Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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

To: d:oug who wrote (45478)	12/2/1999 8:10:00 AM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116762

I was surprised the Evening Standard - although a rag nowadays - would refer to 'allegations' with reference to Barrick - but then the reporter probably does not follow gold. I don't have an 'ignore' on anyone - can't see the point. d

To: d:oug who wrote (45478)	12/2/1999 9:34:00 AM
From: Ken Benes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116762

Doug: Your note succintly states what has happened. Even Barrick the most sophisticated hedged of the producers were no match for the rocket scientists at the brokerages and banks that created the instruments. Actually, the biggest joke, the synthetic positions sold to the producers is not that dynamic of an instrument. Even small investors have been using proceeds of one option to purchase the opposing option for years. It can work beautifully in a market that is moving with the synthetic position. Unfortunately, when the market goes against the position there is a naked option bomb laying out there. Apparently this is what happened to the producers. It is hard to believe that producers could have entered into these positions with gold approaching ten year lows. Go figure, but then again you have to watch the head guys at the mining companies when someone puts a shovel in their hand, they will dig more holes than the owner of a peteck labeler can stick labels onto things. Finding more gold and collateralizing central bank sales with the additional reserves, what a bunch of fools. Double D was cut from the mold and read his babble that says nothing more than the miners have prospered with hedging. Correction the managers have. Ken

To: d:oug who wrote (45478)	12/2/1999 12:39:00 PM
From: Zardoz	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 116762

....derivatives that have done the damage are gold futures and options. That's like saying Guns kill, when it's the motive behind the trigger that matters. Gata never got it, never will. And the sooner you learn to speak for yourself the better. ... derivatives these companies bought have ... at worst bankrupted them ... and at best mortgaged their future production ... and profits for months and years to come. Not true at all. Can you show me an example the HEDGING, and not speculating, by gold companies is a negative? I doubt that anyone here can. Mortgage their futures, well in a declining gold price, I disagree. In a rising price of gold, how much are they hedged as a percentage of production? I think you and many people here are stuck on definitions of going long or going short, and don't fully understand what a hedge is. I think Murphy and his education don't truly understand the process either. I know he couldn't answer the simple questions I posed in the past. He may have traded futures, or options, but that doesn't mean he understood. Gata is looking under ever little rock for proof, good luck. Is what they do with their time a bad thing: No, just a waste of time. What proof they get will not result in a bid tobacco type payout. Maybe their motives and yours need to be checked. What are they trying to prove, "that they are right?" Well the POG speaks volumes. If I can predict the POG in the future, and I do on a pretty dam accurate basis. Then they must be missing something. My guess is it's a basic understanding of the market place! Hutch Doug, learn to speak for yourself. Parrots get boring after the novelty wears off.