I did. Thanks for the URL. I've added it to my bookmarks. Going
to be interesting. Unfortunately, I don't understand the
implications of the huge loss in derivatives. If they had money
they'd have to cover their short position and that would drive
the price of gold up temporarily as all the shorters then
started to cover their open positions. However, they don't
have any money. Therefore, they won't be able to cover. What
happens then? If you and I were in that position, the broker
would take our house, car, children, etc. But 4 billion? When
the article says that the banks who lent them the money are
going to provide them with more funds will that be to cover their
short positions? If so, and if the banks have been playing the
derivative market, and if they, too, are short, they'll also
have to cover their own positions. It could get ugly. Or wonderful,
depending on which side of the fence you are sitting. Since
I'm long on gold stocks, I'm assuming that I'm on the wonderful
side after being on the ugly side for the last year.
|
