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 : Barrick Gold (ABX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nickel61 who wrote (2135)	9/27/2000 11:50:26 AM
From: goldsheet	Respond to of 3558

> If you think measuring your level of short sales against the amount of your reserves is a prudent way to judge your risk you are not as deep a thinker as I had thougth The person asked the question of how many years and what percentage of reserves, and I did something unique - I directly answered the question. I made no comment on whether or not it was a good or bad method, but it is a common method. Cambior and Ashanti had relatively high percentage of reserves hedged, which should have been a warning flag. One then goes to the next level of analysis to see when the hedges are due relative to production. Then you go to the next level and see exactly what type of hedges of used (forwards, call, puts, swaps, etc..) Then you go to the next level and see what they have the hedge proceeds invested in. It is a boolean screening process: "hedge <20% of reserves" AND "hedge under 5 years" AND "less than 50% forward contracts" AND "invested in A-rated securities only". If you have a 1999 Barrick report, which I assume you have, you can turn to page 68 and do you own analysis.