smb12's axiom "Scarcity drives up price," is only half true. Case in point. I made my own wine two years ago. Sixty bottles. I gave away many, drank many and today I have two bottles left. These wine bottles are, therefore, extremely scarce. Conversely, there are many bottles of Dom Perignon in the world, and just two bottles of Dom RNE, if you will. So, scarcity should make my bottles of wine more expensive than Moët et Chandon's swill. Right?

Wrong. Nobody wants my wine. Scarcity doesn't matter when supply is greater than demand, or when production costs are nominal. Now, demand for EQMs is great, no disputing that. Thus, we are enticed by CO and Chase "giving" 'em to us. But what does it cost CO to "produce" an EQM vs. an RDM? I maintain the cost of EQMs is less than RDMs. That said, price is not set merely by cost to produce. A seller should sell at the highest price the market will bear, even if it could sell for less and be profitable. But I'm not convinced Chase is foolish enough to bear a higher price for EQMs than RDMs, when it knows CO "produces" them for so little.

I agree with your prediction. CO realizes EQMs "cost" it less than RDMs. Yes, EQMs are "less available" than RDMs, but as I noted so sagaciously above, scarcity does not necessarily equal valuableness.

Shareholders of CAL: What does your company sell RDMs and FEQMs for? You own that company, how come you don't know what it is doing with your assets?

Shareholders of JPM: What does your company buy RDMs and FEQMs for? You own that company, how come you don't know what it is doing with your assets?