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: Ken Benes who wrote (49410)	2/21/2000 1:12:00 PM
From: Ken Benes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

What is the imperative for Barrick to increase production from 3.5 million ounces to 5 million ounces per year. Will it translate to greater value for the owner in barrick shares, will it fill a void in a market in which demand is greatly exceeding supply, or will it have a depressing effect on the price of gold as other producers follow their example and develop their own properties to increase production. The answer to any or all of those questions is debateable depending upon the perspective of the individual giving the answer. What is indisputable, is recent history in the gold markets. When counting supply available to the market, it is essential that recognition be given to above ground stores. Attempting to determine shareholder value from production and cash flow is difficult because of the nature of investing in gold(opportunity for quick and large gains). Gold companies can be valued in a variety of ways, in ground reserves have a value and do not necessarily have to be brought to production with their reserve basis depleted on a yearly basis to increase the value of a company. It is incumbent for the management of the large producers to take in a variety of factors prior to bringing new production on line or increasing supply by selling forward to provide the funds to develop a mine. Market conditions must be monitored prior to making decisions to increase supply and what is very clear at the current point in time, the market does not need new supply, in fact supply should be reduced by delivering to a companies hedgebook. The prouducers must continue to pressure the above ground stores of gold and change the market pyscholgy that has been relying on the gold companies to retail those above ground stores thru leasing and forward sales. Can the producers do it and are they willing to move in that direction. They can and will if they pay attention to the owners of the company and not the business associates of the company. Continue to make it loud and clear to the producers, investors will boycott any company that does not put the interests of the shareholders as their first priority. If they listen and they will if their share prices continue to lanquish, then supply will contract and prices will go up. Lets continue to shout to producer management, "Its the markets stupid". Ken

To: Ken Benes who wrote (49410)	2/21/2000 2:01:00 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

Ken: Amen! I do not think many gold companies are rejecting hedging -- just hedging at absurdly low prices. When POG rises to $350-375, producer hedging probably will pick up again. A sustained bull market in gold and gold shares requires a big jump in INVESTMENT DEMAND. Curtailing producer hedging at current depressed prices is an important first step. But it is only that. The sky is the limit for POG when and if investment demand takes off. But until then, $350-375 probably will be as good as it gets.

To: Ken Benes who wrote (49410)	2/21/2000 2:25:00 PM
From: Enigma	Respond to of 116764

"Boycott barrick and replace their shares along with the share of the australian producers with those companies that have made a clear commitment to stay out of the forward market for at least a one year period, unless participations is too close out existing positions" What rotten advice! If you're right - and the price goes down the price of the non-hedged miner's stock will go down too - this sort of advice is fine - just so long as it's the other guy who follows it!!

To: Ken Benes who wrote (49410)	2/21/2000 3:08:00 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116764

How the oil shortage will wallop consumers' wallets By this summer, the price of regular gasoline could rise to $1.50 a gallon. And with higher diesel-fuel prices, the cost of groceries could climb, too. By Wendy Tanaka INQUIRER STAFF WRITER Gasoline prices continue to rise - and the cost of soup could be next - as worldwide oil supplies continue to dwindle. Experts said the oil shortage could cause prices at the pump this summer to rise to $1.50 per gallon for regular in the Northeast and $2 or more in California. Shallow oil reserves may also add a few pennies to the cost of basic grocery items, from soup to nuts. Such price increases may be needed to cover higher transportation costs, the result of skyrocketing diesel-fuel prices. The recent oil crisis has already pinched the pocketbooks of many consumers this winter and likely will continue to do so over the coming months. So far, the shortage has (cont) phillynews.com

To: Ken Benes who wrote (49410)	2/22/2000 9:44:00 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116764

Hello Ken. In your post to me you said. " Should the producers cave and make new supplies of gold available for forward sales, the one certainty, the price of gold will be smooth down. The beneficiaries, the leveraged producers, bullion bankers, and the central bankers with an agenda to talk down the specter of inflation. The losers, the owners of gold mining shares. " When you started posting here some months back I had difficulty believing that producers could be ( in part ) responsible for the low gold prices as a result of their hedging and forward sales. After being undecided for some months I now believe you have been proven to be correct. Thanks What I have trouble understanding is why a producer would engage in a practice that will contribute to their own demise. In the case of the smaller producers it seems they would do this to survive. But in the case of larger producers such as ABX it makes less sense to turn over ownership of the company from the shareholders to bullion banks. It appears to me that the biggest stake holder in keeping the POG down is the US$ and I can understand why the USA would want to keep the POG low. A high POG = a weak US$ = a loss of control over countries who hold US$ as reserve asset. I can't help but wonder why a former US president and a former Canadian Prime minister are directors of a company like ABX. I have been told on this thread before that they are only directors with no special influence. I'm surprised that Australia is not represented at ABX. I say this because it appears to me that these three countries are the biggest sellers of gold or anti gold countries. Anyhow I ask myself why would producers do this. 1) break smaller producers and buy them? 2) they can sell more gold at 250 than at 350 maybe more profit ? 3) or they are helping out bigger friends? What a great mystery. Lorne Almost forgot 4) stupidity.