Waste management contracts

Will the waste management levy increase: [www.ipredict.co.nz]

Will Auckland City require a new recycling bin for glass: [www.ipredict.co.nz]

Who's idea for a prediction was this? A binary prediction that doesn't expire until 2014, regarding a topic no one cares about, so it's prolly gonna sit there for months with close to zero trading volume. What is the point? Someone call the Guiness book of records! The most boring prediction has just been created.

Seriously ho-hum, again.

Couldn't agree more...

If admin is stuck for ideas may I suggest having a look on the Feature Requests forum...

In particular, "Today's Change on Profile".

Perhaps IPredict is being paid to run these by someone like (but not necessarily) Waste Management?

Even if not, perhaps to demo that IPredict can be useful for such corporate planning?

Admin is thinking of buying shares in WM??

Alan.

On a side note, I'm not opposed to iPredict being sponsored to run specific contracts, provided:
- it generates cash for the site; and
- (perhaps) it is noted somewhere on the contract it is a "Sponsored Contract" to let us know the method behind admin's mayhem.

I'm in no way suggesting that's the case here (every so often, bizarre contracts like this and the Defence Force one pop up!) but just a thought for the future.

Undoubtedly this is a sponsored contract, as are many others. But why do they need to be noted as such, other than to allay our concerns about admin's sanity?

eeyore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Undoubtedly this is a sponsored contract, as are
> many others. But why do they need to be noted as
> such, other than to allay our concerns about
> admin's sanity?
>

How do you know without any doubt?

Alan.

eeyore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But why do they need to be noted as
> such, other than to allay our concerns about
> admin's sanity?


Simply to lessen the angst of people like Donner, Oracle, NH and Alan.

I'm thouroughly angsted!

Please unangst me.

Alan.

To quote gr on the Today's Change in Profile forum:

"It would be good if admin could at least explain where the hold up is in responding to users' requests and new stock ideas. Six and a half months out from an election, the site needs to be running smoothly to attract new users and make it easy/palatable for existing traders to turn over a high volume. A "Today's Change" field is exactly the sort of feature that would prove immensely valuable to all."

My 'angst' is perhaps best seen in that context. However, I have no problem with sponsored stocks and think it's a great way of lessening the blow from any fees changes that may happen.

Alan3285 Wrote:
> > Undoubtedly this is a sponsored contract
> How do you know without any doubt?

Forgive my colloquialism. I should have said with $0.9890 confidence.

eeyore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alan3285 Wrote:
> > > Undoubtedly this is a sponsored contract
> > How do you know without any doubt?
>
> Forgive my colloquialism. I should have said with
> $0.9890 confidence.
>

That's more like it

How do you know with $0.9890 confidence?

What I am asking is, do you actually know, or are you just guessing (if you know what I mean)?

Alan.

I already knew there were sponsored contracts. With that knowledge, I was quite confident that this would be one.

Back to the earlier comment, would there be any effect on trading if people know a contract is sponsored? What if they also know who sponsored it? I would suggest there is no effect, except that a few people may come along to manipulate the market. And the rest of us would happily take their money off them.

A trader has contacted us saying the AK.WASTELEVY contract should close on the basis of this release.

[beehive.govt.nz]

The contract is tied to an announcement not implementation, and it is not clear from the statement that an announcement next year is ruled out. Even if that was indicated in the announcement, the contract does not provide an early close rule for an announcement of no increase and so it is hard to anticipate circumstances that could arise that would allow us to close the contract at $0 before 2013 - possibly the elimination of the levy itself.

Plenty of scope for an announcement during 2012 that the rate will increase in calendar year 2013, which would be sufficient to close this contract at $1.

If this contract were to expire on 1st of January 2012, then it would be a bit trickier, depending on whether we could consider this announcement was 'final' or not (could easily change their mind - like they did with ACC levies).

Indeed.