Australia's planned tax, saying it was an opportunity for Canada.

Yesterday, Vancouver-based Teck Resources boss Don Lindsay said the tax could be beneficial to him, because Teck did not produce from Australia.

"If Australia really does it, then logically there will be less investment there, particularly in coking coal. That would mean less coking coal, so prices would be higher," Mr Lindsay told Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper.

"We went through a version of that (a tax increase) in Alberta when a new resource royalty regime was put in and there was a big backlash. Billions of dollars of investments were cancelled."

ADDITIONAL REPORTING: DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
colin_twiggs
Moderator
Username: colin_twiggs

Post Number: 631
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 08:30 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)




rederob wrote on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 06:22 pm:

If people think the tax will be detrimental to their exposure, then they can put their money elsewhere. There is plenty of time as the tax isn't within cooee.




Rederob,
The market will start pricing in the tax (or the risk thereof) from the moment that it becomes public knowledge. The recent price fall is partly attributable to the tax.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
peterloh
Member
Username: peterloh

Post Number: 3704
Registered: 03-2003

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 10:54 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Ody,

The mid cap and small cap mining companies were badly affected when demand dropped during the GFC. Many had to part with what they had at a highly discounted price to their valuation just to survive. As a result, the share capital were diluted and management had lost control to foreign companies. Many still do not see themselves out of the woods yet as the industry is cyclical and base metal price still varies greatly from day to day.Where was the government then? Did they lend a hand to these companies?
Now that they are barely out of trouble and here comes the threat of another tax slug. I can understand the mining companies objection to the introduction of the proposed RSPT although only the big two are the likely candidates for the taxes currently, namely BHP and RIO.

By the proposed RSPT, the smaller mining companies will have additional problem in convincing financiers to their cause. Investors will also have to think twice before investing into these more risky businesses. Investors are likely to stick to the financial sector as there is no increase return for taking additional risk anymore in providing venture capital to the mining companies.


-------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Please note that comments made in this column is mainly for the interpretation of charts in technical analysis. It is not made in my professional capacity and should not be taken as advice.In my professional capacity I am only allowed to give advice on certain managed funds authorised by my license dealer.Any share discuss is for general interest and should not be relied on to make an investment decision.It is likely that I may own the shares that we discussed as a trade or as an investment. Please consult your stock broker or financial adviser in regard to your personal situation.

The views expressed here contain information derived from public available sources that has not been independently verified.No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information.Any forward looking information in this representation has been prepared on the basis of a number of assumptions which may prove to be incorrect.It should not be relied upon as a recommendation or forecast by the writer.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2425
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 4


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 03:31 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)




colin_twiggs wrote on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 08:30 am:

Rederob,
The market will start pricing in the tax (or the risk thereof) from the moment that it becomes public knowledge. The recent price fall is partly attributable to the tax.


The tax was announced on Budget night (11 May).
Mining industry shares rose for the next week, and pretty much follow the allords except for when US dollar strength impacts base metal prices.
If the market is going to price-in the tax, which has now been "public knowledge" for a month, how does one explain the fact that both RIO and BHP have outperformed the allords index since Budget night?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
jaded
Member
Username: jaded

Post Number: 214
Registered: 03-2010

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 05:06 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



I just wish to state that Im not responsible for any votes.
I wish to apologise to rudy/ody unreservedly.

There's a point I'd like to make.Materials 'ain't' Materials.
There's a difference.On the one hand,one has rip it,ship it Find the next Lot.
Coal and Iron Ore along with Bauxite are examples of this.
These are d'Exploiters.

On the other hand,one has the processors.These mine minerals that has to be Extracted.Expensive be Processing.

Gold,Nickel,maybe Copper are these,d'Extractives.

Still with me?
Amongst d'Extractives there are 'inventors of process'.Some Nickel Company[could it be Minara?]anyway this listed company in WA does this 'process' on low grade Nickel.

I just reckon that this is the type of Mining Operation that has No Fear of a RSPT.
Mining Companies out on the Margin.Most of them are!!

Look all this lost Superannuation 'bit' by average australians?Isn't it all just BHP and RIO?Those are the shares that's losing them [supposedly].
What about the Bank Shares over the last few weeks?

Like there are these FACTors that should be pointed out to Eugenio's sister!

Instead of doing the Talk Back Radio Whinge!!

"Ahhhh it's all d'Government's Fault like by Mrrrrrr4 KRUDD"

better go,the curry awaits.


" Hear what you Say...
But see what you Do!"

Sir Zelman Cowen c 1970.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5132
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 05:52 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Some information ...

The Resources Super Profits Tax was known, and widely commented on in the press as well as here on ODB, by Monday 3 May. Any effect it had on any markets should therefore be considered as from that day or possibly earlier - not, as Rederob's statement about Budget night suggests, from 11 May on. This is just a simple factual matter, but not an unimportant one if the issue is one where dates, and what was known on certain dates, matter. The tax was "public knowledge" on 3 May, and it is utterly misleading to view its impact as not occurring until 11 May. I presume Rederob's memory is playing him false, and I do not accuse him of INTENTIONALLY misleading us.

As for the general pattern of behaviour of BHP versus the All Ords, over a period of 3 months the All Ords easily outperformed BHP as per the close of trading on Friday.

Some specific issues. The high for BHP occurred on 6 April. Its low was on 25 May. The total fall was 18.69%. Note - and anyone can check this - that while the malaise had well and truly started BEFORE 3 May, the period of BHP's decline does include the stretch from 3 May to 25 May.

The All Ords (XAO) reached its high on 15 April. Its low, too, was reached on 25 May. During that period, the index declined by 14.68%.

Note further that THE XAO INCLUDES THE MINING SECTOR, AND NOT LEAST BHP. As BHP underperformed, from top to bottom, the XAO, it follows that if it and the mining sector in general were taken out of the XAO - as in any fair comparison they should be - the outperformance of the XAO would be yet more marked.

In other words, the mining sector significantly UNDER-performed the remainder of the XAO from high to low. Noone can claim that this was purely due to the RSPT, and I don't think anyone here HAS at any time claimed that. But the tax can not be disregarded as a factor either.

The one question that remains is whether OF LATE BHP has outperformed the All Ords. And yes, it has, though by a very small margin.

Why this recent outperformance? Well, bulls will commonly buy what has gone down and what they think will thus go up more than the average. BHP and other resources stocks were in this respect a completely logical choice to "go for" during the recent bout of buying. What we are typically seeing is what is commonly called a "fools' rally" in a bear market, which in essence presents what Colin correctly calls a "bear trap".

None of this does away with the fact, in any case, that even now the market is considerably lower than it was around mid April, and that in general our market has performed badly since it has come off its high. The cause is not to be found merely in the resources tax alone, but that certainly has had a harmful impact in quite a few ways: on our share market, and particularly our dollar, which really tanked. That, too, has just recently recovered somewhat, however, under the impact of more bullish sentiment, not least in relation to commodities. As usual, the dollar has moved along with commodities, as our country is seen (and sees itself) as mostly a commodities economy.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
market_mad
Member
Username: market_mad

Post Number: 377
Registered: 09-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 06:58 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



well done rederob,

giving everyone a 1 star and yourself 5 stars!! give yourself a pat on the back

MM


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2426
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 07:32 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Ody
You are correct in that the RSPT was not announced on Budget night, but instead was initially released by Rudd ( http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6741) on 2 May.
However, I also googled an article from January this year: http://www.theage.com.au/business/henry-review-recommends-resource-rent-tax-2010 0121-moc5.html
Since your post I have scanned lots of different equities to see if the RSPT announcement coincided with falls that were markedly at variance to what was being experienced by the allords. Visually it was too hard, but perhaps someone with lots of time can do some regressions or other statistical analysis to see if something becomes apparent.
Let's put aside the RSPT for a moment, and ask what we might expect happen to the resources sector generally in light of the crisis in confidence that is presently sweeping Europe?
My suspicion is that things would be rather the same, as demand remains supressed. Things are also pretty average in the US, with signs of recovery relatively hard to come by.
For now I remain unconvinced that the RSPT has affected our resources equities to any degree since it became "public knowledge". But I am certainly open to more research proving otherwise.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
market_mad
Member
Username: market_mad

Post Number: 378
Registered: 09-2009

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 07:50 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rederob,

The only evidence you need is to have a look at the chart of the AUD and you will see that foreign investment flows started to leave our shores pretty much once the RSPT was announced.

MM


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
gdd3
Member
Username: gdd3

Post Number: 887
Registered: 09-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 07:53 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi Ody,

To my recollection ..."a fools' rally(in a Bear market)" DOES NOT(in essence) = a "bear trap".

Two definitions of a "Bear Trap" are...

"A bear trap occurs when a declining market reverses direction, catching short sellers off guard. In a bear trap short sellers, who have continued selling in anticipation of a further drop in a now-bullish market, are eventually forced to buy back stock at a higher price to cover their positions. A bear trap can also be created by a temporary downturn in an otherwise bullish market, tricking short sellers into stepping into the bear trap just before prices again begin rising. Obviously, short sellers wish to avoid the bear trap."

Or more simply, as Investopedia explains..

"A Bear Trap can occur during a bear market reversal when short sellers believe the markets will sink back to its declining ways. If the market continues to rise, the short sellers get trapped and are forced to cover their positions at higher prices."

In essence, to me that is, a "fools rally" is when "bulls" buy thinking that the 'recent' preceeding bearish move is over whereas a "bear trap" is, well, 'short' covering by "bears" at higher prices. Of course, they can work together dependent on what time frames one is referring too.

My understanding of Colin's latest newsletter, "Bear Trap Recovery", is presented at this stage as a 'warning'. Certain levels have to be passed(on numerous markets) to confirm a Bear Trap. Until that happens your "fool's rally" is still relevent.

Cheers
Dolphin


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rederob
Member
Username: rederob

Post Number: 2427
Registered: 10-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 09:50 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



MM
If the RSPT was initially reported in January, why did it take 3 months for smart money to leave our shores?
Or, If the RSPT was announced on 2 May, why did it take a week before funds took money offshore, as the chart you suggest would imply?
Or, if you transpose the British Pound with the AUD over the past 3 months, and discover that the same trends appear, which taxes did Great Britain simultaneously announce that affected its currency value?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ken
Member
Username: ken

Post Number: 662
Registered: 04-2003

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 10:08 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Market Mad,

The US stock market, the AUD/USD and the XAO all headed south on May 4. I'm not sure when on May 3 the RSPT was announced, but the exit from the Australian market was most likely started by the US market falling and the US investors in Australia knowing they had to get out of our market because both the shares and the exchange rate were against them - double jeopardy so to speak.

My personal view is that this explanation is more likely than the RSPT being the cause.

BHP had fallen 12% by May 3 when the RSPT was announced. It is only 3% below the level on May 3 now. RIO is now higher than on May 3.

The currency didn't fall far May 3 to May 7, but did fall 10% from 90 to 81c from 11 to 20 May.

Its actually in the Australian miners' interest to keep the exchange rate down (more AUD for each USD they earn) and this campaign of theirs is doing that effectively.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5133
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 12:34 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Ken,

The figures which you quote seem to me exactly consistent with the idea that the markets here fell as a result of the announcement of the RSPT. That is the simplest explanation, and for that reason alone, even, also the likeliest. People learnt about the tax, and responded to what they learnt. Quite a simple cause and effect relationship. Contrary to what Rederob implies, people in January hardly knew about the tax, but they certainly learnt about it at the beginning of May, and the selling followed the news in logical fashion. Furthermore, MM is quite right to observe that there was a close connection between the outflow of money from this country and the fall in the dollar.

I must say that I find the dialogue a bit tedious at this point. Some remarks are very clearly based on inadequate knowledge, such as Rederob's comment about the supposed announcement on 11 May. We have all had access to an enormous pile of information, for a very long time, which has made it very plain that a lot of Australian shares WERE sold by overseas funds, and that a lot of money DID leave the country. Need I say also once again that the Australian dollar DID fall far more than the Canadian one, and that the fall in our dollar was demonstrably connected with the news about the RSPT? I find it amazing that such simple, quite observable points seem to have escaped the attention of a number of people. It is not as though there hasn't been a great deal of information about this whole affair, or that all such information has been distributed by villains.

To say that an event impacts on a market is not to say that all people in the market will necessarily act the next day as you and Rederob seem to demand: it is perfectly common for there to be a "staggered" response.

And I have already explained before that the negative impact was most pronounced until 25 May, with a rally starting at that point as bulls moved in when they saw what they considered low prices. So if prices now are different, that does not show that the impact until 25 May was not real.

Of course, it was also believed by many for a long time that the connection between smoking and lung cancer was not real: at some point one must decide what one is prepared to believe as very likely as distinct from 100% certain. If one wants deny a connection that is obvious to a significant number of observers, it is almost always possible to find some reason or other for doing so. I would have thought, however, that if foreign fund managers mention the RSPT as a reason for pulling out of Australia there is no immediate reason for disbelieving them. If we do have that kind of evidence, why disregard it?

(Message edited by Ody on June 16, 2010)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5134
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 12:57 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Dolphin:

I quote your last paragraph in your post about bear traps etc:
---------------
My understanding of Colin's latest newsletter, "Bear Trap Recovery", is presented at this stage as a 'warning'. Certain levels have to be passed(on numerous markets) to confirm a Bear Trap. Until that happens your "fool's rally" is still relevent.
---------------
This is similar to what I thought I had said, and certainly meant to say - not that a fools' rally and a bear trap are identical. Indeed they are not. Rather, the fools' rally is all that at this stage I see. But I agree also with Colin's view that the evidence does indeed provide a WARNING of a bear trap.

Thank you, though, for your post. It is important to get such a matter clarified.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5135
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 01:18 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



MM: stars

MM, as you know I object strongly to the star system. However, I don't think that your comment about Rederob as the culprit is appropriate, frankly, as (a) I don't personally believe that Rederob is in the least interested in using the system in that way (he is too big a person for that), and (b) we do not have any evidence that he did what you impute to him.

I think that a far more likely explanation is that we have the usual game of a person giving one-star ratings in order to cause offence to people s/he disagrees with, and five stars to please those s/he does agree with, with the double effect that those given one star will feel the more offended as a result of the generous rating provided to others, and vice versa. Such ratings are deliberately very much of a black-and-white nature. If I had graded my students in such a way I don't think I would have lasted long, as a professional.

It is not as though anyone here, whether attracting five stars or one star, has been writing as a dimwit. On the contrary, the level of discussion has continued to be high, even though some strong disagreements have been expressed.

Significantly, once again this game is being played by someone who prefers to stay anonymous and not to provide reasons for the ratings.

Although I am using "s/he" above, I feel quite confident that the person is a "he" - I am merely keeping open the possibility that it is a "she" for the sake of political correctness.

I point out to Colin that in my view the star system remains just as bad as it was before the terms were changed.

PS: Since the above was written, there have been more stars provided. The point of the graffiti artist is in essence this: "I agree with anyone who says that there is no connection between the RSPT and any subsequent fall in Australian stocks and/or the dollar, no matter what reasons are provided for this position; and I disagree entirely with those who argue the opposite position, no matter what arguments are provided."

That being the case, one knows in advance what stars this person is going to give to subsequent posts. This is a simple "kneejerk" response from a
person with a closed mind.

(Message edited by Ody on June 16, 2010)







Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 5136
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 04:11 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



To delve into the fall yet further

Ken, to add a little... You say "I'm not sure when on May 3 the RSPT was announced", but, importantly, as Rederob belatedly pointed out, it was announced by Rudd on 2 May. This means that the appropriate time to look at is the period 3 May - 25 May (after which the market turned), starting with the morning of 3 May.

You say: "The currency didn't fall far May 3 to May 7, but did fall 10% from 90 to 81c from 11 to 20 May."

The move of the currency should be seen in context. The point is that the currency DID fall from 3 May, and, in total, it fell very steeply from there until 20 May.

I would challenge you or anyone to show how the huge fall - which it had not embarked on until 3 May, and which proceeded from there on until the 20th - was NOT related to the RSPT announcement. To my mind the connection is very firm, and cannot be explained in any other way. Markets realised that the RSPT announcement spelled trouble for our commodities currency, as it did indeed for commodities themselves, and thus sold the currency down. The effect was much magnified not only by pressure on the currency per se, but also the selling of shares by foreign fund managers. The interconnectedness of matters is very clear to see. MM was very right to point at the connection between the announcement, the decline in the currency, and the outflow of money resulting from sales of shares.

Further, let us look as to how shares fared during the week of 3 May - 7 May (Monday - Friday). On 3 May, the XAO opened at 4812. On Friday it closed at 4507, but not without having reached a low of 4450, i.e. then being 7.52% lower than it was at the open on Monday. I should have thought that this is a very significant fall in anyone's language, within a very short period, and that again the connection with the announcement on 2 May is very firm.

As I said before, the XAO reached its high on 15 April. Its low was reached on 25 May. During that period, the index declined by 14.68%. Obviously, within this overall period of decline, the 7.52% fall which could be observed to occur within just 5 trading days was formidable: I would suggest it was disproportionate to the overall decline of 14.68% which the market experienced during the period 15 April - 25 May, which is something like a month and 10 days (not all dedicated to trading, of course).

 
Other Threads  
Last PosterPostsPagesLast Post
Our Daily Bread » Archive through September 07, 2010p3t350 07-Sep-10  07:38 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through August 27, 2010ody50 27-Aug-10  07:18 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through August 20, 2010ody50 20-Aug-10  12:56 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through August 13, 2010ody50 13-Aug-10  01:34 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through August 09, 2010billt50 09-Aug-10  05:47 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through July 30, 2010ody50 30-Jul-10  11:47 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through July 18, 2010rdumas50 18-Jul-10  03:30 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through July 13, 2010eblode50 13-Jul-10  09:36 am
Our Daily Bread » Archive through July 08, 2010rdumas50 08-Jul-10  04:42 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through July 04, 2010bridog50 04-Jul-10  01:55 am
Our Daily Bread » Archive through June 30, 2010ody50 30-Jun-10  01:13 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through June 23, 2010rdumas50 23-Jun-10  09:16 am
Our Daily Bread » Archive through June 18, 2010eblode50 18-Jun-10  02:40 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through June 11, 2010rdumas50 11-Jun-10  10:34 am

Threads by Last Post Time:

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 00 01 02 03 04 Next Last

Administration Administration   Log Out Log Out    

««  «  Previous  Next  »  »»