financ. terrorists dragging stock markets down, page-7

Hi Anatol

I was being a bit flippant regarding the '$550 trillion debt' from your source. I think it should have read '$550 billion' which means a debt of $55000 per head. I have read that the other people in the EU who work until they are 65 are a bit concerned about bailing out a nation whose policy is to allow retirement at 53. But that is another story.

I agree with both your posts, including the RSPT, although I need to look at it more closely to see the whole package when it is finalised. The government is dealing with companies who drive hard bargains on a daily basis. I think we are, unfortunately, in the minority in the HC forums and could be in for some flac. In the short term the initial shock will be felt but overall the market will study the tax and take it into account, correct itself and then settle.

To blame the majority of the present ASX resource sector crisis on the RSPT is mischievous to say the least.

It is interesting to note that offshore oilers have been paying a similar tax, the PRRT which was introduced in the 1980s and applied only to new developments offshore. Offshore companies will be given the opportunity to choose between retaining the PRRT or crossing over to the RSPT. What's good for the goose is good for the gander in my view.

Where the government has gone wrong, in my view, is not completing a 'consultation' process with mining companies first so the SHs are better informed of the variables. Instead the misinformed public have been the target of unfair scare-mongering by the relative parties involved who, of course, would like to keep as much of the profit as they can.

Companies such as FMG who are totally reliant on debt to finance the majority of their projects will find it difficult to balance their books but that is partly due to risky financial management in todays climate.

In all fairness to Twiggy Forrest, though, the RSPT, unlike the PRRT, applies retrospectively and impacts projects already developed over decades by private risk capital in a different regulatory regime. Companies would be a little concerned by paying retrospective tax when budgeting the risk in the planning stage did not take into account the RSPT.

Some concessions should be given in the costs of projects already underway but not in the planning stage of future projects where capital outlay has not yet occurred.

Like I have said before, it is time all countries and their communities take a look at how they manage their affairs so that massive corrections like the present one isn't necessary in the future. I would prefer moderate gains with a risk of moderate losses rather than the big swings which the big guys in town glean at the expense of the unwary retail traders.

Obama's financial reform bill before Congress is a step along this path, likewise Germany's temporary ban on naked shorts. The present downturn is the trading houses chucking a wobbly and showing the power they have. It will settle though IMO.

The financial sector holding the world to ransom just isn't on. The previous bailout of the banks didn't work because they kept on making profits out of the individuals who lost out during the GFC.

But this doesn't have much to do with MEO apart from it being just part of a system that is sick ATM. There will always be competition between FAs and TAs but I will always stick to the fundamentals of a stock first. The TA takes more of my focus when looking at ST trends.

The only concern is the fact that PBR will be looking to hold off their CR until the markets settle. I think if there is gas in Artemis then they will have budgeted for that fact as they will not want to lose face in their first venture into a new continent.

Just in my opinion.

And regarding your posts, Anatol, they are very articulate and are a credit to an ESL person.

Cheers.

#:>))