(GATA) Examples of the Extraordinary Barrick Gold Shareholder OUTRAGE !!!
Date: 2/8/00 9:54:05 PM EST
From: LePatron@LeMetropoleCafe.com
Le Metropole members,
After my "beserk Barrick gold shareholder MINI MIDAS,"
I have been besieged with copies of emails sent to Barrick Gold
by disgruntled shareholders.
If JUST these samples of what has come in to me are any indication
of what Barrick has been hit with, you will have a better idea of how
the gold game is changing- FOR GOOD.
Dear Ms. Mulligan,
I sent an email last week explaining that I would
like a response as soon as possible as I need to make
a decision to sell or keep my Barrick shares. One
of the companies I am considering is Placer Dome.
Unfortunately, as I waited for your company response,
their stock soared 25% Friday on their news to
discontinue hedging because they see the price
of gold rising over the years. To date, I have not
so much as received a simple reply from Barrick.
I am considering selling all shares tomorrow
unless I receive a well deserved response to
my original email immediately.
Disappointed,
Jack R
Dear Mr. Oliphant,
Since attending the Denver Gold Group Conference
held at the Westin Hotel in Denver and meeting with
IR representatives, I have been waiting to make a
decision on what to do with my primary stock holding in
Barrick. Because it represents my largest holding,
approximately 18,000 shares, I have been very
disappointed with the recent low share price - it
has been going down since gold has risen to stabilize
in the $280 price range. I hate to sell at this
recent low price, but I do not see anything
changing with management's direction on its
hedging policy.
Management seems to defend their practice in light
of a growing awareness of the dangerous position it
is placing the company and investors in. I have
included the email you sent me before attending
the conference for your perusal. Also I
am including a well written essay related to your
practice of hedging. The more I discover, the
more I am alarmed at management's risky hedging policy.
Furthermore, I am adverse to maintaining an
investment in any company that hurts the industry
it represents. I eagerly await a response on your most
current plans on your hedging policy. I will
not sell if you can assure me you are planning or
in the process of covering your hedged position.
Please respond as soon as possible.
Thank you.
George M
To: Randall Oliphant,
I along w/ 3 other employees of Johnson
Marketing, all Barrick Shareholders, have sent
numerous emails to Investor Relations and not one
of you have bothered to respond to any of our
concerns! To say the least, we are offended and
have now formed the impression that management
could care less about its shareholders.
I guess it comes as no surprise to you that as a
result of your negligent behavior towards the
shareholders of whom you serve, we have all made
the decision to sell our shares of Barrick if we
do not receive some answers fast! We were all
very disappointed the Barrick did not announce
their intentions to cease all hedging activities!
Instead, they further hurt the stock price and
gold price by claiming to have covered a large
position of their forward sales in the last
quarter. On the Barrick conference call, you were
quite specific in saying that the 6.8 million
calls you bought would be settled for cash, if
in the money at expiration - a cash settlement.
Even without seeing the contract and what
exclusions may apply - cash settlement is suspect.
When you give up the settlement demand of actual
delivery in metal, you are leaving yourself
wide-open for unexpected surprises. That's because
someone can always play games with prices on
any given day or period, a delivery demand in
physical metal really cuts down the wiggle room.
What Barrick bought on paper looks less and less
like real bullion, which is what you owe. Maybe
it will work out for shareholders, but your hedge
position is starting to look like a Rube
Goldberg contraption. I would like this cleared
up immediately!
In fact, we're so upset, that we may be joining
a movement under way to bring legal action
against Barrick management to have all of you
removed from your positions and held accountable
for your misleading information given to us
over the years! Barrick shareholders have begun
to contact Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
Law Firm to file a lawsuit against Barrick
management. All 4 of us have been contacted to
join the movement by other Barrick shareholders.
They are in the process of contacting the law firm
to relate our experiences over the years in dealing
with Investor Relations and the misleading, vague
information we have received in regards to the
nature of your hedging practices. As I stated in
earlier emails, I do not want to be invested in
a company that is not only hurting the gold
industry through its practices, but more
importantly putting investors at risk in the
reasonable event that gold will rise to the
level many such as John Hathaway believe it will.
Mr. Peter Munk of Barrick Gold has some gall to
blame World Central Banks for the horror story
unfolding in the gold mining industry. In fact,
he is one of the leading contributors to the
malaise afflicting the precious metal. Barrick's
shareholders ought to fire him summarily along
with his entire executive board of sycophantic ducks.
Yes, it's true that, owing to forward hedging, he
locked in most of Barrick's production at $410 an
ounce. Most uninformed observers would consider
that a shrewd tactic. However, it is a Pyrrhic
victory at best. In reality, forward sales of
gold by self-serving mining companies like Barrick
contributed to the over-supply of gold in the
market. When gold reached $410 an ounce and the
world's largest mining company sold forward such
a huge position in gold, is it any wonder that
Central Banks decided they ought to follow a
similar course...especially given
gold's stagnant price over the last decade?
Mr. Munk further feigns concern about the
possible social disruptions that might unfold in
a major gold-producing country such as South
Africa. When he dumped Barrick's gold supply
upon the market at $410 announce, was that an
act of social conscience where South Africa is
concerned? Of course not...it was Barrick acting
out of ignorance and myopic objectives,
oblivious to the perceptions and ramifications
this huge forward sale would have on the world
gold market.
If gold mining companies really wish to convince
Central Banks that gold stands any chance of
future appreciation, then they better skip the
hot air and pursue immediate, tangible strategies
in addressing the over-supply problem.
First, they must immediately cease all forward
sales of gold. Secondly, they must announce to
the world that all future exploration of gold is
ending today and they will only work the existing
mines. Third, they must consolidate their industry
so that it is similar structurally to other major
oligopolistic/monopolistic commodity suppliers
(such as OPEC). Fourth, they must mount a concerted
propaganda campaign to convince Central Banks and
major global financial institutions that gold
truly is a financial reserve and not merely another
commodity. In otherwords, they must shift their
focus from supply to demand. It seems every time
we open a newspaper or turn on the TV today, we
see a constant assault on the value of gold mounted
by disciples of the so-called "New Paradigm." It
would make a great deal more sense to forego
opening a single gold mine and use the monies
saved to finance pro-gold lobbyists
and media exponents who can reverse the negative
psychology that's developed around the metal.
The most unnerving aspect of the current gold
crisis is its potential spillover effects. Weakness
in gold is spilling over onto other metals such
as silver and copper. In effect, if counter-measures
are not enacted swiftly, we soon might witness
numerous mine closures in virtually every metal
industry. Can you just imagine the devastation
this phenomenon would wreak upon the
resource-dependent Canadian economy? Already,
various financial analysts are attributing unusual
weakness in the Canadian dollar to currency
speculator concerns over future, pandemic weakness
in Canada's resource sector.
In conclusion, I would ask Mr. Munk one final
question: if he is truly bullish on gold as he
claims, then why the hell is he shifting significant
amounts of assets into Trizec-Hahn, the commercial
property developer? If he truly believes in the
gold mining industry, then he is sending the wrong
message by simply buying back his own company's
shares. The only message the buyback sends to
the world is that Peter Munk believes in Peter Munk.
Instead, he should acquire another major gold
mining company (like Battle Mountain, Placer
Dome, TVX, Homestake, Royal Oak, or Kinross). In
doing so, he will put the entire gold market on
notice that short sellers best beware because
mining consolidation is in the works.
Charles V
[End.]
All the best,
Bill Murphy
Chairman, Gold Anti Trust Action (GATA) gata.org
Le Patron, Le Metropole Cafe lemetropolecafe.com
The above mention of GATA is as follows.
Bill Murphy, Chairman, Gold Anti Trust Action (GATA) gata.org
Also, GATA related articles can be obtained at the pay for view site.
Bill Murphy, Le Patron, Le Metropole Cafe lemetropolecafe.com |
