|
More Time For What?
On the topic of expensing, FASB Chairman Robert Herz says that, "We may need
more time. We are hearing people say they are stretched to the maximum." Someone
has apparently gotten to Herz. After all, it would take any accountant all
of 2 minutes to take the stock options data that companies already release
in footnotes and plug this data into the income statement.
As for former FASB boss Dennis R. Beresford - the man who headed up FASB during
the 1993 stock options battle - he says that "My personal best guess would
be it's extremely unlikely the board will be able to finish its deliberations
this year anyway. Everybody is really trying to be practical. I don't think
this is any kind of backing down." Less than one month ago Mr. Beresford said
that he expected a final standard by the end of 2004. Apparently things have
changed.
Why do I believe that someone may have gotten to Herz and Beresford? (i.e.
back off the options issue or FASB will cease to exist). Because everyone already
knows that all of the standards for expensing are horrible. Thus, if FASB now
argues that the expensing should be delayed because the standards need to be
tweaked what they are really saying is that thy have been defeated.
* No set of rules will ever be able to calculate what stock options are really
worth at the time of issuance. However, companies should expense now because
it is clear to everyone that some expense exists. 'Expense now, and we will
work out better expensing rules in the future!' -- this is the ultimatum FASB
should use now, and should have used more than 30-years ago. Instead, they
look set to bow to the lobby.
Is Sinclair Sickening?
It appears that Mr. Jim Sinclair has finally flipped his rocker. Some of the
highlights from his comments yesterday are as follows:
"Cool your tubes and relax. I am complimented that COT spends so much time
on www.jsmineset.com.
If you think an all out effort to depress the price of gold on June 29th
is coincidence then you believe in fairy tales."
Mr. Sinclair goes on to suggest that he must only offer his daily comments
to a smaller crowd:
"If we are smaller and therefore less of a factor in the markets COT will
tire of their constant effort to make the one trader who knows gold better
than they do a smaller influence. I simply will become smaller but only for
the reason of not inviting their charades in the marketplace."
All these many years they were selling to discredit one person?...Silly me,
I thought the commercials sold gold short to make money.
Mr. Sinclair goes on to say that more people should hoard gold (smaller isn't
better?), producers should withhold production every time the price of gold
falls, and that he possesses great insights because his clearing house was
involved in the 'skillful' Hunt brother trades. Should someone remind Mr. Sinclair
that the Hunt brother story turned out badly for the Hunts? Forget it, the
man is on a roll:
"I believe that I know the exact bottom and what gold will do thereafter
but clearly if I state that to the many, COT will do everything possible
to screw you up. I am here to teach you and not to hurt you. If you have
used Trend Lines and Fibonacci those of you who are traders would have nailed
COT's intentions almost to the penny."
Mr. Sinclair previously speculated that gold could see $430 in June. Wrong.
Mr. Sinclair promised - repeatedly I might add - not to publish his opinions
to the public anymore if gold doesn't reach $480 an ounce by August 15, 2004.
We will have to wait and see on this one.
Incidentally, I continue to own gold and believe that when the dollar cracks
again that $480+ an ounce could be struck. And although part of me hopes that
this doesn't happen by August 15, the last thing I would ever do is short gold.
After turning a bit more bullish on precious metals in mid-May, last
week I said: "I still think that precious metals are worth owning
for the long-term. Nevertheless, the time to safely add to your precious
metals positions has quickly come and gone. Next week is all about uncertainty...you
should be a little frightened by the fact that 11-weeks ago the commercial
shorts were carrying more than double the amount of short contracts they
current own."
Although I don't claim to know the COT's intentions to the penny, I do know
that gold is hedge against a US dollar decline. With bets being made last week
on gold and no decline in the dollar arriving this week, it is unsurprising
that the commercials have attacked; it is unsurprising that the commercials
wanted to make some money doing what they do best.
The US current account deficit - while clearly not sustainable in the long-term
- may, or may not help send the dollar lower by August 15.
|