Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 16:50
trotsky (as if further proof was needed...) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
Maria Bartiromo's final two questions to the Barrick CEO revealed that in spite of several years of financial reporting she still has no understanding whatsoever of the related topics. really just a pretty face - with nothing between the ears backing it up.
1. she couldn't differentiate between capital spending and recurring mining costs.
2. she ( seriously ) asked if 'gold miners were able to pass the increased price of gold on to consumers' - the latter question is hereby nominated as stupid CEO interview question of the year.
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 15:07
trotsky (Thomas) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
"The fact is that a reversed yield curve is precursor of recession."
an inverted yield curve is practically a GUARANTEE for a recession, but it's not a necessary precondition for one. any positive yield spread dip below 250 bps. in the 10-yr. vs. 1 yr. maturities already represents a recessionary threat.
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 14:40
trotsky (frustrated, 13:41) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
"Though bill rates have been moving up, longer term rates have not -- an important plus for the economic outlook and a potential policy headache for the Fed which is trying to stem growth."
this is baloney. first of all, the Fed is NOT 'trying to stem growth'. rather, it is praying that there will be some growth to retroactively justify the rate hikes to date. secondly, the fact that short rates are rising while long rates are falling is most assuredly NOT a 'plus for the economic outlook' , at least not in the sense implied here ( i.e. causing rising "GDP growth" ) . quite on the contrary, a flattening yield curve is usually the precursor of a recession.
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 14:35
trotsky (BG@Ure) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
"Sounds more and more like a well-orchestrated attempt to subvert the West - which when coupled with Russia's threat to accept Euros is even more bad news for the West."
last time i looked, Europe was still considered to be PART of the West. so the correct phrasing would be a 'threat to dollar hegemony' and not a 'threat to the West'. but it isn't even that. Russia, or any other commodity producer currently accepting dollars in exchange for their goods , doesn't need to 'threaten' use of the euro. they can simply turn around, take the dollars they have received, and buy euros. they don't need to tell anyone about it, they can just go and do it.
however, it would make commercial sense for both Russia and Europe if Russian exports to the EU were priced in euros, since that would cut out the currency exchange middlemen and allow for simpler calculation. however, this would still not rise to the level of 'threat to the West' i'm afraid.
|
