SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (45184)11/20/1999 8:52:00 AM
From: Tunica Albuginea  Respond to of 116957
 
Unemployment Offices Remainÿ Empty; Fed not happy.
BARRON'S ,ÿÿÿ NOVEMBER 22, 1999

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ If Unemployment Offices Remain Relatively Empty,
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ The Fed Won't Be Very Happy About It

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ By William Pesek Jr.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Moments after the Federal Reserve hiked rates last week, a
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ dozen guests at the Chicago Hilton & Towers Hotel huddled
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ in an elevator equipped with a small television screen. On it,
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ CNN reported details of the Fed's latest move to slow the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ economy.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ "It seems like Alan Greenspan won't be happy until more of us
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ are standing on the unemployment lines," complained a
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 40-something man from the back of the car.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ "Really, dear," his wife joked, "I don't think they have those
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ anymore."


ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ The couple's exchange gave their fellow passengers a good
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ laugh, but neither of the speakers seemed to understand the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ prescience of their comments. As Fed Chairman Greenspan
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ made abundantly clear last week, the nation's unemployment
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ offices are becoming lonely, barren places and the central bank
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ isn't happy about it.
While the Fed doesn't like putting people
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ out of a job, it's getting antsy as the American economy runs
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ out of workers. And simply put, that's why the Fed isn't done
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ with its tightening campaign.


ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ The FOMC's
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ quarter-percentagepoint hikes
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ in the federal-funds and
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ discount rates -- to 5.50% and
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 5%, respectively -- were
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ greeted with euphoria in
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ equityland. Stock analysts hit
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ the airwaves with bullish
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ chatter about how Greenspan
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ & Co. would be taking the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ next two years off. Part of the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ rationale was the fact the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ FOMC had taken back all of
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ the 75 basis points worth of easings from fall 1998. The Fed's
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ decision to keep with tradition and return its policy bias to
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ neutral was another encouraging sign for many.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Yet the statement accompanying last week's action was a "not
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ so fast" warning from the central bank. At its heart was a
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ warning that the tightness of labor markets was a "trend that
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ must eventually be contained" to keep inflation in check. It was
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ an indication that the so-called Phillips Curve --essentially the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ idea that wages accelerate as unemployment falls, fueling
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ inflation -- is back in the Fed's playbook.
To New Economy
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ enthusiasts, it seemed ironic that the same central bank that
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ saved Long Term Capital Management from extinction last
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ year would target working Americans in its quest to slow the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ economy.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ "Forget productivity, forget consumer prices-even if the news
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ on those fronts remains as good as it has been, the Fed
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ doesn't appear to care," noted Greg Jones, chief economist at
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Briefing.com. "Greenspan is obsessed with one number-the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ pool of available workers."


ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Indeed, even a bond bull like
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Jones agrees the Fed's
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ renewed focus on tight labor
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ markets will be a roadblock to
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ lower Treasury yields. While
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ it's fair to assume the Fed
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ won't tighten in December, on
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ the eve of Year 2000 computer
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ hysteria, another move can't
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ be ruled out in February. If the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ pool of available workers
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ continues declining, a
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ tightening would be an oddson
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ bet. Indeed, productivity trends may relieve the pressure as
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ employers get more out of workers, but it's not clear this will
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ happen quickly enough to satisfy the Fed.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Essentially, the majority of Federal Open Market Committee
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ members fear the economy can't sustain 4%-plus growth
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ without overheating. But then neither can the bond market,
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ judging from last week's price action. The yield on the 30-year
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ bond jumped to 6.17% Friday, compared with 6.03% at the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ start of the week.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ The selloff came despite good news on inflation. The
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ consumer price index advanced just 0.2%, both for the overall
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ report and the so-called core rate, which strips out food and
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ energy items. But the tame price data were eclipsed by a
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ couple of bearish economic surprises last week.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ One was a stronger-than-expected Philadelphia Fed
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ business-conditions index; it rose to 15.8 in November from
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 6.9 in October. Another showed that the number of Americans
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ applying for unemployment insurance dropped to 287,000 last
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ week. Oil prices also shot higher during the week. Crude oil
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ futures hit a post-Persian Gulf War high of $27.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Underscoring the market's foul mood, investors even took a
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ dim view of the CPI data. As an analysis by Bridgewater
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Associates pointed out, the report was uneventful on the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ surface, but it's underlying message was that the deflationary
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ forces unleashed by falling commodities and a strong dollar in
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 1997-98 have now been fully reversed. That realization is
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ raising concerns that the core CPI rate may break higher.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Treasury bonds also came
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ under pressure as investors
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ventured into riskier bonds
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ offering attractive yields
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ relative to government debt,
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ noted Astrid Adolfson of
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ MCM MoneyWatch. Even
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ downgraded Lockheed Martin
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ debt met with such great
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ demand that the deal was
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ upsized by $1 billion to $3
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ billion. Agencies, meanwhile,
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ drew attention from Treasuries
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ thanks to a $2 billion Freddie Mac bond offering.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ To some extent, the Treasury market's post-Fed tightening
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ decline fit a similar pattern. Bridgewater's Claude Amadeo
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ noted that the market rallied going into the Fed's three rate
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ hikes this year amid expectations for slowing economic
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ activity. But in each case the buying sprees set the stage for
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ selloffs as data continued to depict an economy with plenty of
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ momentum.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ While the stronger-than-expected economic reports and hints
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ of high commodity prices
that coincided with the FOMC's
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ action last week were similar to what investors witnessed after
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ other Fed moves, there's one crucial difference: the degree to
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ which sentiment on U.S. assets swung recently. Rallies in
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ bonds, stocks and the dollar leading up to the first two rate
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ moves this year boosted investor psychology, but the swing
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ahead of last week's rate hike was much stronger.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Over this period, Amadeo notes, overall sentiment swung from
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ a five-year low all the way back to neutral. The upshot is that
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Wall Street's continuing moodswing could be far more
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ forceful and dangerous.
Of course, one gets a very different
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ interpretation from most media outlets. The spin offered by
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ many mainstream newspapers was that the Fed is done
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ tightening. And television personalities stuck to their party lines
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ that even a 10% federal-funds rate and 12% 30-year bond yield
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ couldn't dent the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Woody Dorsey of Bond Market Semiotics

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ thinks a realityÿ check is badly needed.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Central banks, he points out, are
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ beginning -- or continuing -- to rein in credit because of a
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ indisputable improvement in global growth. And the notion
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ that the Fed won't tighten again in the months ahead is
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ "acerebral" to Dorsey. In fact, Dorsey, who conducts a
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ weekly survey of bond market sentiment, says U.S. investors
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ are as bearish on bonds as they've been in 20 years.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Jones of Briefing.com sees a very different scenario unfolding,
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ one where the bond market increasingly realizes that inflation
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ isn't a problem. But before investors can reap the benefits of
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ the inflationfree New Economy, they must get a handle on
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ where short-term rates are headed next year. It appears that the
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ answer can be found in coming monthly employment reports.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Specifically, Greenspan is watching trends in the sum of
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ unemployed workers and people not in the labor force but
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ who want a job.
They don't want a job badly enough to look
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ for one, which means they are not technically in the labor force
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ and therefore not technically unemployed, at least by the Labor
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Department's definition. This pool of available workers has
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ been drying up. As of October, the total was 9.8 million, down
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ from 10.8 million last October and 12.1 million in October '96.


ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ In Greenspan's mind, the decline can't be sustained
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ indefinitely.

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ "At some point, you reach zero and it's 'gameÿ over,' "

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Jones says.



To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (45184)11/21/1999 3:43:00 AM
From: Alex  Respond to of 116957
 
By Adrian Day
Adrian Day's Global Analyst
Box 6644, Annapolis MD 21401
November 18, 1999

Following the recent rally in the gold price and the
difficulties some companies are experiencing because of
their hedging, some of you have asked about the
practice of hedging. In this note, I'd like to address
that topic.

Hedging for gold producers, as for the producer or
indeed consumer of any commodity, can range from
prudent to aggressive, event reckless. There are
different forms of hedging and different objectives,
too. These are not always clear-cut distinctions, but
rather points along a continuum.

Hedging can have many goals.

Hedging can be defensive -- to ensure survival, for
example, in the case of high-cost producers -- or it
can be offensive -- to generate a premium, for example,
or even to speculate on the future price of gold. We
have seen a good deal of additional hedging by gold
companies as the price fell in recent months. Two
influences were at work. On the one hand, more and more
companies saw the need to protect their falling
profits, while the longer the price decline went on,
the more "riskless" hedging appeared.

Hedging in different forms can protect downside;
enhance the upside; limit the upside; or even put the
company at risk. The main forms of hedging are the
following.

The main types of hedges:

1. Forward sales. This is when a company sells its
future production today, for a price based on the
prevailing price plus a forward premium, which varies.
Some contracts have a lease rate, the cost of borrowing
the gold, which can be a fixed or a floating rate.
Forward sales can be effected for any of the main
objectives above and, depending on how they are
structured, can enhance or limit upside.

2. Spot deferred. Some forward sales can be converted,
at the company's option, into a spot sale, if the spot
price is higher. Typically, such sales can be deferred
for a period of time. The company would have to pay a
lease rate until the gold was delivered into the
contract.

3. Purchase of puts. A put gives the owner the right to
sell the gold to the counter party at a specified price
and time. If a company buys a put with an exercise
price of, say, $280, the company can sell its gold at
$280 regardless of how low the price goes. A put
purchase costs money, but it protects the downside,
without limiting the upside. Many companies started
buying puts as the price of gold fell and approached
their break-even levels. It's like the cost of
insurance.

4. Sale of calls. When a company sells a call, it is
committing to sell future production at a specified
price and date in the future. It has the obligation to
sell at that price, if the counter party demands, but
not the right to sell. In return it receives a premium.
If a company sells, for example, a December 2001 call
at $360, it must sell its gold at $360 at that time,
however high the spot price might be. Many companies
that purchased puts -- a defensive move -- chose to pay
for them with the premiums received from the sale of
calls -- a speculative move. In many ways, selling
calls can be the most reckless of all hedging
practices, since it limits the upside while doing
nothing to protect the downside, with only a modest
benefit.

5. Purchase of calls. Some companies that have
otherwise hedged some output, may buy some calls --
which give the owner the right to buy gold at a
predetermined price regardless of the prevailing price
in order to allow participation in a much higher
market. For example, a company might sell forward some
production at, say, $360, and purchase offsetting calls
at $440. Thus, the company has a floor of $360 on its
sale, however low the prevailing price might be at the
time of delivery, and it gains any upside over $440,
but if the price is between $360 and $440, then it
sells for $360 and loses some upside.

One should note another important aspect of hedging.
Most is done using over-the-counter contracts, which
has two important considerations. First, even two
similar contracts may have different terms and
conditions, and costs. And secondly, one is relying on
the counter party to meet its obligations. A contract
to sell one's gold at, say, $420 in December 2001 is
only valuable if that other party to the contract is
able to buy the gold at that time.

If you don't understand, you shouldn't invest.

So it sounds rather complex and there are many factors
to be considered in assessing the aggressiveness of a
particular hedge program. However, it's worth noting
the words of the CEO of one large gold company with
whom I was discussing hedging. I had peppered him with
technical questions and mentioned that the subject was
very complex and not easy to understand. "Not at all,
Adrian. You obviously do understand. I would say that
if you are not clear about a company's program, then
there is probably something risky about that company's
program."

In many ways, I think that is a good summary. The more
complex the strategies, the more can go wrong.

Who's hedged and who isn't:

Below I've categorized the major mining companies in
the world as well as some juniors. Please note two
things: Company hedge programs can change, so nothing
here is set in stone. In June, for example, I would
have called Newmont "unhedged" and Gold Fields'
"lightly hedged." In recent months, Newmont peculiarly
decided to start hedging right at the bottom, while
Gold Fields, as gold started to rally, closed out
essentially all of its hedge book in order to
participate fully in the gold rise. And note that while
one wants one's gold stocks to provide exposure to any
rise in gold, a company with a heavy hedge book is not
necessarily at risk or even a poor investment.

ESSENTIALLY UNHEDGED: Franco-Nevada, Freeport Copper &
Gold, Gold Fields, Harmony, Battle Mountain, Goldcorp,
Agnico-Eagle.

LIGHTLY HEDGED: Newmont, Homestake, Meridian, Teck
Corp., Kinross, TVX, Durban Deep.

HEAVY HEDGE BOOK: Barrick Gold, AngloGold, Normandy,
Placer Dome, Cambior, Ashanti, Viceroy, Echo Bay,
Eldorado, Bema.

One would have to go into a lot of detail about each
company's specific hedge book -- some of which are
relatively static and others (for example, Barrick) are
very dynamic -- to judge the extent to which the upside
is limited or the company is at risk. A company, for
example, could be "heavily hedged" with, say, 60
percent of its production for the next three years sold
forward at $440, but another company could be "lightly
hedged" with 35 percent of its production for the next
three years sold forward at $280!

To a large extent, the companies listed under
"essentially unhedged" and "lightly hedged" are giving
up little upside, if any, and have essentially no
margin or other risk to viability. Of the "heavily
hedged" companies, Barrick, Anglo, and Normandy in
particular have comfortable hedge books with virtually
no risk, if any.

Of course hedging is only one of the factors to
consider in judging which companies are the best to
own. Below, I list the largest 10 gold mining companies
in the world, ranked by next year's anticipated
production (together with special case, Franco-Nevada).

My buy and sell comments are not intended as current
advice on the stocks based on current prices. Rather,
it a longer-term comment on the company: the companies
marked "strong buy" and "buy" are the companies you
want to own if you believe we are going to experience a
relatively strong gold market in the next year or two.

Top Ten Gold miners in world, based on 1999/2000
production:

Anglogold, 6,772. HOLD. Solid operations, balance
sheet, yield.

Gold Fields, 4,175. STRONG BUY. Aggressive, growing,
virtually unhedged, leverage.

Newmont, 4,098. STRONG BUY. Strong operations,
nearly unhedged, leverage.

Barrick Gold, 3,857. BUY. Strong operations, growth,
top balance sheet; less leverage

Placer Dome, 3,021. HOLD. Acquisition problems not
over; balance sheet OK.

Homestake, 2,370. SELL. Why hold Homestake? There
are better companies.

Freeport Copper, 1,983. STRONG BUY. Cheapest of
seniors, unhedged; Indonesia risk.

Normandy Mining, 1,937. STRONG BUY. Entrepreneurial
management; growth; hedges OK.

Ashanti, 1,662. SELL. Too much unknown in hedge book.

Harmony. 1,256. STRONG BUY. Unhedged, growth,
aggressive; high leverage.

Franco-Nevada. BEST BUY. Quality, balance sheet, strong
growth; unhedged. Franco's production is 250,000
ounces, but its royalty interests make it a much larger
company. Using market capitalization as a measure, it
is the fifth largest gold mining company in the world.

-END-


egroups.com