'admin' pid='22353' datel Wrote:There are some of us who were not entirely reassured by expiring licenses. Yes, it's clear that cooperation is now good, but once you are on territory where there might very well be a natural practice, but no real legal duty to extent licenses, I don't think it's pure nonsense to have at least a residue of concern here, like I did. Or let me put it another way. If I was a betting man I would have put money on the extensions, but was I 100% convinced? Not quite. For instance, I feel quite a bit better after the news today out of the DPE, with which IOC seems to have had a somewhat difficult relation. Who doesn't, raise their hand. If you do, that means you weren't 100% convinced either. I was perhaps 90% convinced, but not 100%.
*********
I wish I would have stated it this eloquently. Being dismissive of anything potentially negative and/or being too scared of the shorts to even discuss an important issue (even one that has only a 10% likelyhood of developing) gives the shorts way too much power, in my opinion. Wise investors should want to discuss important issues like this one. Trying to quash it by pretending the answer is obvious...or calling people who rationally discuss it "ignorant"...is counterproductive.
I'm not sure whether I buy JFT's theory that IOC may have disclosed the extensions yesterday in response to this SHU discussion but if true, this discussion (that some wanted to mute) actually resulted in a benefit. There are thousands of retail investors who may have been wondering about this issue and who likely wanted more than some poster's "because-I-say-so" opinion. They may not realistically have been likely to pick up the phone and call Wayne either. So now, after yesterday's comment, they feel better...as do I. There's a lot of money at stake so of course I want to know whether there is a 10% chance of a licensing issue arising. It seems to me that any prudent investor would.