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: pater tenebrarum who wrote (53938)	6/8/2000 1:31:00 PM
From: Activatecard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

The gold market is so pitifully small when compared with the enormous amount of fiat sloshing around the world. What will really make the market rip is investment demand. The question is, WHEN?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (53938)	6/8/2000 1:33:00 PM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116764

Are the Arabs unhappy the dollar has declined? Part of the agreement for $22-$28 oil was based on a strong dollar. Could there be inflation trouble for Summers/Richardson? Riyadh, June 7 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia, OPEC's biggest oil producer, said crude prices are not yet high enough to warrant an output increase by the exporters group, Agence France-Presse reported, citing an unnamed Saudi oil ministry official. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed in March to increase supply by 500,000 barrels a day if the price of its crude oil index moves above $28 a barrel when averaged over 20 days, and so far the average has yet to surpass that target, the official said. Saudi Arabia is concerned about current prices, though it wants to study the reasons for the recent rise in prices before agreeing to an output increase, the official said, AFP reported. A Saudi Arabian oil ministry official in an interview denied the AFP report though declined to comment further.

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (53938)	6/8/2000 1:37:00 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116764

<i always wondered what happened to the counter-parties of Fannie's and Freddie's rate hedges for instance...when the bond market tanked i figured somebody must sit on anywhere from 20-30 bn. dollars in losses. yet no-one reported such, presumably because the mark-to-market rule didn't exist.> But you have to assume both sides are 'hedged' no?? So only the 'spread' would hurt... long term capital? <the latter works fine as long as the PoG keeps declining...but i'm not buying gold stocks because i believe in further gold price declines. that simply makes no sense.> I hear you, my feelings exactly. But there's also the issue of being 'forced' to mark to market for earnings statements etc... this is where I think the companies would get hurt and learn religion if that's really the way it works? ie. If the company has 1 oz in the ground and sells 1 oz short forward @ $300. When the price goes to $400 does the company have to show a $100 loss if they haven't delivered yet? Now, the banks side of the hedge: The bank buys 1 oz forward @ $300 and sells some stuff on the comex futures maket shorter term to hedge. It's my understanding that they mark the forward wherever they please [but current practice is finally "in line" with 'value' after some spectacular examples to the contrary] at the end of the year. DAK