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: PAUL ROBERTSON who wrote (49165)	2/16/2000 2:45:00 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116756

Was this posted before? What's New CURRENT MPEG COMMENTARY February 14, 2000. The New Dimension: Running for Cover [Note: In preparing this commentary, I have received much helpful advice and assistance from Patrice Poyet (poyet@cstb.fr), qui s'int‚resse aux march‚s en France et … l'ext‚rieur, and Sunil Madhok (skmoi@emirates.net.ae), whose writings on gold in India have appeared at Gold Eagle. Merci beaucoup … chacun d'eux. Any mistakes, of course, are mine.] Last week Barrick made its much anticipated announcement on hedging. According to its press release, Barrick during the last quarter of 1999: (1) reduced its exposure on call options written to 2.7 million ounces (versus 4 million as reported at its website at the end of the third quarter); (2) stretched out the delivery schedule on its its spot-deferred contracts, which now cover a total of 13.6 million ounces (versus 14 million as reported at its website at the end of the third quarter); and (3) engaged in "an important new dimension" by purchasing call options on 6.8 million ounces. The release further states that the new purchased call options "cover 100% of production from March 1, 2000 through 2001," at strike prices of $319/oz. in 2000 and $335/oz. in 2001. Thus Barrick's hedging program, according to the release, "has been reduced from 18.8 million ounces at the end of the third quarter to a net 9.8 million ounces at year-end 1999." While the numbers do not fully jibe with those at its website for the prior quarter, the net reduction in Barrick's hedge book of some 9 million ounces consists of 400,000 ounces delivered under forward contracts, a reduction of 1.3 million ounces in written calls, and the purchase of new calls for 6.8 million ounces. In discussing this information with analysts, Barrick has apparently revealed three further facts of significance: (1) the new purchased calls are for cash settlement only (CSO); (2) they were (cont) goldensextant.com

To: PAUL ROBERTSON who wrote (49165)	2/16/2000 4:10:00 PM
From: Zardoz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116756

ignore feature on. I almost used it on Hutch but figured we see a great deal less of him around here once gold broke $300 to the upside. Ahhh, so what? As I was telling Richard in PM, I no longer respect anyone on the GPM. The fact that GOLD is above $300 {by $1.40} seems to be of some significance to you. You say I'm wrong on bonds; well you are wrong about what I said. YEN, yupe! But then who would've predicted that the Japanese treasury would take such action to fight the BOJ. You and others seem to think that I stated GOLD wouldn't climb above $300. I said I'd be surprised. I am. But I also said that due to M2/M3 that in Jan-Feb time frame that GOLD would have a chance. That seems to be lost on this thread too. The fact that the Lucretius Taurus's of this world are still preying for a $400+ gold price, that aint happening, should give you heart a warm feeling. Yet since I've been on SI, he's only been right once and that was on DELL. You seem to think that my silence on gold admits being wrong. But here's the truth:" I just don't care". Although there has been opportunity over the last three months in gold stocks, they just haven't been much reward. The sector sucks! Hutch PS: Please feel free to add me to the ignore list. My feeling won't be hurt! PS: Actually I do respect those that can think, or desire to learn. But that doesn't include many here. Definitely not you.