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: goldsheet who wrote (58003)	9/8/2000 11:33:08 PM
From: Bob Dobbs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

<There are times to be pro-gold and times to be anti-gold, but if you only stick to one side you will lose 50% of the time.> Agreed. My philosophy about gold and how I play the market are two different things. About your regression, what's X and what's Y here? Are they the variables POG and Dollar Index? Can you supply me the raw data so I can do my own analysis? <As gold pricse have gone down over the last three years, gold jewelry demand has dropped, the opposite of what one would expect. If folks aren't buying jewelry in good economic times, when will they ??> I agree with your observation about the elasticity of jewelry demand with respect to the POG, though not to the $100 level. However, I disagree with your statement regarding demand. Demand is increasing about 5% per year, and that's primarily jewelry demand in Asia. Part of that demand is aesthetic, but the largest part is monetary. Let me ask you this, if jewelry demand has dropped, who has picked up the slack with demand? Not CBs on the whole (though the proportions are shifting to Asia), nor investors in the west. <because most of the supply defecit is filled by scrap (annual average of 507mt over the last ten years) not central banks (average annual of 260mt)> Here again we disagree. Let's examine the figures, the net supply deficit = 1500 tons/yr, agreed? Scrap is 500 tons, that leaves 1000 tons unaccounted for. If CB dishoarding ("sales" you call it) were 250 tons, where did the other 750 tons come from? It has to come from CB leasing, not sales. That's the only other significant source - not anonymous panners in the outback. As I've said in the past, the GFMS data you use isn't reflective of all leasing. Most of it is not in official statistics. You have to consult alternate sources. The point I was trying to make in my argument of last post was this: looking at the supply deficit figures alone cannot determine the POG (not the level nor the trend). The POG depends on what the lowest seller and the highest buyer mutually decide to strike a deal at. Dobbs

To: goldsheet who wrote (58003)	9/1/2001 8:50:43 AM
From: IngotWeTrust	Respond to of 116753

Bob, on Sept 8, 2000, you replied to BD: "Too simple, because most of the supply defecit is filled by scrap (annual average of 507mt over the last ten years) not central banks (average annual of 260mt) There is only one year (1992) when central banks dumped more than scrap. As for primary mine production, it went from 2127 in 1990 to 2569 in 1999. That "extra" 442mt, as it continues into the future, still beats annual central banks selling. Central banks only have about 1 billion ounces available for sale, and most will not get sold. Miners have about 700 million ounces proven and probable, and another 900 milllion ounces of measured and indicated,... Would you be inclined, please to update those year old statistics, especially those related to the last year's annual scrap (and for the sake of this forgetful convert, remind me how many ounces are in a metric tonne of gold...I get long tonnes and short tons but the metric one escapes me.) Thanks. I look forward to your update--publically or privately. gold_tutor