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: grampa who wrote (47662)	1/29/2000 7:52:00 PM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116760

grampa, I must be dumb because I do not see what you see. <<... whats the "y" between each sentence?? A computer "thing"???>> I know that each sentence can result in a "Why?", but thats inside my head that I see/ask. Lots of ? I see in the text which I understand results from a copying utility that cannot understand certain ASCII characters contained in the original. (on topic) Might this be a reason to prevent Barrick from doing what GATA asks, as it would help the price of gold but hurt Barrick ? (from the article, below) ÿ "In principle, the answer is simple: announce a change of policy on hedging.ÿ The difficulty lies in the execution.ÿ Mining companies cannot afford to bid against each other to restructure their hedge books. Nor can they tip their hand in advance, as front-runners would bid up prices.ÿ Still, once the market perceives a different industry stance on hedging, the gold price will rise even more sharply than it did in September. Equity valuations are also likely to rise once previously alienated shareholders interested in the upside play on gold return to the fold.ÿ Just as the Washington Agreement caught short sellers by surprise in September 1999, a sharp curtailment in producer hedging will trigger a rally....." new highs." Doug