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: Rarebird who wrote (54465)	6/16/2000 8:34:00 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116823

Much of what will happen with gold price is also tied to the population growth of India - IMHO. The future of production, far less in the US(& to a lesser extent in Canada & Western Europe) due to environmental land grabs, will drive a + price impact. A lower tax rate on capital gains of in bullion going forward(if the current BIPARTISAN bill passes) may also matter greatly. The far lower amount of producer hedging can only be seen in + light. Today there is a trend over the last 6 months of a 8.1% gain(34% greater than the NASDAQ), still CNBC says near nothing. When gold was going nowhere - OK, tell us so. Why don't thye talk about it now?

To: Rarebird who wrote (54465)	6/16/2000 8:55:00 AM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116823

I will of course second your remarks on Barrick! It almost seems expected of me on this thread - but usually as a riposte to some anti- Barrick posting. I passed on yesterday's beauty which described ABX as a hedge fund with a few holes in the ground! Ah well, what can one say? The hedging started as a project financing vehicle and then spread to an ongoing policy. Control of production among the producers was impossible because of competition - I think it has been pointed out here by Bob Johnson that the 'majors' account for less than 40% of world production. And there's always the fear of sanctions by governments in the event of a runaway POG. However this FN/GOLD merger will have wide ramifications - and companies may unwind their hedge books to some extent. It will make people look at other takeover targets eg ASL which was mentioned by Chris Thompson yesterday among others. Still, FN and GOLD are both majors - so nothing changes in total - except that the XAU will need another holding. IMO, and this seems obvious, the name of the game will still be to find more gold and produce more, at less cost. Some marginal mines may be closed through rationalisation. In a theoretical world it might be otherwise. Nota Benes!

To: Rarebird who wrote (54465)	6/16/2000 9:17:00 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116823

Rarebird: A mainstream investment manager I follow (Don Coxe) who has correctly said many times that we are NOT YET in a bear market, opines that a sharp drop in the dollar and rise in the Euro above par could touch one off. And that would be doubly good for gold. I have a middle of the road position on ABX. I have no problem with their edging in the early phases of the gold bear when it was obvious that POG was headed considerably lower. But I do have a problem with their persistent aggressive hedging at current very depressed POG. The management of this company seem to be ideologically dedicated gold bears. Something not kosher about one of the worlds's major gold companies being run by people who obviously do not believe in the future of their product.

To: Rarebird who wrote (54465)	6/16/2000 9:35:00 AM
From: Ken Benes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116823

A very respected fund manager that I know refers to the producers managers as pawns. The street knows that the equilibrium price of gold should be in the mid 300.00 and the producers overproduction along with artificially increasing supply thru hedging is preventing the actualization of that price. Why is the price of gasoline nearing 2.00. The main reason, crude has increased in price from 10 to 30 dollars a barrel as a result of a 10 % reduction in production by the mid east producers. If the management of barrick and the other producers controlled the arab oil fields, oil would be below 10 bucks as they turned the desert landscape into swiss cheese with drill rigs. They would probably finance the increased production with some sort of innovative derivative allowing them to lease oil from the strategic reserve. Everyone would be happy, gas would be below a buck, the politicians could relax, greenspan would not have to worry about inflation, and the strategic reserve would not have been drained one ounce of oil, on paper. Ken