hi cost producers gain more from increase pric, page-10

WNG, what is there not to believe in?

A lowering of margins would obviously decrease the ratio at a higher percentage if the margin is smaller than if the margin is greater, as I have already agreed upon with icred and also agree upon with silverspoon. This is a very good point brought up by icred and again by silverspoon but one I am very aware of, thank you. Obviously if the opposite becomes true, the situation would reverse, but is a good point regarding the risk.

I have previously stated I believe costs are due to grade and when grade recovers, I believe costs will also.

I have tried to provide factual evidence to support this and no one has given me evidence to the contrary.

A statement in a previous thread stated that low cost producers benefit more from higher cost price than low cost producers. This statement is factually incorrect yet for the amount of views it took, no one suggested otherwise. I am very curious as to why this is.

I had already stated in the above thread I hope TMR becomes a low cost producer, albeit in an off the cuff nature. Obviously this is preferrable.

I was arguing against something I believe to be illogical however. If margins decrease, then it would hurt those with lesser margins at a greater rate, but if margins increase then those with a smaller margin have their profits increase at a greater percentage.

Everyone is aware of the benefits of a low cost producer than a high cost producer, but the initial statement would suggest to me a benefit of low cost producers whether margins increase or decrease, which is illogical. Conversely it would also mean that high cost producers will be in a worse situation whether margins increase or decrease, which would seem to me like purley negative sentiment towards high cost producers. An objective statement would have been a criticism of high cost producers but also stating they do have the advantage of from the rise in prices of copper.

To summarise, obviously it is more preferable to have a low cost producer to a high cost producer. I have already stated this, as I have already stated I would rather have costs decreased than production increased. However, the initial statement was incorrect and seemed like another underserved criticism of high cost producers that wasn't accurate this time. They already have enough accurate negatives.

The previous hypothetical of CU price reducing below cost price is simply the extreme example of Silverspoon's point.

However, if margins increase then this is one situation whereby higher cost producers will have an advantage. Would you have been objective enough to put this in your argument amid your constant criticism of high cost producers WNG?

There has been ample criticism of high cost producers, this one was innaccurate, so I sought to demonstrate one of the few advanatages. For the amount of views that thread took, this statement didn't stick out like a sore thumb to anyone else that would have otherwise corrected it, so my post was to do this.

"Lump them in"? Icred was very objective, and silverspoon was arguing the other way, as you have noted, I was really the only one to try and prove one point. Perhaps it would have been also better as a standalone thread to state the implications of the reverse of the title being true, which icred and Silverspoon have done aptly, but again my purpose was to correct the statement and give one of the few examples where a higher cost producer has the advantage, rather than only negative sentiment, seemingly if margins go up or down.

If I am wrong somewhere factually please show me where, although your tone is very aggressive on pretty much all your posts now WNG.