Barrick Gold (ABX) 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 : Barrick Gold (ABX)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: nickel61 who wrote (3110)	6/1/2002 6:03:03 PM
From: Gary Sanders	of 3558

I'm afraid that your logic is still faulty. You say, we will not have any "proof" of the true nature of the contracts that Barrick has used to hedge 18 million ounces of gold with until they either fail or the management chooses to make them public information. If one agrees with your assertion that the nature of Barrick's hedges haven't been made public (i.e. they aren't providing enough information), how do you have enough information to conclude that they are doing something wrong? You go on to say that "The market is starting to suspect something is up with the exposure as gold rises and Barrick continues to lag or as on friday actually decline. This is a pretty significant indication that there is something rotten in the state of Barrick's hedge book. There can be an infininte number of reasons why the stock price of Barrick is lagging and the one day movement of any stock certainly doesn't provide enough information to make generalizations. This is not at all a "pretty significant indication" that Barrick is doing something rotten. It seems only natural that a hedged producer won't do as well as an unhedged one in a rising gold market. To make a claim that this is a significant indication of wrong doing is ridiculous. You keep making post after post about Barrick wrongdoing based on patently faulty logic and unsubstantiated facts. Companies don't always tell the truth, yet you have provided no credible argument why Barrick shouldn't be believed and why they won't be able to deliver into their forward sales. You may want to take a close examination of your reasoning process. You may come to different conclusions once you think things through more thoroughly. Just because the potential exists for something and it has happened before with another company doesn't mean that it is true for all companies and circumstances. What you are claiming is not beyond the realm of possibility - you just haven't provided any reasonable arguments why your hunches - that you admitted are without factual information as to the nature of Barrick's hedges -should be believed and why Barrick shouldn't be believed.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next