The difference between "resources" and reserves is a very big one as you well know
I disagree. Reserves depend on drilling results and the POG. Many gold companies have booked reserves but have no processing facilities built yet to mine them. Analysts will value Barrick's reserves higher in assigning a share price target than most because of their record of bringing on new mines meeting target budgets, costs and cashflows and the reputation of management. This is why they deserve the big P/E and market cap. The bottom line for us is the shareprice,...is it not?
It is not a good sign for Barrick that in a minor up move their profits decline by fifty percent and their revenues fall.
That statement is false. Revenues are not falling because of an increase in the POG. I have explained the charge related to hedging in my previous post but I get the feeling you are more interested in just bashing Barrick, than really understanding the financial statements. Cashflow is a more appropriate measure of future growth given the strong balance sheet and production numbers. As long as the POG remains in this range, Barrick will continue to bump along with current cashflows and revenues given their current plan,...so will all the other companies, hedged or unhedged unless they find some really cheap resources or merge. If the POG strengthens and stabilizes at higher values, Barrick will increase cashflows and revenues significantly allowing for higher growth, eps and shareprices. The point you and the gold nuts should get into their heads is that if the POG rises to the lofty heights all of you are predicting, only a small part of Barrick will act like a hedged company. The other 90%+ will act like an unhedged company and if they continue to find new resources or merge with other companies the hedged part will continue to diminish.
Barrick and Anglogold takeover,...Murphy bubble hype,...already addressed it,...I bet Murphy and his buddies has a big position in it and are hyping it so his disciples like you will buy more,...lambs to the slaughter if POG doesn't keep going up to support your habit.
It is becoming clear to me that you have no intention of discussing the financial statements and projects of Barrick, but you prefer to quote the thoughts and assumptions of other authors of dubious motivations and character, and spam them on this thread for our comments. Most use references to short term correlations of complex relationships between economic measurements that likely have little use in predicting future correlations and may have few causal links between them.
I'm also wondering about your posting record on SI,...I'm getting the feeling that you are a plant by GATA to bash Barrick on this thread and promote GATA's gold picks. You post no where else on SI. Perhaps you and GATA are short hedged producers and long unhedged. If so, I predict you will make less than a Barrick shareholder over the next 5 years.
I seem to be doing much more work in our discussions than you are. I'm not interested in the speculations and assumptions about gold, as I have heard every permutation and combination in the last 25 years being a follower of gold for that period of time. Few correlations have survived the test of time, however Barrick has grown from nothing to become one of the biggest and most successful gold producers over that time by any measure. I think it best that we drop this discussion until the next quarter. Then we can reopen this discussion with new data on Barrick and its competitors. |
