quote:

---

Originally posted by GatorMan:
Will, I don't think it was ignored. There was quite a debate when it first came out. It showed up on the OCT website as information required to be provided by UCAD prior to the dividend. It was picked up by the Pinksheets website. The debate centers around whether the information is accurate or somehow provided to OCT by some malicious third party. This is further aggrevated by CMKX niether confirming nor denying the information. This leads me to beleive that it is indeed accurate and CMKX just doesn't want to call attention to the issue that the O/S is much larger than everyone hoped. And there are still a number of people on this board in denial that the O/S is that big and want to cling to the 10 billion share range and trillions in naked shorts. It think they are afraid that the large O/S share position will ruin the credibility and potential of CMKX. Goodbye to dreams fo $1 per share anytime soon and hello to .03 per share, which becomes a more likely high end in the near term.

My thoughts are that the 483 billion or so O/S is most likely and that the OTC information is accurate. Billions of shares being traded daily, naked shorts aside, would represent a very high percentage of the stock trading hands each day. Not likely IMO. Also, CMKX always seems to have cash - for investment in other companies and for supporting racing teams. That money has to come from somewhere and I think it's from dumping stock over the last few months.

---

I think that your motives are good in your position on this stock. People can get carried away with the possibilities that this company brings. A voice of reality is a good thing. If people are selling pipe dreams labeled as stock that is fraud. If people are selling stock and pointing out it's potential for gain that is why people buy stock.

There are pumpers no doubt in this stock and there are bashers. I may seem like a pumper but I'm not. I am just a person who likes mining stocks in general and this one in particular. I am still buying. I think it is undervalued. I am basing that on lots of information that is readily available to read. I am not ignoring the questions surrounding this company. There are some points you brought up that seem to bother you. I have considered them and they don't bother me. For example the fact that UCAD moved into an existing shell doesn't faze me in the least. I think when a company moves into a shell the slate gets wiped clean from the former company. I am not concerned over Great Barrington foods. If I am missing something specific to Great Barrington or their players who are still around in UCAD I would be welcome to hear that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by noahltl:
Yeah right, there's nothing anyone can do to the sacrosanct MM's:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WorkAHolic:
Hey Glassman, please go save someone else. I for one am sick of you bashing everything about this stock. If UC does something like hire a big time attorney, of course it's for himself as for the stockholders, he owns the company with majority stock. What kind of idiot would make a statement like that? If I owned majority interest in a company I would be looking out for me, too. Stop trying to use confusing details and accusations and trying to put fear here where all we want is fun. You are making yourself too obvious about who and what you are. IMO of course..

---

you see what i mean.....in the same post you admit that i am right and say i am wrong..LOL
" why don't you go away and let us lead the newbies astray with our wild speckkalashuns..LOL"..

Dude, if you REALLY read that post, you will see that i remain constant....by the way PSU( the person i was posting to) was the MODERATOR at the time, what does that tell you????
what's wrong with being a "professional poster?" that means i have survived a lot of these types of things--including putting the pumpers in their place....LOL

also,buying garbage and moving on without trying to get somebody else stuck in it...
and posting good picks...

like it says in my POST READ READ READ READ>>>>

also, that stock was PGHI, now known as GZFX, not a bad pick........LOL

"The "anti-bashers" are the ones getting all wound up as if nobody out here in retail stock buying land makes up their own minds and lives with it."

VERY, VERY WELL SPOKEN!!!! I believe the "company" slight was directed at me. I would be proud to be in your company or corner providing you permit it. Yes, Drano is caustic, but it is little more than LYE.
Rather easy to deal with when someone dumps lime on it or uses Sulphuric Acid to counter it.

Will,

I got your email address also. With all the kooks on this thread (and I guarantee you I am NOT one of them), you just might get some hate mail. If you wish, I will email you and explain where I am coming from...if not, just tell me otherwise. All I ask is that you not disclose. In general, I am not upset with you. Maybe I took your post about litigation the wrong way.
--------------------------------------------
Anyone -

Noahltl does not know sh*t from shine-ola. If anyone has tried to hijack a thread it is he and you know who. He, JBCak, Money_Penny, XchangeMode, Cool1sh, Truth Teller, rivercity, Grasshopper, RaiderJR, BootyQuest and others are fine company for the King and Queen of pumpers on this CMKX CULT thread to be in league with. I can name all the others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by noahltl:
Glassman in your post, you state:

"The "anti-bashers" are the ones getting all wound up as if nobody out here in retail stock buying land makes up their own minds and lives with it."

That point applies to the "anti-pumpers" as well. We have made up our own minds and we will live with our decisions. Why can't you now live with that? Why must you now save us from ourselves?

---

i've already told you that too..... cuz the newbies are showing up here and believing this stuff.... look, there are lots of good plays out there... this one has what appears to be the highest float in the land... the numbers don't work...

N enough with what you think you know about others please.

G find it hard to think you got in the middle of all this.

W I would have said it once and moved on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JBCak47:
Wallace you whine as much as a little b i t c h.... wtf is your deal???

I'd love to be able to 'meet' you... The whole 'incident' would last maybe nine seconds... The first and only thing you'd remember of me would be me punching your throat as hard as I could, if you hit hard enough you can cause someones Trach to close up... After that would come the hit to the chest which would either break your sternum or at the least nock your wind out...

Then I'd go for your wallet... Hopefully you aren't as broke as I am because the next day your money would be buying me cmkx

-John-

---

Synthetic Diamonds Shape Up to Fill Gap Left By Shortage of Real Thing

Email This Page

Print This Page

Visit The Publisher's Site

Business Day (Johannesburg)

August 4, 2004
Posted to the web August 4, 2004

Emma Muller
Johannesburg

De Beers now faces unwelcome result of the 'euphoric' demand it helped spur

DEMAND for diamonds has been whipped to peak levels. Supplies are running low and in the wings wait the manufacturers of synthetic stones, ready to fill the gap.

This combination of market forces has led analysts to warn of a situation that could undermine the position of natural diamonds.

They say a shortage of rough diamonds, together with spiralling prices and a sharp rise in demand for diamonds, is creating an opportunity for man-made gems. These are making inroads in the US through two companies, Gemesis and Apollo.

The main trigger for the concern is a sharp fall in production at Rio Tinto's Argyle mine, which provides the bulk of the world's natural diamond production in terms of volume.

At the same time, De Beers is facing severe shortages, mainly in larger sizes, while actually pushing demand for diamonds under its supplier of choice policy in terms of which clients are obliged to increase marketing spend.

De Beers' London-based Diamond Trading Company estimates that the global retail market for diamond jewellery grew from $20bn in 1980 to more than 56bn in 2003, while sales of diamond jewellery pieces tripled during the same period .

"Such a scenario is exactly the way to go for synthetics," said Des Kilalea, an analyst at Nedcor Securities. "Synthetics can compete more effectively in price-sensitive, bread and butter consumption goods, and they work their way up," he said. "It is at the lower level that verification of individual stones will be too expensive."

Kilalea says there is an opportunity for De Beers to be the first in the synthetic diamonds market, and to develop a brand representing non-natural diamonds to protect the natural diamond market.

"Compare it to Toyota's marketing strategy for Lexus. The key issue is to avoid hurting your major product by giving (the new product) a completely different name to exclude confusion at consumer level."

De Beers' return to the US market, where disclosure of natural or synthetic diamonds was required by law, should allow the market leader to take the fight with synthetics producers such as Gemesis and Apollo to the manufacturing level, he said.

Rumours have been spreading that synthetic rough diamonds were being polished in Surat, a major cutting centre in India. But key players there say there is no need to worry at consumer level.

"It is a concern as far as the trade is concerned. Identifying a diamond as a natural diamond in larger sizes is guaranteed. But moving into the smaller, cheaper sizes, it's more difficult. De Beers is trying to limit this through its best practice principles," said one representative of a De Beers customer in India, the world's largest diamond cutting and polishing centre.

"It can impact on the fashion side, but as long as the GIA (Gemological Institute of America) and other laboratories can give protection to the consumer, there is no panic."

He said branding was not a practical solution. "If you have this euphoria around diamonds, (where) people want to buy the diamonds at wholesale at any price, that automatically creates room for synthetics," he said.

An Antwerp-based expert on synthetics and diamond treatments, who declined to be named, said synthetics technology was still in its infancy, but added Florida-based Gemesis had made significant progress.

"The issue here is how dangerous synthetics are as a competitor to natural diamonds," he said.

"They will be if they can be produced in mass quantity, are better quality and more attractive in price. If you compare industrial natural diamonds and synthetic industrial diamonds, you pay more today for synthetics because they are standardised and actually perform more efficiently.

"The diamond industry will be forced to move into new technologies to improve the colour of a diamond or CVD (chemical vapour deposition, which builds a diamond layer by layer), that enhance the quality of diamonds, whether De Beers likes it or not," he said.

Relevant Links

Southern Africa
South Africa
Mining

De Beers, which said it had no intention to move into the synthetics market, sees it differently: "Synthetics don't enshrine such core human values and emotions. Consumers see them as completely different products," said a De Beers spokeswoman.

Rick Kusmirski, President of JNR Resources Inc., (the "Company") is pleased to announce that the Company has entered into an agreement with United Carina Resources Corp. and Consolidated Pine Channel Gold Corp. to option just over 12,500 hectares (31,000 acres) of diamond exploration properties in the highly prospective Fort à la Corne area, near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

The properties occur northwest of and along / adjacent to the same structural lineaments that are associated with the main Fort à la Corne kimberlite cluster. They also occur up ice of the Sturgeon Lake kimberlites, which have been interpreted as large ice-rafted blocks, and whose source has never been found. The Company plans to carry out ground work this summer over a number of unexplained geophysical anomalies that occur on the optioned properties. These anomalies were identified by airborne surveys and have, for the most part, never been followed up.

Under the terms of the agreement, JNR Resources can earn a 60 per cent beneficial interest in the properties by the issuance of 100,000 shares, expenditures on exploration and development on the properties of $200,000 and cash payments totaling $40,000, over a two year period. The Company can, at its option, earn a further 10 per cent interest (70 per cent total) in the properties by expending a further $300,000 on the properties by the end of the third anniversary date. This agreement is subject to completion of final documentation.

In related events:

Drilling on the JNR / Kennecott Canada Exploration Inc. (the "Companies") kimberlite project has been completed. Two targets were tested. Neither drill hole intersected kimberlite and in both cases the geophysical features targeted upon were not explained. The Companies are reviewing their options as to how to next proceed in this area.

The line cutting and ground geophysical program on the Companies? Moore Lake uranium project has been completed. The preliminary interpretation is encouraging and indicates the presence of a major east-northeast trending structural corridor in the general "Maverick Zone" area. The final interpretation and details of the planned follow up diamond drilling program, will be available within the next week to ten days.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
"R. T. Kusmirski"
Rick Kusmirski, President & Director
For further information, please call: (306) 249-3562

(Rapaport...July 30,2004) Shore Gold Inc. has recovered its third set of diamonds from the company's Star Diamond project in Saskatchewan. This includes the “the largest diamond yet discovered in Saskatchewan,” according to a company press release issued on July 29.

Shore Gold Inc. has recovered the largest diamond ever found in Saskatchewan at the Star Diamond Project in the Fort a la Corne area.

By C. McGarrigle of The Journal

The diamond cartel

The cartel isn't for ever

Jul 15th 2004 | JOHANNESBURG AND WINDHOEK
From The Economist print edition

Reuters

An Israeli tycoon is helping to force De Beers to surrender its control of the world's diamond market

HOW much turmoil can the diamond industry sustain without shattering? On July 13th in an Ohio court De Beers, the world's largest producer of rough stones, finally pleaded guilty to charges of price-fixing of industrial diamonds and agreed to pay a $10m fine, thereby ending a 60-year-long impasse. De Beers executives are at last free to visit and work directly in the largest diamond market, America.

A few days earlier, on July 9th, the first case of successful industry self-regulation against trade in so-called “conflict diamonds” took place when Congo-Brazzaville was punished for failing to prove the source of its diamond exports. And on June 28th Lev Leviev, an arch-rival of De Beers, opened Africa's biggest diamond-polishing factory in Namibia.

Behind all these events lies sweeping change in an industry that sells $60-billion-worth of jewellery alone each year. For generations it has been run by De Beers as a cartel. The South African firm dominated the digging and trading of diamonds for most of the 20th century. Yet the system for distributing stones established decades ago by De Beers is curious and anomalous—no other such market exists, nor would anything similar be tolerated in a serious industry.

De Beers runs most of the diamond mines in South Africa, Namibia and Botswana that long produced the bulk of world supply of the best gemstones. It brings all of its rough stones to a clearing house in London and sorts them into thousands of grades, judged by colour, size, shape and value. For decades, if anyone had rough diamonds to sell on the side, De Beers bought these too, adding them to the mix. A huge stockpile helped it to maintain high prices while it successfully peddled the myth that supply was scarce.

De Beers has no interest in polishing stones, only in selling the sorted rough diamonds to invited clients (known in the trade as "sightholders") at non-negotiable prices. Sales take place ten times a year. The favoured clients then cut and polish the stones before selling them to retailers.

With its near monopoly as a trader of rough stones, De Beers has been able to maintain and increase the prices of diamonds by regulating their supply. It has never done much to create jobs or generate skills (beyond standard mining employment) in diamond-producing countries, but it delivered big and stable revenues for their governments. Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania and South Africa are four of Africa's richest and most stable countries, in part because of De Beers.

One family got extremely rich too. The Oppenheimers created the “single-channel marketing” system of shovelling all available stones to the clearing house. They came to dominate De Beers after Ernest Oppenheimer took control of most of Namibia's diamond mines nearly a century ago. He formed a mining conglomerate called Anglo American, before grabbing the chairmanship of De Beers. The family is thought to be worth around $4.5 billion today; Nicky Oppenheimer, Ernest's grandson, is Africa's richest man. The family still owns a more than 40% direct stake in De Beers, and its members—Nicky Oppenheimer and his son, Jonathan—run the firm. It may own more De Beers shares held indirectly through Anglo American's 45% stake.

But this stable, established and monopolistic system is now falling apart. Three things have happened. First, other big miners got hold of their own supplies of diamonds, far away from southern Africa and from De Beers's control. In Canada, Australia and Russia rival mining firms have found huge deposits of lucrative stones: BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Alrosa have been chipping away at De Beers's dominance for two decades.

De Beers once controlled (though did not mine directly) some 80% of the world supply of rough stones. As recently as 1998 it accounted for nearly two-thirds of supply. Today production from its own mines gives it a mere 45% share. Only a contract to sell Russian stones lifts its overall market share to around 55%.

That is a painful shift, but De Beers is still the biggest diamond producer. And rival mining firms do share one big interest with it: high prices for the stones they dig from the ground. That is why, although it is under pressure, the central clearing system that sustains high prices could yet survive a bit longer. Rather than controlling a pure monopoly, De Beers might be able to run a quasi-cartel that stops the market from opening fully. De Beers says the price of rough stones is still rising; the price of polished stones has risen by 10% this year, according to polishedprices.com, an independent diamond website that tries to track such things.

Worth fighting for

The next challenge might be manageable too. De Beers's system is highly secretive. Nobody knows the ultimate source of particular diamonds it sells, as all are mixed together in London. But De Beers faced extraordinary public-relations pressure after it emerged that rebel armies in Africa were funding their wars by selling what became known as conflict diamonds.

Since 2000 almost 70 countries and all of the big industry players (under the threat of consumer boycotts and activist campaigns by, among others, a London-based group called Global Witness) have adopted standards designed to prove the origins of their diamonds. The so-called Kimberley Process is now in force: governments must issue certificates of origin for the stones they export, and the stones can then be tracked.

It was under this agreement that Congo-Brazzaville was punished last week by being expelled from the Process (the first country ever to be thus censured). As a result, legal trade in its diamonds should cease. It is a test case for the industry.

The introduction of the Process could have threatened De Beers, which wanted to maintain the right to buy diamonds anywhere it pleased and to keep its purchases secret. Eli Izhakoff of the World Diamond Council, an industry body based in New York, says the new rules mean “the industry is changing—it is nothing like it was four or five years ago.”

But although the regulations make it easier to track the flow of rough diamonds, they have not required De Beers to open all its books to public scrutiny. Most of those diamond-fuelled African wars are over. And the firm has a declining interest in buying up any rough stones that appear on the market. It knows that its ability to control world supplies is dwindling.

It is the third challenge that is much more troublesome. This is a threat to break up entirely the way De Beers organises the industry. It can best be summed up in two words: Lev Leviev.

Like the Oppenheimers, Mr Leviev has made himself very rich over the past three decades. An Israeli of Uzbek descent, he is reputedly worth around $2 billion. Though he has interests in transport and property, his real love is diamonds. His Lev Leviev Group is the world's largest cutter and polisher of them. He has mining interests too: his fleet of clanking mining ships began operating off Namibia's coast earlier this year, sucking up diamonds from the sea bed. He boasts it is the world's second-largest fleet; only De Beers has a bigger one.

And Mr Leviev recently moved into diamond retailing. He claims that he is the only tycoon with interests in every stage of production from “mine to mistress” (a canard in the industry holds that men buy more diamonds for their mistresses than for their wives). But his real power lies in the cutting and polishing businesses.

Mr Leviev says he is the only tycoon with interests in every stage of production from “mine to mistress”

He has factories in Armenia, Ukraine, India, Israel and elsewhere. These give him power to challenge De Beers's central clearing house and seek instead to channel stones directly, and at a lower price, to his own polishers. There is a more personal explanation too. Mr Leviev long worked as one of those De Beers sightholders, buying unseen parcels of stones at non-negotiable prices. Even as recently as last year he was among De Beers's clients in South Africa. Being forced to take or leave the stones granted by the diamond cartel infuriated him. He was eager to strike back.

His breakthrough came in Russia. Mr Leviev has cultivated close ties with Russian politicians, including Vladimir Putin long before he became president. Already well known as a cutter and polisher of diamonds in the 1980s, Mr Leviev was asked to help the Soviet state-owned diamond firm set up local factories 15 years ago.

He agreed and formed a joint-venture with the state firm, now called Alrosa. But he insisted that stones for the factories be supplied directly from Russian mines, rather than diverted through De Beers's central system. De Beers was furious at the loss of supply, but the factories got their local stones. When the factories were privatised, Mr Leviev somehow emerged as the exclusive owner.

What happened in Russia set a pattern for clashes elsewhere. Mr Leviev has found that governments welcome factories that create jobs and add value to the diamonds they export; it is a smart way to snipe at De Beers.

Can Lev levitate?

Angola was next. Angola's diamonds are among the world's best when measured by value per carat (see chart) and promise a lucrative return for anyone who can market them. De Beers has had a long interest there. Mr Leviev first invested $60m in the country in 1996, financing a mine at a time when civil war was raging. And just as he cultivated Russia's governing elite, he struck up warm relations in Angola.

It was a well-timed move. The Angolan government despised De Beers. In the days when its monopoly was secure, De Beers regularly bought up any supply of rough diamonds that appeared on the market. It was accused of helping, indirectly, to fund UNITA, the rebel army in Angola, which sold huge quantities of diamonds. In 2001 De Beers ended a spat with the government by quitting the country. By then Mr Leviev had already moved in, eager for another supply of good stones.

By the time the government won Angola's war in 2002, thereby getting control of all the country's diamond mines, the contracts it had struck with Mr Leviev (ie, those lost by De Beers) were worth $850m a year, a sum greater even than that lost by De Beers in Russia.

Mr Leviev has not had it all his own way. Last year Angola's government abruptly cancelled three-quarters of his deal. Some observers accused Mr Leviev of using underhand means (he is close to the daughter of José Eduardo dos Santos, Angola's president) to win them in the first place. Yet, however he did it, Mr Leviev showed in Angola that he could barge aside De Beers in a valuable area near its southern African heartland.

Mr Leviev has been inspired to take another swipe at his rival. On June 28th he took the arm of Sam Nujoma, Namibia's president, and guided him around a sparkling new diamond-polishing factory in Windhoek, Namibia's capital. “For years we have been told this could not be done,” commented various Namibian politicians.

Now Mr Leviev, saviour-like, strode around his factory, showing off row upon row of workers, who wore uniform green overalls and fiddled with chrome machines and modern flat-screen computers. Mr Leviev boasts that, with its capacity for 550 workers, the factory is Africa's biggest.

Jonathan Oppenheimer, affable heir to the Oppenheimer dynasty, says he does not understand what Mr Leviev is up to in Namibia: “And when we don't understand, we worry.” He is right to be concerned. Mr Leviev's obvious next step in Namibia is to challenge De Beers directly. De Beers's mines are run in a joint venture with the government called Namdeb. A 1999 mining law lets the government force any miner to supply stones locally. If Mr Leviev demands it, the government could tell De Beers to provide stones directly to Mr Leviev's new factory, a repeat of the Russian blow.

Clearing up

More important, if Namibia is able to establish a viable cutting and polishing industry using its own stones, then why not every other diamond-producing country too? That would seriously threaten De Beers. Mr Nujoma all but dared his neighbours to follow suit. “To our brothers and sisters of neighbouring states, Angola, Botswana, South Africa, I hope this gives you inspiration to try to imitate what we have here,” he said at the factory opening.

Mr Leviev is building another factory in Luanda, Angola, partly hoping to curry favour with the government. More important, he is offering to build a factory in Botswana, the jewel in the crown of De Beers's empire. De Beers has close ties with the Botswana government: they share a joint venture, Debswana, that exclusively mines the country's diamonds; Botswana gets a huge share of its foreign currency and a large part of its national income from diamond revenues. It is a similar arrangement to that in Namibia.

In an interview in Windhoek last month, Mr Leviev said he had offered Botswana's government a factory to employ “tens of thousands” of people, a scale vastly larger than in Namibia. A senior civil servant from Botswana toured the Windhoek factory with Mr Leviev. As Mr Oppenheimer concedes, this is a delicate time for Mr Leviev to be courting in southern Africa. De Beers is still renegotiating the terms of an 18-year lease on the Jwaneng mine, in southern Botswana, which is due to expire at the end of this month. The mine is thought to be worth $1.3 billion a year, producing stones of a quality that would have Mr Leviev salivating.

More broadly, De Beers must renegotiate the terms of all its marketing operations in Botswana and in Namibia every five years. These talks are also due. While no-one expects Mr Leviev to break up De Beers's relationships in these countries—Mr Oppenheimer is confident that the government will not do anything to risk its big revenues—his appearance on the scene puts pressure on De Beers.

The obvious step for De Beers now would be to take on Mr Leviev at his own game. In Botswana and Namibia there have been a few diamond-polishing factories backed by De Beers. But De Beers does not want to be involved in that stage of diamond production.

It is first a miner and only belatedly a retailer of diamonds. But it is blocked from the production steps in between as long as it remains the major supplier of stones to the whole industry, says Mr Oppenheimer. Buyers of its stones would suspect De Beers of holding back the best diamonds for its own manufacture and would revolt.

Nor does Mr Oppenheimer think a polishing industry is viable in many diamond-producing countries, whatever Mr Leviev says. In Namibia just a few hundred people work as polishers and cutters. There are few skilled workers, the scale of production is small and wage costs are roughly ten times that of India, which dominates the world market and where 900,000 people work as basic polishers.

Nor are small countries, such as Namibia, likely to develop the top-level skills needed for the very highest-quality stones. Those skills are concentrated in a few cities, such as Antwerp, Tel Aviv and New York. Within southern Africa, only South Africa has a long-established cutting and polishing industry, to which De Beers supplies some good-quality stones (“specials” in the language of the trade). But Mr Leviev probably does not care. A few factories may be uneconomic, but if they allow him to get hold of direct supplies of diamonds, then so be it.

A polished act

Mr Oppenheimer is worried that a more fragmented industry will not just damage De Beers, but that the whole industry might collapse. Consumers believe diamonds are valuable largely because of decades of clever marketing by De Beers and its clients. De Beers itself spent $180m on advertising last year, its clients a further $270m. That sort of spending could not be co-ordinated and sustained, he suggests, if the industry were to fragment.

That is a risk; but there are opportunities for De Beers too. As it has lost market share, the old goliath has become nimbler. No longer focusing exclusively on defending a cartel, De Beers is freer to make decisions according to commercial interest. For instance, it now buys fewer stones at uneconomic prices; profits matter more than market share. A trimmer De Beers, with a pared down list of clients, might even be able to make bigger profits than the old giant. Last year it produced healthy profits of $676m on sales of $5.5 billion.

But its decision to settle American antitrust charges laid against it in 1994 points to how much it is feeling the pressure. De Beers executives should now be free to travel to America to conduct business without fear of arrest. That should make it easier to promote De Beers LV, a hitherto disappointing partnership with the luxury-goods firm LVMH to market De Beers-branded diamonds.

That venture may prove essential for De Beers's long-term health, as more producers bet on getting a presence in profitable diamond retailing. Already rivals are moving: Canada's Ekati mine markets its stones directly to consumers; Mr Leviev's firm struck a deal in May with Bulgari, an Italian jewellery maker, to market Leviev-branded stones. De Beers's days of market dominance are clearly drawing to a close. But consumers should not get too excited just yet. Whether a duopoly or oligopoly emerges, diamond prices are not going to plummet. Mr Leviev will be among those putting a stop to that.

Saw your post, so before I leave, thought you might be interested.

There are already two US companies either producing or about to produce synthetic diamonds and apparently they are perfect.

One is named Gemesis (not sure of spelling).
The other, I cannot remember the name, but if I run across it, I will bring it to your attention. I believe it was the former that stated all their diamonds would be laser identified as man made.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Frey:
TW I agree a waste of bandwidth. But as long as folks stay away from profanity we try to let it go.

N enough with what you think you know about others please.

G find it hard to think you got in the middle of all this.

W I would have said it once and moved on.

All why waste your time posting about others? Try talking about the company and it's stock.

---

Noah he already did look at it and here is his response.

Tic thanks for finally good posts.

Hi JBCak - You can sit in my pew anytime and so can anyone else on this board. If I ever find a perfect church I will not be joining it since that would be the end of its perfection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears a large percentage of the shares are NOT being bought or sold, just transferred back and forth between the MM's.

I posted this observation last week, but very few people seemed to have comments. Given the huge disparity below, I think this is an important area of investigation so I will try it again in the hope someone with more knowledge of MM behavior can fill us in.

What I am documenting below is based upon this mornings time and sales info from L2 (approx 7:40 AM PST). I have tracked this pattern for over a week, and if anything it is more out of synch now then ever.
Here is what I am observing on L2
Current share volume 2,134,127,387
Current $ volume = $69,541
Current # of transactions = 59

If you do the math, you can see the problem
First, share volume divided by $ volume = .000033 per share (One too many zero’s here)
Second, the $ volume does not match up. If you multiply the volume X bid price (low average) you get a $ volume of $640,238. As you can see above, the reported dollar volume is only 69,541.

you can read press releases related to the three announced dividends. Also you can review all the subsidiaries of UCAD and look at pictures of their operations.

Hi everyone

I just picked up another 250k shares of CMKX

quote:

---

Originally posted by cool1sh:

Urban is our modern day Robin Hood because he will legally take from the rich (or not give to the rich) to give to the poor (or those who are more in line of the needy). This is the love the Urban makes manifest for his CMKX shareholders.

---