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 (49759)	2/28/2000 1:09:00 PM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116791

There would have to be a collusion with CBs as to sales and leasing - and what would we have then - cries of conspiracy from the other side - 'price fixing', etc., etc. On the other hand OPEC acts with political muscle. Gold producers would be brought to heel by re-enactments of the kind of laws we saw in the 30s. So if Barrick were to act it would be left out in the cold - left to turn in the wind. The difference between oil and gold is the difference between night and day.

To: Ken Benes who wrote (49759)	2/28/2000 2:50:00 PM
From: John Soileau	Respond to of 116791

Ken, as has been noted in the past, other countries are not subject to our antitrust laws, but gold producers with a US presence are. They are simply not free to agree to work in concert to restrict supply in a scheme to raise the price of their product. They can INDEPENDENTLY make "me-too" moves, such as modifying hedging strategy when other producers do so, but obviously this will never be as efficient as a cartel approach. It is difficult to try and coordinate moves with cutthroat competitors when there is no warm and fuzzy accord in place like we see with OPEC. You keep asking why gold producers don't just do what OPEC does. They can't! You also indicated that other natural resources industries understand this: <<This is simple math, the middle eastern producers understand it as does every other company in the natural resource sector with the exception of the gold producers>> Not sure what you meant by this. Copper regularly lurches into oversupply, for example; nothing seems remotely coordinated about that industry. Are their hedging practices less self-defeating than those of the gold producers? John

To: Ken Benes who wrote (49759)	2/28/2000 3:59:00 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116791

Then Ken, there is not simply one line the producers must walk, but two. They are all, to lesser & greater degrees both gold & silver producers, with puts, calls, forward sales, loans(of metals & or currencies) about which to be concerned every day. All these balancing acts must be accomplished each and every day in addition to simply the hard daily tasks of mining & shipping. In these cut throat markets (run as much by governments or opinion, as demand & supply) they often decide to swing toward one and away from the other based on these demand & control issues. Here is the play one has made, you will note the hedge on gold but not on silver(which has been their major thrust of late). siliconinvestor.com I can't blame these smaller companies for picking their battles with care, & then fighting only those they think they have a chance to win. Do you? In the metals part of my portfolio, I evaluate the hedged position of each company & try to own some lightly hedged gold & unhedged gold & silver. Balance in all things.