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: Enigma who wrote (48731)	2/10/2000 12:37:00 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116764

<BTW spot now at $312 - we're getting blase here?> To many failed rallies, disappointments, heartbreak hotel. One of these days a rally will stick and build upon itself and then move even higher than we all thought was possible. The best things in life happen when you least expect it.

To: Enigma who wrote (48731)	2/10/2000 1:19:00 AM
From: PaulM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

Enigma, I understand from later reports of a conference call with analysts that Barrick "reduced" its "hedges" by buying the calls ($68 million) which you are already aware of. (I put those words in quotes because with the proliferation of types of securities, "hedging" could mean lots of things nowadays). John Hathaway reportedly asked who sold Barrick the calls and was told it was a bullion bank whose identity is confidential. So, in short, no, I don't think Barrick unwound any of its positions. If you know otherwise let me know. Otherwise I generally don't disagree with anything you say. I have no idea what the terms of these derivatives are. Whether Barrick has to deliver physical to close out its poistions probably depends on (a) those terms and (b) what the guy on the other side of the contract wants. But since Barrick is a miner, more often than not, I expect its obligations ultimately require it to cover with the real thing. Lastly, no, I suppose Barrick couldn't declare force majeur under the terms of its obligations by virtue of its purchasing calls. But then, neither could the writer of those calls. If events play out as I have suggested, I suppose that would leave Barrick (and many other miners) in an ambiguous position.