> Can you refute this article please
I will decline.
Debating politics and hedges has really ruined my SI experience.
As a result, I seldom contribute anymore.
The point of my post was Newmont vs. Barrick (which is more complicated than just looking at hedges)
At least two years ago I mentioned to you Barrick was looking better. Newmont claimed to have no hedges and became a favorite, but folks seemed to forget to look at their operations - declining ore grades in Nevada, Australia, and Peru leading to lower production. They spun off the royalties (Franco-Nevada is alive, again) and took huge writeoffs. $60 stock then, $50 now,
Meanwhile, those focused on hedging did not notice Barrick actually knows how to mine gold, They added Placer Dome, Arizona Star, and now Cortez from Rio Tinto. They also have opened mines and have a good development pipeline. $30 stock then, $50 stock now.
It was not long ago NEM had a larger market cap than ABX, but now ABX is double NEM.
goldsheetlinks.com
finance.yahoo.com
Hedging may be good or bad (and obviously endlessly debatable) but there is no excuse for not even analyzing a company and missing out on a nice gain. You know WGI, you did the analysis, if you are comfotable with the decision then stick with it, and don't let other talk you out of it. |
