Gold Price Monitor Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor

GDXJ 96.04

-1.4%

Nov 17 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Zardoz who wrote (44459)	11/1/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: Mark Bartlett	Read Replies (1) of 116762

Hutch, <<Slightly, NO. It dramtically increases earnings. Add stability, by offsetting risk. And actually get a higher price for GOLD.>> Does it? How do we know? If Barrick did NOT forward sell, they may (in the long haul) accrue a greater return. Is this really a risk management issue for Barrick - one of the lowest cost producers going. If they go under - 99% of the others will too. I submit that Barrick does NOT have to hedge one oz to survive. Barrick's actions are to enhance their own cash flow, to the detriment of the industry as a whole. The bottom line, IMHO, is that forward selling is bad for the industry - it give too much control away to third parties who stand to gain from lower (not higher) gold prices. BTW - meant to ask you .. does it not strike you as a little odd that the Kuwaits had 79 tons of gold leased away from them, at such a critical juncture in this volatile gold market ... and then there is this announcement of these airport improvements for them. Seems odd to me - seems like somebody needed physical awfully bad and was calling in a favour. Best to you, MB

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next